Neither Aiken or Murdoch talked about that. They were shot down simply because they stupidly talked about their philosophy about abortion which was easily twisted and misquoted by the hostile Democrat-Media.
Jesus said not to cast your pearls before swine--and that's what those gentlemen did.
Violent rape really does only rarely result in pregnancy--as women are fertile only 3 days a month--and a very traumatized female body in shock...isn't very amenable to conception. It was the term "legitimate rape" (distorted to be "how can ANY rape be legitimate???" question....) by which he meant violent, actual, rape--not a falsely claimed rape (which contra the feminists does, actually happen...).... did the one guy in.
Similarly the other guy spoke in terms only those of a 10th grade education and up would follow--also easily distorted and misquoted by our hostile Democrat-propaganda mills, the Media.
If abortion is wrong at all--it is because the fetus is a human being, made in the image of God. If that is NOT the case--than a fetus as no more moral significance than a tumor. But if it IS the case--that a fetus is a full human being--than all unborn babies deserve to be protected by government.
It may be considered "radical" to want to forbid abortion in the case of rape--but the circumstances of the conception do NOT make those fetuses illegitimate persons... To make exceptions at all according to circumstances (except in the case of the life of the mother) is to say some persons are "more equal than others," a morally indefensibly position. Life of the mother instances too, are so rare as to be statistically insignificant too.
The best policy for pro-life politicians is just to shut up about it--and refuse to explain in detail one's position:
"I'm a Christian who believes in the sanctity of human life." PERIOD.
One must resist the lure of the traps of the Media b*stards.
I don’t believe even the ethicists of the Roman Catholic Church think that an ectopic pregnancy should not be remedied by surgery.
__________________________________
The Church teaches that intent to kill the child (primary goal of a procedure)is always wrong:
In the case of ectopic pregnancy there are two treatments available. In one, the diseased tissue of the tube is removed. This is a medical procedure done to save the mother... the *unintended consequence* is that the baby dies because we do not possess the technology to successfully move the baby to the uterus. The *intent* is not to kill the child. The result is that the child dies because we lack the ability to prevent it.
The second method is the administration of a drug that causes a chemical abortion...it kills the baby and leaves the tube intact. This is never a morally acceptable option because the purpose is directly intended to kill the baby...a direct action that is always wrong.
The best policy for pro-life politicians is just to shut up about it—and refuse to explain in detail one’s position:
___________________________
I agree with most of your post....but, with this...I disagree. People need to learn to intelligently defend their moral positions. THIS is exactly what is NOT being done.