[LtdGovt]

Not at all. If it is a human life then it is a human life. Killing an innocent to spare someone mental anguish is not a rational argument if the premise that abortion kills an child has been accepted. I believe it does and therefor the examples are the same.

You know that it's a poor comparison, unless you're blinded by emotion. You have no right to put your gun against a woman's head (figuratively) and force her to carry a rapist's child. The American people will not stand for it. And President Reagan agrees with me.

[TalonDJ]

You know that it's a poor comparison, unless you're blinded by emotion.

That is nonsense. Either it is a child or it is not. My argument is that, if it is considered a human life then no one at all has a right to kill it out of 'feelings'. Explain how you think I am 'blinded by emotions'. This is straight forward logic.

You have no right to put your gun against a woman's head (figuratively) and force her to carry a rapist's child.

The only difference between that and 'forcing her' to carry the child of an abusive husband or boyfriend is the rape. And the unborn child could care less how it was formed. And the circumstances of it's conception do not invalidate its life. The presents of a rape here seems to have you 'blinded by emotions'.

[George W. Bush]

You have no right to put your gun against a woman's head (figuratively) and force her to carry a rapist's child.

As a wise old justice once said "Hard cases make bad law." It is a favorite tactic of the Left to use those hard cases to impose a completely radical solution to problems affecting a very small number of people.

The battle over whether we can or should force a woman to carry a rapist's child is very remote. Pro-lifers in general do not commit to that position. This is a philosophical and legal argument, not one that represents the goals of pro-life organizations and pro-lifers in general.

Pro-lifers are not cruel or thoughtless people.