Question to self described "pro-life" posters

[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.

[Person Man]

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.

Well, then the physical act's primary objective was abortion. I meant it as the act meant to solve the situation not the reason for the situation.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

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. 

In medical terms, wouldn't it be not about intent but instrumentality?

[nclib]

Not "pro-life" but wanted to give my perspectives on the exceptions. Yes, health and life of the mother should be separated from rape/incest and rape and incest should be separated.

The exception for rape is relevant even if one takes the perspective of abortion being wrong and being a violation of the right-to-life of the fetus. One could argue that by agreeing to having sex, the woman implicitly consents to having the fetus use her body. In the case of rape, it is self-defense.

If we're saying that self-defense isn't applicable because the fetus didn't choose to be there. Someone throws a child off a balcony. The child would land on you and you move away and the child gets more severely injured. You would not have to use your body. Just like if someone needs an organ donation to live and the one potential donor says no it would be very frowned upon but it wouldn't be illegal or accused of murder.