OK, so, well, you went there. Not saying I would not have, but I didn’t. *Maybe *I would have. Didn’t.
It’s an “art of the possible” compromise. With the exception, enough more people favor a ban as to make it politically feasible. Without the exception, that support drops away, and a bill can’t get passed.
If you can save some, but can’t save all, do you accept the limitation and save those you can save…or do you quit in dismay because you couldn’t save all?
(I’m pro-choice…and anti-capital punishment. I’ll accept the treason exception, because it will still prevent some executions. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”)
And you’ll always have that.
But you are still willing to kill the unborn. 
My Rabbi told me that life begins when the dog dies and the kids go to college.
When pressed, he explained that in Jewish thought, life begins when you see the baby’s head just before birth.
Weeellllll . . . not if I can’t make them suffer.
It’s hardly worth it, otherwise.
Please tell me they suffer! 
I’ll take Republican thoughts on the sanctity of unborn life seriously when they demonstrate that they give a rat’s ass about the kid once it’s born.
I have a bone to pick with the OP. It’s not about the intent, it’s about the execution. I’m not trying to be the Emily of Posts, here, but still. The etiquette is pretty fucking lacking.
carnivorousplant, you posted a “here’s a link, what ya’ think?” thread. Those are annoying because the reader doesn’t immediately know what is being linked to. I was very much able to guess that you didn’t like something about Republicans and women from the title, but you need to flesh out what and why in the OP. Second, I can mouse over the link, and see that it directs me to a CNN article with a subtitle about abortion, but I shouldn’t have to do your work for you. You should explain from the get go why you are displeased.
And then… the link is to an autoplay video! Goddamit, carnivorousplant. Bad form. You managed to put two annoying behaviors in one OP.
I haven’t read the link, but I like to walk around barefoot, even though I don’t get to do it very often. Does that make me more or less pro-Republican pregnancies?
Even in the case of a stillborn?
IANAJew, but I think in that case, the baby is considered to have never had a life in the first place. Yes? No?
Dunnow, in the house I’m all for barefoot or wearing sneakers…
I should think not.
IANARabbi, but I would guess that you are correct.
No, like me, that makes you pro-barefoot.
That cite is only talking about white people, for reasons that are not explained.
Cause they’re the only ones that matter, amirite? High five! Anyone? 
Wow. I was wondering why those numbers looked so strange to me. Maybe that’s why. I missed that part.
If you look here and scroll to the bottom of the page you can see that in general women are more pro-choice than men according to Gallup.
I typed the numbers on the charts into Excel and did some deeper analysis.
There is an upward trend for both men and women in pro-life minus pro-choice, but that upward trend is greater for men.
So the gap between men’s and women’s views (pro-life men - pro-choice men - pro-life women + pro-choice women) is trending up.
In summary, according to Gallup, in the 21st century, men are more pro-life than women and that gap is growing.
So Coulter’s maxim that giving women the vote being a huge mistake is proven yet again. And she would know.
I am not saying the exclusion of minorities would affect the distribution as I don’t have time to look up the GSS data myself. I just found it odd that the author of that piece arbitrarily excluded non-whites.