I think the poster was trying to say that limiting abortion to only cases involving rape, incest, and life of the mother would be a good start. I personally believe that abortion should only be permitted when a mother’s life is in danger, but incrementalism doesn’t seem like such a bad thing when you compare it to the status quo.
Incrementalism. Yep. I got it.
Start with mothers life in danger, then move on to maybe the baby’s life will be in danger. Of Downs Syndrome or something.
So abort.
Or maybe the incrementalism is at gestation. Over 20 weeks? No! No abortion, But less than 20? Well... OK.
I tend to agree with you, but am reminded of three facts:
1) Mental illness can and does become a life threatening condition for many women. Aside from accidents, suicide is by far the number one cause of death for women of childbearing years (according to the CDC). And some of those "accidents," when examined more closely, may not have been quite so accidental.
2) Mental illness is often very difficult to diagnose without the benefit of a doctor's extended access and close personal relationship with a patient.
3) Medical marijuana, prescription drug, and insurance fraud fiascos have all demonstrated that hospitals are full of dishonest doctors who, for the right price, will diagnose anything a patient requests. And, as a lot of conservatives have pointed out, mental illness is a lot easier to fake than a heart condition.
It seems to me that the ultimate morally consistent solution is to outlaw all abortions, and provide better care and assistance to all expectant mothers who need it.