(08-26-2024, 03:00 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(08-26-2024, 02:48 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: I don't understand the exception you would make for rape or incest.  In a case like that, the mother's life is not in danger.  So what about the baby?  Just because a baby results from rape, or incest, is it not still a child?  If you think an unborn baby has rights and should be protected, why would you not protect those babies?  They didn't commit a crime.  They're innocent.

I agree but politics is the art of the possible.

Too many people have the "babies are God's punishment to sluts" mindset and they want to make sure that those who had no choice in the matter aren't "punished" with a baby.

These people are inclined to my side and I need their votes if we are ever going to be able to use government policy to reduce abortion.

---

(08-26-2024, 12:22 PM)Caldrac Wrote: No, it's not. That's the majority, low information voter for you from the left being manipulated at their college campus.

The demograph you're bringing up? They're the exception, exemption to the rule. Often times, willing to bet they have no issues medically getting cleared for it.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Something like 9 out of 10 intentional abortions are for non-medical reasons. But that 1 in 10 is still a really high number of occurrences and we should have a better answer for how to deal with them.

The fundamental premise of the anti-abortion stance is that an unborn child is a human being which has rights and deserves protection.  If that unborn child is the product of rape or incest, that doesn't change the fact that if you are pro-life, that is a baby that should be protected.  That's why I don't understand the exception for rape or incest.  How the baby got there does not change the fact that it is a human life.

---