text: why is abortion acceptable to prolifers? i hear this all the time:  abortion is wrong except in the case of 1)rape, 2) incest or 3) if the mother's life is in danger.  why does that matter?  if life is sacred and is a gift from god, why is it okay to kill the baby if he is a result of rape or incest?  what did the baby have to do with it?  why punish him?  why is his life no longer sacred?  as for the health of the mother, again, why is the baby's life no longer sacred at that point?  aren't they both sacred?  shouldn't the doctor try to save whoever has the best chance for survival.  granted, that is probably the mother, but still why make a judgement on the issue before the facts are known.  wouldn't most mothers willingly give their life to spare their children? or are fetuses not considered worthy of that yet? thank you, andy.  i am always dismayed by the lack of logic and the inconsistency displayed by so-called "pro-lifers" who justify abortion in some cases.  either abortion is murder, or it is not.  if it is murder, it cannot be justified.  perhaps inconsistent pro-lifers are too worried about what other people think of them and don't want to be perceived as too "radical," or perhaps their desire to show compassion to the mother causes them to forget that the child is equally deserving of compassion.  for more on these topics, see:  rape and abortion: http://www.deathroe.com/pro-life_answers/answers.cfm?id=31 http://www.afterabortion.info/victims/index.htm http://www.focusonthefamily.com/focusmagazine/sohl/a000000103.cfm http://www.dakotavoice.com/200611/guest/20061101_gr.html http://www.afterabortion.info/par/v2/n1/rapesum.htm  is abortion ever necessary to save the life of the mother? http://www.advocatesfortheinnocent.com/motherslife.html http://www.all.org/article.php?id=10682  i am pro-life and anti-abortion without compromise, without exception, and without apology.