"Egnor would rather my wife died than have the abortion she needed..."

On abortion, commentor bcstractor jumps the shark:

...Egnor would rather my wife died than have the abortion she needed plus, if there is a god, why does he abort so many "babies". 

He is nice god though - he designed this planet so it wasn't finished and, like the other month, swallowed up 10,000 innocent Japanese just for fun....

I'll set aside the theodicy stuff for now, and address the abortion claim:

 ...Egnor would rather my wife died than have the abortion she needed...

Notice how rarely abortion defenders defend the most common reason for abortion-- well over 90% of abortions are performed as birth control. Not for fetal anomaly, not for rape or incest,  not to save the life of the mother.  For the vast majority of abortions, the mother's lifestyle, not her life, is the reason to kill the child.

So I will assume that bcstractor agrees with me that abortion as birth control should be illegal. After all, why would he decline to defend the reason for nearly all abortions, and instead choose to defend the reason for an extraordinarily rare subset of abortions?

Or is it perhaps because bcstractor can't defend abortion-as-birth-control?

To answer bcstractor' comment:

No, I don't want your wife to die for lack of an abortion. I don't want anybody to die. We need to protect your wife's life and your baby's life.  It is extraordinarily rare that they are in conflict.

So what will happen in the extraordinarily rare situation in which the mother's life and the baby's life are in conflict? When Roe v Wade is overturned (it will be, because as law it is indefensible),  each state will legislate abortion law. All states-- I reiterate: all states-- will permit abortion to save the life of the mother, and virtually all will permit abortion for fetal anomaly and for rape or incest.  The American public is very clear on its views on abortion: a large majority oppose abortion as birth control, and an even larger majority would permit abortion for fetal anomaly or to save the mother's life.

My own view is that abortion for fetal anomaly or rape or incest is as wrong, or even more wrong, as abortion for birth control. Handicapped kids or kids conceived illicitly have a right to life,  just like healthy kids do.  Killing them is no answer (Gee, that kid was conceived by rape/incest/is handicapped. Let's set things right by killing him). People with disabilities or people who came into this world in bad circumstances should be loved and helped, not exterminated.

What about the mother and her suffering? She as well deserves our love and help. She needs emotional and material support, and all of the respect and care our society can offer. Killing her child only adds to the affliction and to the crime. If she cannot raise the child, there are thousands of couples waiting to adopt. Killing the innocent is not the remedy for tragedy.

My viewpoint on abortion to save the life of the mother is more conflicted. Obviously the mother's death (along with the baby) would be horrendous, but serious ethical questions can be raised about killing one innocent person to save another. Since both mother and baby would die if the mother died,  one can certainly make a strong case to permit abortion in this extraordinarily rare circumstance. As I noted, abortion in this circumstance will always be legal, even when Roe is overturned and states adopt their own legislation.

But my problem is that intentional killing is killing, and it's wrong. If I were dying of heart failure and needed a heart transplant, it would be wrong for me to kill my child to take his heart to save me. It would even be wrong to kill my child if he would die anyway even if I didn't kill him.  Killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong.  Nothing justifies it.

My understanding of the Catholic Church's view on this is that all abortions are illicit, and I stand with the Church.

But don't worry, bcstractor. Your wife is safe, for two reasons:

1) As noted above, post-Roe, all states will permit abortion to save the mother's life.

2) Abortion to save the mother's life is very rarely, if ever,  necessary.

For example, the maternal death rate in Ireland, where abortions are illegal, is one of the lowest in the world, and is only 1/3 the maternal death rate of the U.S., where abortion is constitutionally protected.

With modern medical care, abortions are virtually never needed to save the mother's life.

The fact that abortion proponents invoke a reason for abortion that rarely if ever exists-- saving the life of the mother, rather than discuss the overwhelmingly most common reason for abortion-- birth control, is evidence of the  pathetic weakness of the pro-abortion argument.

If you honestly want to defend abortion in America, you'll have to defend killing your child because your baby's an impediment to your lifestyle. That's why most people get abortions. Good luck with that argument.