|
I've often wondered where pro-lifers stand on ectopic pregnancy. Not the ones that have already ruptured (and hence now a miscarriage) and put the mother's life in danger, but the ones discovered by scans that are terminated before rupture. They're technically an abortion, someone goes in and physically terminates the pregnancy.
I know they say "except where the mother's life is in danger". But why does that make it OK in their reasoning? The pro-life argument is always about murdering a baby. Since when did it become OK to kill in order to save life? So by rational argument (if we indeed follow their "it's an innocent child arguments) surely Pro-lifers are to all intents and purposes arguing the mother should die because nature fucked up and the fertilised egg didn't make it safely into the womb. After all if it's enough of a life to make their whole pro-life argument valid, then it should also stand for ectopic pregnancy.
|