It's not at all a strawman. To someone who does not share your view on when a fetus is human, refusing an abortion to a raped woman is the act of a monster.
Yes it is a strawman. It is merely attempting to invoke an emotional response on the basis of a preconceived premise. Suddenly you're not arguing about whether or not you're dealing with a human life, but diverting attention to the regretfulness of the situation. There is no denying that rape is horrible and that the situation is a very difficult one - but that is no reason to let emotion guide your decisions. Nor is it a reason to let an emotional situation change an argument's point. (when I am saying 'your' here, I'm not reffering directly to you, sjames)
As I stated before, I think the important point in these situations is the question of life - is this a human we're talking about, not the difficulty of the circumstances - that is the sideshow. Put it this way: in the case of rape the question is not "can I abort since I've been raped" but "can I abort if this is a human".
I can understand trusting God, but I have to wonder if perhaps God gives a woman a hospital and doctors who can provide an abortion when that is called for?
Again, the question is whether or not it is called for.
You can answer for yourself what God says to you, but you cannot know what he says to someone else.
The question for me has never been about what God says to me, but what God says to us. If I were to discover that my interpretation of what God says in the Bible is incorrect on the topic of abortion, then I must change what I think.
There are people who genuinely wonder what manner of depraved monster would insist that a raped mother carry a constant reminder of the worst day of her life for the next 9 months.
This is essentially a strawman argument. The child didn't choose to be the result of a rape either. Circumstance doesn't change whether or not the baby is a human or not.
They note that embryos regularly fail to implant and that early miscarriages are routinely mistaken for a late period.
Again, a strawman. What has miscarriage got to do with it?
...until there is a nervous system, it's not a person (no feelings, no thoughts, no will, no person).
My response to that would be, "there is no denying it will be". As you alluded to, the line has been drawn - one second they're not, one second they are. It's not a defendable stance, in my honest opinion. It is a person, it is a completely unique individual - just because it isn't a fully developed human doesn't mean it isn't a human.
If the choice is between mother and child dying or just the child, which do you choose? At what probability does your choice change? Does your answer change if the risk to the mother is psychological (suicide)? Why?
There is no denying these are hard questions, for sure. My opinions on this are directed by my belief in the bible and God. Having said that, I don't think the bible has much directly to say about these matters - therefore overarching principles are where a Christian tends to turn in these circumstances. For me, one of those overarching principles includes trusting that God has my, my wife's and my unborn child's best interests in mind.
One thing I would like to highlight is this though: it is never a choice between both mother and child dying or just child. Anyone who tells you otherwise is mistaken. The most you will get out of any doctor worth their salt is 'high probability' - anything more is conjecture at best. This is a very crucial point when faced with these questions. We cannot construct arguments and decisions off a false premise.
Lastly, I would be wary of not taking a stand on this because of a lack of certainty on the answers to your questions. I submit to you that you will never have a certain answer to many of the most hard of these questions. However, if you take the most basic of these questions through to conclusion - that of human life - I believe even those without a belief in God or any other religeous belifs can see clearly the result of these choices.
Anti-life however is a term that actively advocates killing rather than choice and I don't agree with it, it paints an incomplete picture to say the least.
That doesn't make sense. You say anti-life advocates killing, whereas you're really just talking about the 'choice' to kill? In the end, you're advocating for the same result, no?
...even less unattractive...
I wholeheartedly agree!
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne