[outlawcam]

It may be impossible for your mind to reconcile the fact that individual life begins at conception and the self-defense rights of a woman or girl who has been raped, and such either or mentality does fashion the irreconcilable, but courts and natural law deal with this sort of thing often, in reality.

As I explained before, the principle of self-defense does not apply to the baby, because the baby is not attacking the mother. The baby is completely innocent in the matter that left the woman with the baby inside of her.

The time for self-defense is at the point of offense, and against only the person attacking.

Your argument rests on the premise that the baby is an "object" to be discarded and not a "person" with unalienable rights. However, what started this discussion was that McCain himself said that life begins at conception, which makes treating one as an object under certain circumstances (e.g., the woman was raped) logically problematic.

Just because the answer is difficult to bear (for the mother, et al) doesn't make the logic invalid.

[MHGinTN]

Your effort to present a naive face is stunning; you are correct in half of your effort, the baby is not the issue of self defense, the mortality risk imposed upon the female is the focus of self defense from the mortality risk forced upon her. That an innocent alive unborn is the means by which the female's life is endangered seems to elude you. You cannot have granted to you the right to force a female to bring into the world your offspring, and that is at the heart of the self-defense issue. Perhaps a couple of questions can help you comprehend the complexity:

1) Does being pregnant increase mortality rsik at all?

2) Is it pro-life to force a female impregnated by rape to carry the baby to term?

3) Are the rights of the female of zero consequence to you? ... Please note, she is an innocent also, being put at risk by the crime committed against her, so she does have self-defense rights where she has been forced into risk she did not ask for.

I'm sorry that your effort to present this as ONLY an either or with your carefully crafted either and or is not sufficient to define the real issues, but there it is.

Until the entirety of the complexity is addressed--since the self-defense parameter is real and has merit--there will not arise a meaningful end to this assault on the alive unborn because it is incorrect--a false trail--to address only the rights of the alive innocent unborn. But remember, this effort must be focused upon the earliest age of the newly conceived for dealing with the rights of the impregnated innocent. Courts call these 'compelling interests'.