[eccentric]

I was going to say the same thing. Why rape and incest? If abortion is wrong, it is because it kills a baby, not because 'the woman deserves to be pregnant.' So many women throughout history have given birth to, raised and loved the children they conceived in rape. This happens a lot in slavery and is still happening in the Sudan today. When freed, these mothers take their babies home with them, often to the husband that they were kidnapped from.

and Incest? Why is this listed separately? When incest isn't rape, does the woman deserve some kind of special 'favor'?

[Dutchgirl]

Last night, my daughter, Maggie, mother of a 6 month old and just re-entering the work force, engaged her Dad in debate on just this issue. If a crime of violence is committed against a woman - why is she given license to commit violence against her own child? I was listening from the other room, ready to jump in- but I didn't have to.

Maggie, as a breastfeeding mom, has not had a period yet, and may be pregnant again. She, her husband and baby live with us. It would not be convenient for her to become pregnant again, but I already know what her response, and my response, to another pregnancy would be. When are blessings ever inconvenient?

Strangely, my very liberal husband has only one complaint about our son-in-law. He doesn't "adore" his baby enough.

[MHGinTN]

Actually, the wrong of Roe can be pinned squarely upon improper subpreme court fiat ruling that was the antithesis of our founding principles. Allow me to explain further on something you may feel you fully understand already.

The issue of a woman's 'court ruled right' to abortion was claimed as a privacy issue when it was voted through as a self defense reality. How? Because if a pregnancy threatens a woman's life, she has the unalienable right (due to the well established principle of self defense) to terminate such a threat (not necessarily the right to kill another human being innocent of assault, but the subpremes of 1973 skirted that truth by claiming the personhood of the unborn could not be addressed by them; a Federal court just a year before had ruled --stare decesis anyone?-- that there is a human being present from conception onward, but that case was ignored by the subpremes due to it not fitting the mold they were constructing for their illicit activism). Self defense is a standard for action because the first unalienable right is to LIFE, right to LIFE, then liberty, then pursuit of happiness.

Here's the catch though in self defense: if the alive woman has a right to self defense and that right is the basis for the right to terminate a pregnancy, then the alive little one also has a right to LIFE. We pro-lifers have too long allowed the leftists ghouls to skirt this truth and apply 'right to liberty from a pregnancy' for the true right that is the basis of pregnancy termination protected by the subpreme court of 1973 and later in Doe v Bolton, Casey, and the Carhardt horror of recent record. There is no firm precedent for a right to terminate a pregnancy other than self defense, the insane ghost of privacy created with Roe notwithstanding as miss-applied from the eralier Griswald contraception case.