>>>>The church states that abortion is wrong except in the case where the mother's life is in danger, rape, or incest.
>>>>
>>>>Which again, I disagree with. What if the mother emotionally can't handle the pregnancy?
>>>
>>>That's one of the reasons why I feel that males really have little right to even enter into the debate, let alone create laws around it. If you can't ever suffer the consequences of the laws you create, then you have no right to create them.
>>>
>>What a point. It can disclaim any law in a moment. It seems your emotions get in a way of thinking. Please, do not get offended, this whole issue, abortion, got politicized to the brink of idiocy, many people happily marching over the brink.
>
>I just feel that if a person cannot possibly ever suffer the effects of a law, then any laws on the issue should be made by someone else to whom the after effects will apply. I'm not advocating the lack of laws, but when laws are created, they should be just as applicable to the people who create them as to everyone else.
>
>I feel much the same way about (in our case) parliamentarians creating laws that allow parliamentarians to discount something like 30% of their salary when filing income tax forms. It's just plain wrong. In this case it's the reverse. They create favourable laws that only apply to themselves.

I see a contradiction between 1st and 2nd paragraph of your message. By the preamble you could support people creating laws biased for themselves.
Seriously, Alan, do you propose that abortions should be exempted from any laws, or that these laws should be drafted and voted exclusively by women of child-bearing age?