Question to self described "pro-life" posters

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I can understand (but disagree strongly) those arguing abortion should not be provided "on demand", but I completely fail to understand why a woman should be forced to give a birth after being raped or to basically commit suicide when abortion is required for health reasons. I wonder how can anyone defend this.

If you think an unborn fetus/embryo has reached the point that it should be considered human life and protected, then the tragic circumstances of how it came to be don't affect that.  That said, while I don't favor rape/incest exceptions, I'm also not in favor of prohibiting all abortions.  Roughly speaking, I think first trimester abortions should be allowed, third not allowed save to protect the physical life of the mother, and second I have no strong feelings on, but as I said, no rape or incest exceptions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The unborn baby is a innocent bystander to the crimes of rape and incest and must be protected.

The "save a woman's life" exception is a false equivalency.  http://liveactionnews.org/abortion-ever-necessary-save-life-mother/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/the-life-of-the-mother/

And it appears that the two sources differ on whether ending an ectopic pregnancy is an "abortion".  The first defines an abortion as an action taken with the intent of ending a pregnancy that could be successfully brought to term, which isn't the case for ectopic pregnancies. The second link's definition of abortion includes any action that results in the termination of the pregnancy, which would include dealing with an ectopic pregnancy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The unborn baby is a innocent bystander to the crimes of rape and incest and must be protected.

The "save a woman's life" exception is a false equivalency.  http://liveactionnews.org/abortion-ever-necessary-save-life-mother/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/the-life-of-the-mother/

And it appears that the two sources differ on whether ending an ectopic pregnancy is an "abortion".  The first defines an abortion as an action taken with the intent of ending a pregnancy that could be successfully brought to term, which isn't the case for ectopic pregnancies. The second link's definition of abortion includes any action that results in the termination of the pregnancy, which would include dealing with an ectopic pregnancy.

I don't think any of those terms are correct. I would say any action that has as the primary object to cause a miscarriage is an abortion. Its wider than the first and narrower than the second. Ending an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. Giving a woman chemotherapy for Leukemia and she miscarries as a result is not an abortion. 

I sort of agree, except that "primary object" is going to be inherently defined subjectively. Take for example the case where a woman determines that she can't bear the economic and/or psychological cost involved in carrying to term. Does that mean that inducing a miscarriage was or was not her primary object? For obvious reasons, both sides are trying to come up with a completely objective definition of abortion, albeit they choose the objective definition subjectively.