[newgeezer]

Those that would not make provision for forced conception (rape) need a little introspection.

If we justify killing a rape baby, any argument against abortion on demand becomes ridiculous.

It makes no sense to link the baby's rights to how it was conceived -- as if a consentual-sex baby is human, and a rape/incest baby is subhuman.

[AMDG&BVMH]

"It makes no sense to link the baby's rights to how it was conceived -- as if a consentual-sex baby is human, and a rape/incest baby is subhuman."

Yes, that is the correct moral position, and as you say, more convincing in the long run because it is based upon the humanity of the baby -- rather than utilitarian arguments.

We prob. all agree that in the mean time, it would be better off if the other abortions were not allowed. But one has to be careful in presenting the argument, not to discredit the right of all babies to be born. There are certainly differences within the right to life movement regarding strategy and tactics.

E.G. the major right to life groups have distanced themselves from taking a position on the abortafacient aspects of some contraception, leaving the pro-abortion side to define contraception, even when it is actually abortafacient. Re the morning after pill. The debate is posed -- if contraception is ok (including IUDs which are abortafacient, and hormonal pills which can be . . .) then morning after "contraception" is just one more right the woman should have.

But there again, it will hurt women. Imagine taking a mega-dose of hormones, the morning after, "just to be sure". The easier it is to come by, the more frequently it will be used for insurance. Women's bodies are not supposed to be hit with these extra hormones on an on-going basis. So using the utilitarian argument, women are going to be hurting their bodies . . .