Again you say all, yet I am speaking only of rape victims and only in the context of an exemption from an abortion ban for rape.



We don't know the woman's, not legislating from on high for all cases, and I do not accept that we can't know the child's, we just aren't currently sure. If it's even a coin flip, even a 50/50 that this is a person, I don't see the moral wiggle room. But again, that's irrelevant because Roland's argument, to which I was replying, places personhood of the fetus as an assumption.



RE: I have said endlessly that I always consider triage as valid and a seperate matter from elective abortion, which again is what we are discussing. A specific exemption for elective abortion in the case of rape when one already assumes elective abortion is not valid for other cases.



Well the 'confused' sure fits, none of what you say matches my comments save in the loosest sense. If I encounter someone whacked out on LSD asking me to give them a tattoo, I say "NO", because while I'm on shifty moral ground to stand by idly while they give themselves one, I surely have no business doing it for them, and I definitely don't have any business giving one to their unconscious friend because the guy on acid told me to. Disturbed, upset, etc is not 'of unsound mind', nor are rape victims by default of unsound mind, but when we make the justificaiton for an exception predicate don the assumption that their case is different specifically because of the truly overwhelming emotional truama involved I think it's damned illogical not to stop and go "Well, doesn't that sort of invalidate the assumption they are a rational decision maker?"

I don't get your objection to this, and you keep trying to make it all-inclusive of every abortion, but again we are operating entirely in a specific set of assumptions in which rape alone is different and personhood is taken for granted... you don't seem to be able to absorb that and respectfully if you can't I think you need to bow out of this conversation which was aimed at a specific remark from Roland, not you.


Again, you are outside the context of this conversation because it *assumes* things you are not ceding. This is not the venue for what you are attempting to discuss. If I say "Let us assume for the sake of argument that the world is a cube" bringing up that it is a sphere or torus or Trapezoid is *not* appropriate. The context is *specifically* an assumption of personhood and whether or not a rape exception is permissible in a situation in which abortion is otherwise banned because we have assumed the fetus is a person entitled to not otherwise be aborted, damn it. Stay in the zone of the conversation or get the hell out of it.