Actually, such exceptions only require a fetus MAY be human. That uncertainty exists but, IMHO, justifies leaving the judgement call with the person it affects.


Agreed. I followed your logic, and responded to it; just not with agreement.

First, the burden you reference is not solely psychological: Parenthood creates two-decade finanical burdens of feeding, clothing, housing, providing healthcare for and often educating a child. That is burdensome without impairing decision making, and thus obviates the remaining discussion. However....

Even were the burden purely psychological you made it an invalid Catch 22: Any burden justifying abortion renders women incompetent to consent, and no less burden can justify it. Having cause denies cause; cute, but false. Many situations cause great stress without removing legal competence to respond (in medical decisions concerning oneself or family, often.) Claiming women with just cause for abortion are "not of sound mind where the decision is being made" is gross overstatement.

Following from assertions abortion is motivated by psychological burdens making women unfit to decide on it, you concluded abortion doctors retain unburdened objective rationality, and are thus legally accountable. You completely ignored the role of the doctors primary concern (their patients interests,) assuming the only motive is an "irrational" persons (your word, not mine) request. Therefore, you concluded, doctors have no "legal or ethical protection" for peforming abortion.

Apart from three huge oversights, that is a fine argument abortion should never be legal if a fetus is a being. Yet if abortion is UNjustifiable homicide, any measure to prevent that unlawful killing is legal, up to and including "killing the killers," as the Army of God put it. Or as their manifesto more eloquently says, "We the undersigned, declare the justice of taking all Godly action necessary, including the use of force, to defend innocent human life (born and unborn)."

I understood your logic, and responded to it: As I said, it is a very dangerous rationale, even apart from the flaws previously noted.