I am tired of posting to this thread. Notice that I have never strongly advocated a rape exception, phrasing only tepid support for one under present circumstances. But I understand the reasoning those who strongly support such an exception use and explained it. In all difficult moral circumstances neither we nor the state partake of divine omniscience and must make what the Latins call “prudential judgements”. Arguing about the procedural niceties of a hypothetical well-controlled rape exception is not that interesting to me at this point: if a bill containing such a proposal is actually on the floor of a legislature and we have a chance to influence the amendment process, ping me then.
We would all do better to pray fervently that a great awakening would so restore Christian sensibilities to our nation so that my now equally hypothetical society in which rape victims are given moral support, encouragement and even adulation as near-martyrs for carrying a child engendered by rape to term would become a reality. In the meantime, in the world as it now exists, I will what I wrote before: I would be content with a general ban on abortion with a rape-and-incest exception to go along with a life-of-the-mother exception.
“I am tired of posting to this thread. Notice that I have never strongly advocated a rape exception, phrasing only tepid support for one under present circumstances.”
Welcome to the new FR. You can’t be pro-life unless you are for Federalizing an infanticide ban with no exceptions under any circumstances.
Personally, I disagree with a rape exception but in the grand schema, I’d jump at that in exchange for a ban of all other circumstances. I’d also jump at the opportunity to vacate Roe V Wade and let the states decide. I.e. the situation as it was the day before Roe V Wade. Why? Because it would save lives NOW rather than some ill defined day in the fuzzy future when we might kinda sorta get 100% of what we want.
But I guess that means I’m somehow “soft” on banning infanticide.