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

and the burden put upon her by the assault. That is what makes this such a tough issue. The question is, does the nature of the assault justify murder to transfer the harm from the woman to her child.

In general, the law does not support moving harm from one innocent person to another innocent person, because the second innocent person has been classified as less than a person. The Germans did that. Other societies have done that. We don't do that. Victimizing additional people is not a morally licit solution. Instead, criminal law traditionally leaves the victim at one person, where the harm initially fell. Our options under the law are traditionally (1) to help the victim to the best of your ability, and (2) to punish the perpetrator to the full extent of the law (something you don't support if the perpetrator is an illegal alien, for example). Those who support abortion have been arguing for an exception to the customary approach, and because of that, the burden of persuasion is on you, and it should be higher, since you argue for an exception not traditionally granted. You are arguing to move a legal harm from one innocent person to a second innocent person, because we can't hear the cries of the second innocent person. I don't think that is a moral option.

But again, I give you credit: You are now arguing the merits of abortion without misleading anyone regarding the teaching of the Church. See?...it can be done. I personally happen to find your argument lacking, but at least we are arguing the merits of the issue, and not your twisting of the teaching of the Church.