[HoqCBYMl]

I don't see how he is wrong.

I've seen two broad justifications for an "abortion is permissible in the case of rape/incest" clause:

1. The person supporting the clause wants to punish promiscuous women with an abortion ban, and since victims of rape aren't at fault for being pregnant then it's okay for them to have abortions. The welfare of the unborn child is irrelevant. For example, on the topic of a rape/incest exception clause, Slowwhand says

There are generally medical signs indicating rape. As a pro-lifer, I support [abortion in the case of rape]. Why penalize a woman while also expanding deviant genes/behavior?

2. The person supporting the clause is not 100% certain that their opposition to abortion is correct. Just to make some numbers up, let's say that you're only 95% certain that your opposition to abortion is correct - in that case you're willing to allow an exception to a ban if the mother's life is at risk. If you're 80% certain that your opposition to abortion is correct then you're willing to allow an exception for rape. If you're 60% certain then you don't oppose a ban, though you do oppose state insurance coverage for abortion. Etc.