one of the biggest problems i have with the prolife argument is the “with exception of rape.” i mean if a woman is at an abortion clinic she can say that she wants to abort the fetus because she was raped, but the doctor can’t prove that the pregnancy was conceived through rape, so anyone can claim that. am i making sense sorry if im not
I understand what you’re trying to say.
Many pro-lifers state that they make an exception for rape, but my question to them is what makes the difference for them? Why ‘allow’ someone who has conceived because of a rape to abort, but not anyone else?
Also, around 54% of rapes go unreported. How, then, is the pro-life stance here supposed to work? Are they going to stand outside every clinic taking a survey? (Let’s hope not – talk about an invasion of personal space and privacy).
There must be NO EXCEPTION FOR RAPE. There must simply be NO EXCEPTIONS PERIOD. A living human being conceived through rape is no less valuable than a child conceived through love.
To be clear, a procedure to save a mother’s life during a pregnancy where her child may lose his or her life is not abortion. Every effort should be made to save both of their lives, but the loss of the child would be unintentional and therefore not elective.