I am generally what you would call a "pro-choice" person when it comes to abortion. Here's my idea: Early-stage abortions are okay in the case that the impregnated woman was raped or is determined to be at health risk when delivering the baby. Late-stage abortions are not okay unless the woman's life is determined to be put at risk for delivery. It is NEVER okay to abort a baby that has resulted from consensual relations, unless the to-be mother is under 18 and is in the early stage of pregnancy.
You are pro-life, not pro-choice. Why? And on what quality do you base your right to live? How can it be OK to kill a fetus which resulted from rape, but its not OK to kill qualitatively the same fetus which resulted from consentual sex? Either something has a full right to live, then only possible justification of killing it is self-defense, or it does not have a right to live, then I see no reason to not allow killing it from whatever reason the owner (mother) deems necessary. People who are pro-life, except in cases of rape and incest seem very hypocritical and inconsistent to me.
In other words you are anti abortions with a few exceptions. You sound like most pro lifers, they share the same opinion - most of them, anyway.
I would rather they be pro-choice, but I cant understand how they can claim fetus is a person with full rights and at the same time supporting killing it for something other than direct threat to life or health of others. Its logically inconsistent, and shows that deep inside they know fetus is something less than full person, just wont admit it... Pro-lifers who want to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest are at least logically consistent.
His rational for preventing abortions when the woman had sex consentually is anti choice, not anti death.
No, it is blatantly anti death, just as pro abortion posters here are taking a pro death stance. They advocate the killing at wil of children in utero.
In my opinion, no woman should be forced to have a child in which was caused by actions that weren't her choice (rape). If it was consensual, she should have the right to a morning-after pill. Beyond that point, speaking of consensual impregnation, it is her responsibility to continue through with child birth.
Many unplanned pregnancies are the result of birth control failure, in which case the woman would not know she was pregnant until much too late for emergency contraception. Forcing a woman to continue a gestation simply because the sex was consensual just indicates that you believe the woman should be punished for choosing sex. It could not be the value of the newly conceived life, since it is OK with you that a conception resulting from rape is aborted.
