I often wondered: What if the law said:

1. Medically necessitated abortion, where it is shown as the only method to save the mother's life is allowed. The mother has the right to decide if she wishes to save the life of her offspring and sacrifice her own life in so doing.

2. Non-medically necessitated abortion, where the female is a victim of rape, is allowed for the purpose of sparing an unwilling victim from suffering the financial obligations and responsibilities forced upon her when victimized by a criminal assailant.

3. Abortion, elected stricted due to a lack of desire to shoulder the responsibilitites of parenthood is authorized only if the mother and farther of the aborted child are neutered and rendered incapable, medically of concieving further offspring. The intent is to insure that farther unwanted pregnancies and child abortions will not occur.

In Bob's language:
#1 says: It's okay to spare a life, even if it means taking a life. It's okay to give up your life to save another.
#2 says: Victims don't have to live with what a criminal did to them. If my house is burnt down, I don't have to live in the burned out ruins.
#3 says: You know the gun is loaded, and if you shoot yourself, you feel the pain. That doesn't mean we have to let you shoot others later. The first mistake doesn't guarantee you nor allow you the right to make the mistake again.

OMG........Is the bullseye on my forehead now or what?