But you see, Ice Dancer, if an embryo/fetus is a human being surely one can not kill it because of rape or incest. I'm not making light of them. What I am saying is how can any civilized society claim a fetus/embryo is a human being with all the corresponding rights and at the same time justify the killing of that innocent human being because of the actions of a rapist or perverted family member? To say it's illogical is an understatement.
Moving along to the 1% of abortions due to medical reasons in 2005 there were 1.2 million abortions. That means 12,000 women would of had to go before some committee or hearing if abortions were illegal.
Twelve thousand women would have had their medical condition evaluated and the percentage of damage weighed before they could have obtained an abortion.
(I was just thinking about all the fuss over Obama's medical care plans/ideas and the folks who say the government will be choosing ones doctor. That sort of pales in comparison, doesn't it? )
Anyway, back to the topic. There would have to be medical boards set up to determine risk. Like anything else in our society decisions can be challenged. What is to stop a disgruntled lover from hiring a lawyer and doctor to contest the decision? There will always be some dumped dude who will want his former girlfriend to bear the child knowing that will be a constant connection between them.
Here is an example of what I'm talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremblay_v._Daigle
While it took place in Canada and the case is different this is somewhat the kind of thing that can happen. Even if the guy loses, as did this fella, the point is the opportunity is there to postpone and drag things out and tabloids love this stuff.
Getting back to the rape and incest do we insist on the woman carrying the child to term or do we classify embryos/fetuses as human beings while sanctioning the killing of those innocent human beings in certain circumstances?