I would choose life.
It's still a precious baby, no matter how he was conceived. That is of little importance to that baby. That baby will fight to live even under the most harrowing medical circumstances. Shouldn't we give him that right?
This MUST be the true argument we put forward. Captain, you said to use "logic" about this point. Here is the logic. When the Roe vs. Wade decision was presented to the USSC it was stated as a right for a woman who had been the victim of rape or incest. Jean McCorvey - Jane Roe - had initially tried to get an abortion in Texas, where it was outlawed unless the life of the mother was threatened (something ALL states provided for). She was denied, so she was talked into being a plaintiff for those who wanted to bring a challenge all the way to the Supreme Court. She had initially said she had been raped, so they started the local proceedings on those grounds. What she later admitted was that she had not been raped, but had consensual sex and did not want to go through another unwanted pregnancy. Her first child had been given up for adoption. This did not stop her attorneys in their crusade, they had bigger plans anyway.
As it turned out, the trials delayed any findings for her and she went through the pregnancy and gave this child up for adoption, too. Ms. McCorvey has since become a Christian and she regrets deeply what she was used to do. She works for Crisis Pregnancy ministries helping women in unplanned pregnancies to choose life for their children.
Now all that happened in 1973 to make abortion "legal" throughout the country started with a lie. The lie that the conditions of how a child was conceived, could determine if the mother could legally end its life. Roe vs. Wade started out being a law that made abortion legal conditional upon a "trimester" scale. A companion case, Doe Vs. Bolton, defined the conditions for a woman to legally end her child's life and it has basically been eroded through the years so much that a woman can have an abortion at any time in her pregnancy - even in the ninth month - and for any reason. We have what is called abortion on demand in this country. And it all started based upon a woman who was pregnant because of rape.
When the justices decided rape or incest could be an "exception", then the argument stopped being about the states "compelling" interest in protecting the life of an innocence human being and the right to life of another human being, to a woman's right to choose whether or not she wanted to continue to allow the child already conceived to live. Her "right to privacy" was invoked, from "a penumbra of an emanation" of there being such a right in the Constitution. This presumed right to privacy superseded the right to life.
Now, in some people's world this is acceptable. Where I see it heading is this "right" - which has terminated the lives of nearly 60 MILLION Americans, so far - will give way to the rights of your children to not be burdened with you when you are too old to take care of yourself and they don't want their inheritance to be eaten up by nursing homes. You, in your time, had the right to end their lives if it was "inconvenient" for you. They may soon be able to reciprocate. Something to think about.