In the case of rape I believe an abortion is compounding the crime. in the case of life of the mother, I cannot judge a woman who has the unenviable position of choosing her life or her unborn child's -- the women who chose to save their child's life are saints.
For women whose health is at risk, this is again the mother's decision, and a difficult one.
But, let me remind you that the number of abortions for this are just 0.1% of all abortions. I got this number from the site http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html -- Poland bans abortions except for: 1. rape, 2. health/life of mother and 3. health issues of the foetus --> I don't understand the meaning of the 3rd, but that's a separate point.
Right now, with these 3, there were only 640 killings in 2010 -- 0.1% of all conceptions.
in the US, by contrast which is freer, nearly 20 to 22% were aborted.
So, I extrapolate this to mean that only 0.1% of abortions are for: 1. rape, 2. health/life of mother.
We had move than 1 million deaths last year. If we can reduce this to 1,000 it is saving the lives of 999,000 -- we should aim for this
In the 1960s the left tricked us with that "health of the mother" abortion argument, even Reagan, against his instincts, submitted to the argument when he signed a bill in 1967, we quickly learned that "health" means anything you want it to mean, there isn't a single abortion that is blocked by a "health" definition, well this isn't 1966 anymore, it is 2012.
We have had 45 years of abortion wars with a fully developed pro-life movement for decades, we know that "health" means pro-abortion.
Five days ago, Mitt Romney reverted back to his 42 year long, pro-abortion position.
Just a week ago, Mitt's supporters were making the argument that he had sincerely and truly become pro-life, what now?