Maragos is pro-life EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother.
If a baby is a product of rape, it is STILL a life, and will still die by being sucked out, burned to death with saline, or ripped apart, like any other baby who is a victim of abortion.
However, I can understand the life of the mother part, but if a woman, say gets treatments for cancer, and her baby does not live, she is not intentionally killing her child, and these days, there is a stronger possibility of saving BOTH lives.
Many conservatives such as Steve Forbes and Grover Norquist have endorsed Wendy Long.
Thank you. I never heard it expressed that way before, as “has the exceptions on abortion.” I should have been able to figure it out.
Voting for Long on Tuesday.
I, too, am a no-exceptions pro-lifer; I think that the rapist, not the baby, should be the one subject to the death penalty. (To clarify, I don’t consider a treatment to save the life of the mother that has the unintended consequence of killing the baby in the womb to be an abortion.)
That being said, the most principled pro-lifer to have served as U.S. president since Roe v. Wade was decided was President George W. Bush, and he claimed to support exceptions in cases of rape and incest, so I won’t oppose a candidate just because he or she isn’t 100% pro-life. The abortion battle is being fought on other turfs (such as defunding Planned Parenthood, nominating and confirming judges that would overturn Roe, approving CIANA and other pro-life laws, etc.), and right now the difference between a no-exceptions pro-lifer and a rape-and-incest-exception pro-lifer is more hypothetical than practical.
BTW, I’m not saying that I prefer Maragos to Wendy Long (and, as you know, I support Turner over both), I’m just pointing out that our enemy is not the candidate who is 95% pro-life, but the candidates and elected officials who are not pro-life at all (or who are only nominally pro-life yet vote against the Mexico City policy or for a clone-and-kill bill).