Limits on Abortion

As I'm sure everyone knows, people who are against abortion usually aren't 100% against it. They always have exceptions, such as: the mother was raped, carrying the pregnancy to term would threaten the mother's life, &c.In this thread I want to analyze the minutiae and practicalities of these limits on abortion. Regarding rape, for example: Does a woman merely have to claim she was raped to get an abortion? Does she need to file a police report? Must a doctor inspect her for any evidence of rape? Should the abortion wait until the rapist is convicted?Where do we draw the line?Coffee House, I suppose, since this has little to do with EvC.

Yes, it would be. I really want to look at the real-life effects that the restrictions proposed by some pro-lifers might have. The issue of why rape should justify abortion, while interesting, never leads anywhere because both sides are so convinced they are right. Feel free to propose a new topic, though. I'd be happy to discuss it there.

Does that mean only situations where the mother and child have a 100% chance of dying should result in abortion? I happen to agree. Others, however, have expressed contrary opinions, which is why I included it in the OP.

quote:

---

Should the abortion wait until the rapist is convicted?

---

That's what I was thinking. So, if courts of law are ruled out, how else can we determine the veracity of a woman's claim of being raped? Or should we just give abortions to all women claiming to be raped?

So what exactly is a "high probability"?

Being pro-choice, I would say none. But this thread is about examining the pro-life view on abortion and determining whether or not certain restrictions are viable and what the implications would be were we to enforce those restrictions.

From my experience, the answer would be 'most circumstances'. Not getting an abortion would be the norm (if the pro-lifers had their way). Only under certain circumstances would a women be allowed to abort, like, say, if she were raped, or if she (and/or the baby) were going to die if she carried the pregnancy to term.

I think the usual argument is that she didn't consent to sex, and therefore shouldn't be held liable for the child. But I don't want to debate that here. The fact is, some people think abortion should be illegal for everyone except rape victims. What I want to do in this thread is see just what it would look like if such legislation were passed.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.So, would abortions be prescribed on a case by case basis? As far as I know, there's no single disease/abnormality/complication that will result in the death of both mother and child 100% of the time, so we can't just say, anybody with X can get an abortion. It's more subjective than that. Would individual doctors decide whether or not their patients should have abortions? What kind of system would be put into play by you?

If a woman fell down the stairs, there would be trauma whether it was intentional or not. How would you tell if it's intentional? And you can't determine intent through an autopsy, meaning you would have to investigate every single miscarriage, if an intentional miscarriage is illegal. Actually, this is exactly what I wanted the thread to be. I wanted to examine your proposed limits on abortion, not just hear them. I think it's going quite well.

It's been asked before, but it's been largely ignored. NJ, iano, petrophysics, etc., this one is for you.We've already established some of the possible ways to retroactively stop abortion (legal prosecution), but what are ways to proactively stop abortion? What would you have kids learn about sex, and from whom? Would it be the birds and the bees from Mom and Dad, or Sex Ed in Health class? How widely available would contraceptives be?