This.
Most of Trump's base are libertarians from the middle.
We want pot to be legal and we don't care who gay people want to marry.
Abortions are icky but I don't want a world where my daughter can't get one if she needed to avoid fucking up her life marrying some one night stand whose condom broke.
Why is that an exception?
Isn't it still a valid life?
Why the inconsistency?
Personally, I don't think it's a person until viable as a standalone life.
Though after 1st trimester is just gross.
It's that kind of attitude that put the Democrats in power, and pushed the courts towards being 'activist'.
Let the majority of voters decide what i can and cant do?
Sounds like tyranny of the majority to me.
What about incest?
What if the baby has Downs or Zika?
What if it would kill the mom to go to term?
What if the girl is underage with an older man so statutory rape?
What if the mom was a drugs addict?
There are lots of questionable situations.
Be consistent, or admit it's not a black and white issue.
Sounds like a feature.
Sounds like a personal decison.
I want to own an AR15 and my local govt won't let me.
Nor will they let me smoke pot.
Some states won't sell my booze on sunday.
The constitution is supposed to protect me from stupid local moral majority laws that infringe on my liberty. That is the whole point.
I used one example, of an underage daughter making a mistake, because by definition she is not legally old enough consent to sex.
But the broader point is whether a prolife position can have exceptions, in the case of rape, incest, congenital defects, or health of the mother.
If you accept there should be exceptions, then why should the govt be the one who decides whether a given situation meets that threshold?
Sort of sounds like a death board we all worry about with state run Healthcare?