[Raquel]

"Perry opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when the pregnant woman's life is in danger. Strayhorn holds the same position."

"Hutchison supports allowing a woman to make a choice about abortion until the unborn baby is viable outside the womb."

While I'm happy that Perry is somewhat involved in the movement, he is wrong about the exceptions. Each child is God's precious infant, why should the child suffer because of the sin of one of its parents? If the mother can't love her child because of rape or incest, adoption would be the best alternative. The child is also proof that the rape or incest took place, and a means of putting the perpetrator in jail. While the child is not viable at 10 weeks, it is fully formed from their toes to the hair on their head, the baby sucks its thumb, sleeps, dreams, moves around AND feels pain. The child is a child at conception, not at viability. The only time an abortion is morally acceptable, is if the mother's life is in danger, but this was the case even before Roe v. Wade.

[hocndoc]

I discussed the "exceptions" in this post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320881/posts?page=48#48
The baby is her baby. He or she is just as much a possessor of the inalienable right not to be killed as she is. If the infant does not have the right not to be killed - an inalienable right not dependent on any circumstances - then how to justify the right not to be killed of any unborn child???

[The next bit sounds very unemotional and clinical, but that's the only way I can contemplate this question, by attempting to be "clinical." I base my discussion on comments by Gilbert Meilander in his book "Christian Bioethics, a Primer." I'm still opposed to the finality, the irreversibility of death and am convinced that we humans are more adaptable and able to survive horrible circumstances as long as there is life.]

The only exception would be is when a woman considers the pregnancy a continuation of the assault. This might happen in cases where the woman perceived that her life was actually at risk during the rape. Consider a woman beaten or injured, or one who is held at gunpoint, or one who is believes that she has been exposed to HIV. There are also the women who are truly endangered by pregnancy. And the ones whose husbands can't bear the fact that she has been raped, much less that she is carrying the rapist's child.

Back to what *I* believe: I'm afraid that the reason for the exception for rape is actually a response to those who want to forget that she was raped, possibly, especially, her husband and father. In the days where women belonged to their husbands or fathers (and in the parts of the world where this is true), the male reaction is to kill the child of the rapist who stole "their" property - the woman's sex, fertility, and offspring.