happen. And my point from the very first post about this "story" was that the problem came from there being a 6 wk cutoff, and that the 10 yr old rape victim was just being used to add emotion and "outrage" to the argument rather than address the 6 wk cutoff. It should make you wonder why they felt the need to fabricate a horrific story, rather than just argue their case against the 6 wk cutoff.

A rape exception, regardless of age of the victim (again, ask yourself why they fabricated a 10 yr old, is other rape nor horrific enough?), is really only an issue in the case of a ban. That rape victim doesn't need an exception under a 6 wk, 15 wk, or even under Roe's 20 wk timeline, they need only be before that cutoff. Unless you're trying to argue that a rape victim should be able to get an abortion up until birth no matter what, regardless of the cutoff, while other women shouldn't be able to. Would you accept the 6 wk cutoff, as long as they allow a rape exception after that? (never mind what that would mean for rape claims) Do they not know they've been raped by 15 wks? 20 wks? And if anything you could argue the rape victim would be more proactive under a 6 wk timeline than would most women, so even though I'm against a 6 wk cutoff, the "rape exception" argument falls somewhat flat.