Once again you’re using same old pro-abort argument of “imposing your morality on others.”
Protecting the baby’s life in this instance is not any more “imposing my personal view of morality” on her than protection the baby’s life in the instance where she wasn’t raped and wants the abortion would be “imposing my personal view of morality” oh her.
All laws exist to impose society’s view of morality on people. We punish murder because we believe murder is morally wrong, we punish theft because we believe thievery is morally wrong. etc.
In order to never impose morality on people we’d have to get rid of all laws.
In the end, you think asking a woman to carry the baby for 9 month even if she doesn’t want to is worse than allowing her to kill the baby. I don’t, I think killing a baby is worse, much worse.
You’re arguing with a pro-lifer, just so you know, and I will reiterate, again, that I do not heartily endorse abortion under any means, only to retain the right - for a human female victim - under this circumstance - in the immediate aftermath of the crime. You still refuse to acknowledge you’re endorsing using coercive state means to force a victim to do what YOU want them to do, not what is necessarily best for their own physical and psychological well-being, and putting rapist’s sperm ahead of a fully developed human being. Now, if she were seeking to get rid of a VIABLE fetus, months into gestation, you’d have a different response from me, because it has gone too far, but a clump of cells hours after the crime with some acting as if you’re butchering a fully-developed infant is patently ludicrous.
How will we get substantial pro-life legislation passed (and the execrable Roe overturned) if some of you insist on ramming a non-negotiable, under-no-circumstances poison pill into it that the bulk of the public will simply not support, let alone legislators ? You guys give the radical abortionists ammo here by making the rights of a crime victim secondary or without importance at all, don’t you see that ?