How would a rape/incest exception be implemented?
 

From a pro-life perspective, how can one morally support an exception on any grounds other than life of the mother?

There obviously isn't a practical way to do it. By the time someone has been put on trial for rape and a verdict has been reached, it's probably too late to get an abortion. Which, of course, shows that the anti-choice crowd is perfectly okay with having a woman be impregnated against her will and then forced by the state to serve the interests of a fetus for nine months. These are generally the same people who think it's SLAVERY to tax someone to pay for universal healthcare.

This is a favorite talking point of the left but isn't actually true. The pro-life movement cuts deeply across political boundaries.

The pro-life movement is far more intellectually honest than the pro-choice movement, which almost never admits that the real question is "when does moral personhood begin", and constantly hides behind morally despicable objections like "but what about the victims of rape or incest?"

Anyone who thinks the pro-life position can be objected to on the grounds of its impact on rape victims is a bad person and should be ashamed.

The strict pro-life position's only problem - and to be fair this is a large one - is that their metaphysics are ridiculous. But having a confused metaphysics doesn't usually make you a bad person.

I have no problem taking the woman's word for it.

Again, now you're talking legal proceedings.

The presence (or absence, for that matter) of semen does not prove (or disprove) rape.

From the perspective of a medical exam, a woman who was raped typically looks no different from any other woman.

If someone doesn't think an embryo is a person then forcing a rape victim to keep it seems deeply wrong. Hardly moreso than forcing anyone to keep it! Else you think it is right and just that the punishment for unprotected sex is to spend nine months with a debilitating illness that takes over your entire life and has permanent physiological effects.

People who find the "rape or incest" example convincing have a ****ed up value system.

.

I'm sorry to hear that, Guy. http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/frown.gif

If the only way to get an abortion is by a "rape or incest" exemption, how much do you want to bet rape accusations would skyrocket?

There are parts of the world where rape victims are killed by their families in order to mitigate the dishonor of the rape. Here in the west, we kill the innocent fetus in order to mitigate the dishonor of the rape. Is that what people consider progress?

The sad fact is that you can be convicted of rape and serve between five and ten years, but if your father was a rapist you can be killed for it. What kind of ******* would defend such a system?

An ******* that understands that an early-development fetus is not a person.

Erm... not sure, but I get the impression that I gave you the impression that I was raped. Which is false, and I apologize if that is the case.

I meant everyone here knows a woman who has been raped.

Gotcha. Mea culpa.

As to the OP, it is, quite simply, a logistical nightmare, and completely untenable.

Personhood is a legal status, and is subject to change.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. If you made a police report mandatory, it would at least discourage those who weren't raped, but it would also likely discourage a large percentage (possibly even a majority) of those who were. And after a while, false reports would simply clog up the system, because the exception would give women a big perverse incentive and the police wouldn't have the resources, or even the hypothetical ability, to get to the bottom of every lie. A large number of real rapes boil down to he-said she-said. The ironic result might be to decrease the likelihood of rape victims getting justice.

If the law doesn't get involved, you're going to see thousands reporting rapes, but only at a clinic, and a substantial number of doctors will sigh, throw up their hands and say "**** it, let's just do this" regardless of how they feel about the procedure.

Another thing, rape camps would not need to have on-site behavioral experts. They could just be video feeds to a centralized rape camp in D.C. or something. 95% of lie detection can be done via video.

Quoted for posterity.

Viva le Wiggy. http://www.discussworldissues.com/im...ons/icon14.gif

Both of those are philosophical questions -- something the government is ill-equipped to deal with.

And BTW, it was the Supreme Court that granted corporate personhood. Interesting that the right didn't complain about activist judges when this heavy-handed ruling -- far beyond the scope of the root case -- came down. Chief Justice Roberts seems to have been the driving force.

But I digress.

For incest, you can take a tissue sample in utero and do a paternity test.

For rape, having reported the the rape at the time isn't perfect, but it's a start.

Corporate personhood evolved out of several cases in the 19th century. Roberts had nothing to do with it.