[lbo-talk] So who decides which abortions are "abhorrent"?

[Wendy Lyon]

On 27 February 2012 08:35,  <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> I won't argue case 1 because we'd be arguing in a context where the only life that's sacred is that of the foetus, and that doesn't make sense to me.
>
> For me, making the woman the decider, is the best possible solution. But if the foetus is viable without the mother, then the woman cannot decide that it should die. This is a very rare case.

Including rape in Case 1 makes sense only if you take the position
that the sacredness of life would be breached by compelling childbirth
after rape. Which is certainly arguable, but then it would be equally
arguable that sacredness of life could be breached in other
circumstances that don't involve the literal death of the pregnant
woman.

The difficulty I have with Case 2 is that it seems to elevate the
characteristics of the foetus (ie its viability) over the fact that it
IS a foetus, that is, over the fact that its entire existence is
inside a woman's body. When to my mind the latter is the whole point
of the right to abortion. But you are right, these are very rare
cases.