The best counterargument to the pro-life with exceptions for rape, incest, or danger to the mother or child position is that it inconsistently applies the pro-life belief that a fetus is a person with a right to life. If abortion is considered murder, as many pro-life advocates argue, then why should it be allowed in certain cases? The circumstances of conception—whether through rape or incest—do not change the biological status of the fetus, yet these exceptions acknowledge that forcing someone to carry a pregnancy in these cases is cruel and unjust. If bodily autonomy matters in cases of rape, why should it not matter for any person who does not want to be pregnant? Similarly, if abortion is allowed when the mother's life is at risk, it acknowledges that her life takes priority—so why should she not have the same autonomy in other situations, like financial hardship or emotional distress? Additionally, exceptions for fetal abnormalities contradict the idea that all life is equally valuable, implicitly suggesting that only some lives are worth protecting. This selective approach undermines the core pro-life argument, demonstrating that abortion is not simply about "life," but about who deserves the right to make decisions about their body and future. If abortion is acceptable in some cases, it means the moral and legal framework for allowing it already exists and it should simply be applied consistently, giving all pregnant individuals the right to choose.