[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Mother's life in danger
Mother has a right to life. If argued that fetus has the right to life, but it's presence will impede on mother's right to life, then there is a conflict. But it is a conflict of equal rights--i.e. both's right to life.

Rape
Rape means that the mother did not consent to be impregnated. The competing interests in this case are the fetus and its rights, and the rights of autonomy and emotional well-being of the mother. If the competing interests are the right to life and emotional well-being, certainly most would agree that the right to life wins the day. So to argue that abortion is permissible in this case is to say either 1) emotional well being trumps the right to life in some cases or 2) the fetus does not have a right to life. The fetus has less moral status.

The blurb I read about Brody says he considers the presence of brain activity to be the marker that indicates moral status to the fetus. I'm sure he makes arguments for this, though I have not read them. So I guess, he would be opposed to abortion in the case of rape, should brain activity be present.

Because the church permits abortion in cases of rape and incest, though it cautions about it, I think many members don't give it another thought. "This is how it should be. The church has spoken." I don't agree with this approach.

Many members will actually agree more with the Catholic position (life starts at conception, and moral status starts at conception). Some members will say that autonomy outweighs any possible moral status of the fetus. As far as I know, you can still be a temple-recommend carrying Mormon in either case.

Yes, the more I think about it, the more I think the church's "position" on abortion is no position at all. It's up to each member to sort it out for himself/herself.

Why won't abortion become extremely rare with the morning after pill? Are they hard to come by?