You can't have it both ways

Romney's position that abortion is only OK in instances of rape doesn't stand up philosophically with "Abortion is murder". Anyone who says it's murder and should therefore be illegal, cannot make the claim that is OK in rape or incest. It is either, philosophically always OK or never OK. The physiology of the fetus does not change from human to non-human depending upon the morality of the woman, whether or not she was "asking for it." If it is a question of when life begins, if it is ever OK (the fetus is not human yet) then it is always OK, if it is ever *not* OK, (the fetus *is* human) it is never OK. How the woman became pregnant should HAVE NO BEARING on whether or not she should be allowed to have an abortion, if you have rendered abortion illegal because your concern is preventing murder.

Also: How do you enforce a law that allows exceptions for rape? Can she have an abortion AS SOON AS she says she was raped? Does she have to have a hearing first to determine the likely hood she was raped? Does she have to wait until there is a CONVICTION? With how long the courts take to determine guilt or innocence, there could be a 2 to 3 year old child before the case has concluded. What if abortions are allowed as soon as a woman says she was raped, no investigation necessary? What if after the abortion, the suspect is acquitted? Will she then be able to be prosecuted for illegal abortion?

Because of these logistical problems, abortion only in the case of rape is an unenforceable law under the current legal system. Not that it matters. Because anyone who feels abortion should only be allowed in the case of rape, is a sexist interested in oppressing women, not an advocate for preventing murder. Because the fetus inside a rape victim is the same, scientifically speaking as the fetus inside any other woman, and if life has begun for one, it has begun for the other.