>Tamar,
>
>>1) What if the child has no chance at a normal life, or even surviving much past birth? Here, I'm thinking of really severe impairments, like ancephaly.
>
>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being.
>
>>2) What if the child will survive birth, but not beyond early childhood? Something like Tay-Sachs, where victims die by age 5.
>
>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being.
>
>>3) What if the mother will survive pregnancy, but only at great damage to her health. For example, a mother with a disease that needs to be treated, but can't be treated while she's pregnant.
>
>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The mother takes her chances because she became pregnant through personal choice or surfeit of birth control.
>
>>4) What if carrying the pregnancy to term means the mother will lose the ability to bear future children?
>
>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The mother takes her chances because she became pregnant through personal choice or surfeit of birth control.
>
>>You mentioned rape, so let's go down that path:
>>
>>5) What if the mother is a child impregnated by her father, so you have not only the issue of rape and child abuse, but increased genetic risks?
>
>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The child is put up for adoption.
>
>>6) What if the mother is child, 10 or 11 or 12?
>
>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The child is put up for adoption.
>
>>That's enough to start.
>
>The choices are simple when you believe in the sanctity of human life.


Ok 'sanctity'-breath, so they just send you the bill, right? I *sure* you're responsible for your belief, aren't you? Wow, it is simple. ;-)