I don't like that Rubio doesn't have exceptions for ****/incest in his abortion platform, and I'm concerned as inexperienced as he is that he'll get pushed into a war that we don't absolutely have to be fighting. He's definitely the most hawkish of the Republicans still in the race. I'll still be interested in how he answers the no exceptions abortion question in the general election because that will be brought up in a debate.
Its actually a very simple question to answer.
The only justification for interfering with a woman's right to control her own body is that an abortion is not just controlling her body, but ending another human life which is entitled to the same protection from government as any other human life.
If the unborn child is in fact a human life, you do not kill that child just because of the circumstances of conception.
If you did, then a DNA test done on a five year old child showing that the child was the result of a
**** instead of the mother's consensual sex with her husband would justify killing the child at age five. And I am unaware of anyone who would support that.
If the unborn child is not a human life, the state has no basis to interfere with a woman's decision to abort. If it is a human life, then the circumstances of conception do not matter.
The difficulty is not one of those opposed to abortion explaining their opposition. The difficulty with with folks who are squishy on the issue never having really decided whether believe the unborn child is human, or, when the child becomes human after conception.
Home
Chat
Login
Register