[Truthsearcher]

As someone who's ardently pro-life, I do not value the life of the mother over the child, or vice versa, they are equally important.

But your argument is based on a strawman. Nobody is suggesting that in cases where the pregnancy is actually threatening the life of the mother, that she be prevented from seeking treatment that might end in the death of her child, or failing that to abort the child.

But to argue that because some pregnancies can cause harm to the mother, therefore all abortions should be allowed based on that presumption of this potential risk, is ridiculous. It's as absurd as saying that because some men beat up their wives, therefore all wives should be able to kill their husband on the argument that the are committing self defense from this potential harm.

No, the husband must pose an actual harm.

[Nonesuch]

Truthsearcher wrote:

As someone who's ardently pro-life, I do not value the life of the mother over the child, or vice versa, they are equally important.

But your argument is based on a strawman. Nobody is suggesting that in cases where the pregnancy is actually threatening the life of the mother, that she be prevented from seeking treatment that might end in the death of her child, or failing that to abort the child.

Actually, what I am saying is pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. Being pregnant, carrying to term, is a risky thing to do -- much more of a risk than a first trimester abortion.

But to argue that because some pregnancies can cause harm to the mother, therefore all abortions should be allowed based on that presumption of this potential risk, is ridiculous. It's as absurd as saying that because some men beat up their wives, therefore all wives should be able to kill their husband on the argument that the are committing self defense from this potential harm. No, the husband must pose an actual harm.

Personally, I see it more as saying that because some men beat up their wives, all wives should be able to obtain a quick no-fault divorce, not forced to stay with their (possibly abusive) husband until he proves he is a threat.

Fundamentally, this is the "dying violinist" argument.