The common argument for so-called pro-life activists is that a fetus is a living person. Explain to me how a fetus of a rape victim or a molestation victim is less of a person (from a pro-life stance) compared to a fetus of a consensual sex fetus? I mean the pro-life platform on abortion is that the fetus is alive; whether it was rape, incest or whatever wouldn't a fetus be alive regardless? I smell some conservative hypocrisy going on here.
Explain how it's a red herring. It's not. It contradicts the two statements and exposes the truth behind their philosophy. If you're pro-life, you better be pro-welfare, anti-war, nonviolence advocate, no abortion ever, anti-death penalty, a vegetarian, etc. The point I'm making is, you're not pro-life. You are not for human life. If you were you wouldn't be against/for things that harm living creatures.
Pro life and pro choice are just terms that church up, what people really are. We're discussing pro and anti abortion people here. You're creating straw man arguments that are easily crushed. You're not attacking what intelligent pro lifer (anti abortion), people actually believe. My belief is it's wrong to kill a person, even if that person is still in the womb. I'm not sure exceptions for rape should be made, but if the mother's life is on the line. She should have the right to choose whether she wants to risk her life for he child's.
If you want to have a dialogue with me and either clear up my misconceptions on this issue or let me clear up your's or some combination of the both. Than that would be awesome, but presuming to know what pro life are for. Will just cause people to argue past each other instead of with each other, to create some sort of meaningful dialogue.