>>"Rape does not violate woman's free will because she does not decide when she will get pregnant, and when she will not."
It's the woman's "free will" that allows her to deny the advances of a man she doesn't want to sleep with. So, actually, yes; rape DOES violate (although "deny" might be a better word) a woman's free will because what you're essentially doing is not allowing her to have a choice in having sex. Never mind that a baby might result from the act, although the woman would have to be ovulating for that to happen. It is sad that you will NEVER read this and see just how screwed up your initial statement is.
>>"she does not decide when she will get pregnant, and when she will not."
Naturally, no; she doesn't consciously decide when her ovaries will produce an egg. But she CAN decide when and if that egg gets fertilized by using contraception. (Of course, using contraception is also a choice.)
Anyway, there are ways for a woman to figure out when she is about to ovulate, and then take appropriate measures depending on what she wants to do. But there is a LOT of free will involved.
>>"It is all a test of will and patience, and perseverance"
What, rape? You're using this statement to write off the act of rape?? You're a disgusting man.
>>"It is always sin to commit abortion. Only one moral implication arises, when it is acceptable, and that is when life of mother is in danger because of the baby. All other forms are immoral."
So, basically what you're saying is, "It's always a sin to get an abortion, except in this one case." Well, then, it's not ALWAYS a sin to get one now, is it??
Y'know, fundies, perhaps if more people were instructed on the proper use of contraceptives--and were encouraged to use them extensively--then they wouldn't have to resort to getting the abortions you hate so much. Just sayin'.
