UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

There are justifiable homicides. We can discuss them if you want, but I personally don't think any of the usual justifications apply to abortion. You could make an exception when the death of the child is not intended, but happens by accident during a medical procedure to save the life of the mother or the child. But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about killing a child so that a mother can relieve herself of some of the pain caused by a rapist. In general, abortion should be prohibited by law, since it is the duty of the state to protect the innocent, not enable people to victimize the innocent. The circumstances of the conception of the baby is irrelevant, whether coerced or not. (Granted, we could find a legal compromise, but that doesn't change the morality of the issue.) That is my moral position. Because I think abortion is just one type of homicide, and because homicide laws are not justified for religious reasons, I think it is reasonable to be an atheist and still think abortion is wrong (or at least should be prohibited by law), just like it is reasonable to be an atheist and still believe that theft is wrong (or at least should be prohibited by law). That is a direct answer to your question...another answer, because I think my previous posts already addressed this many times...you just seem to be looking for some magic words, I guess?

Now answer my question, restated here: In the great majority of cases, in which a woman is not forced or coerced into a pregnancy, would you ever allow the government to pass any restriction on abortion? Any restriction at all? Or, do you think that all abortions should be legal no matter what, as a matter of right of the mother, even for mere elective purposes or for her personal convenience?

A second question: Do you oppose laws that prescribe a civil or criminal penalty for an aggressor for killing an unborn human being when the aggressor attacks the mother?