Abortion debate can’t ignore definition of life

Abortion has turned into a debate as to whether a woman should control what she does with her body. What about the definition of a life?

Since abstinence (the only 100 percent effective prevention of unwanted pregnancy) is all but abandoned, we are left with a dozen different forms of birth control (unless variations are counted); and then there is “Plan B” or the Morning After Pills, available without a prescription.

There should be no reason abortion should be an option except for rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.

An Oxford study (CDC did one as well) with newborn macaques, given Tenofovir and injected with a new strain of HIV to test whether it was still effective at preventing the newborn macaques from contracting HIV while breastfeeding, implies (at least to me) that the placenta so effectively separates the baby from the mother that there are two lives to worry about. After watching a doctor’s testimony at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Planned Parenthood medical procedures, I cannot imagine people accepting late-term abortions.

What about allowing the mother to legally accept/choose future parents and carry the baby to term as an option? Adrian Haupt Groton