Ugh, useless stats.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
The overwhelming majority of all abortions, (95%), are done as a means of birth control.
Only 1% are performed because of rape or incest;
[/QUOTE]
Why is “rape or incest” broken out into its own category? Pregnancies resulting from rape and/or incest aren’t inherently more dangerous than other pregnancies. Incest may increase the chance of birth defects, but it’s hardly a “given” and it’s highly dependent on the degree of parental consanguinity. Since these pregnancies are likely to be uneventful, leading to the delivery of a healthy infant, why are abortions in this category NOT counted under “birth control?”
Is RTL suggesting that the lives resulting from these pregnancies are less deserving than other lives? Does the termination of such a pregnancy reduce the victim’s suffering? If so, why, and why does the victim’s pain outweigh the embryo’s or fetus’ right to life? Does the termination of such a pregnancy protect the child of incest or rape from a life of humiliation? If so, why is this child more deserving of relief than the child of an embarassing, but consensual, adulterous union?
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
1% because of fetal abnormalities;
[/QUOTE]
Why is “fetal abnormality” broken out into its own category? Pregnancy may be otherwise normal even when the fetus is abnormal. Depending on the severity of the abnormality, the pregnancy may simply terminate on its own; if the pregnancy goes to term, the fetus may expire shortly after birth. Many fetal abnormalities are not life-threatening at all, and can be addressed after birth through surgery (e.g. cleft palate) or accomodation at home/school (e.g., Down syndrome). Since these pregnancies are likely to be uneventful or to terminate naturally, or to lead to the birth of a live infant, why are abortions in this category NOT counted under “birth control?”
Is RTL suggesting that the lives resulting from these pregnancies are less deserving than other lives? Does the termination of such a pregnancy reduce the parents’ suffering? If so, why, and why does the parents’ pain outweigh the embryo’s or fetus’ right to life? Does the termination of such a pregnancy spare the child the pain of dying after birth? In the case of nonlethal abnormalities, does termination spare the child the pain of living with what may be the defect? If so, would RTL agree that it is reasonable to euthanize an infant after birth if the abnormality was discovered too late for an abortion?
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
3% due to the mother’s health problems.
[/QUOTE]
Why is “mother’s health problems” broken into its own category? “Health problems” is vague, and could cover anything from ectopic pregnancy (risk of maternal bleeding and death) to maternal depression (theoretical risk of maternal suicide). Some of these circumstances undoubtedly warrant pregnancy termination, but others could be managed through medication and counseling.
Is RTL suggesting that the mother’s life is more valuable than the infant’s?
I’ve never liked the notion that “life is sacred, abortion is bad, except when _______.” Either you accept that a woman has the right to control her body, or you don’t. It’s not about what “life” is, or when it begins. Body cells are alive, and contain a full complement of genetic material. Sperm and eggs are alive, but we discard them all the time. A fertilized egg is alive and genetically unique, but women’s bodies discard fertilized eggs routinely. An implanted egg is alive, genetically unique, and intricately entwined with the uterus in which it resides, but women’s bodies routinely break off this relationship as well.
