# Why do pro-lifers make exceptions for rape and incest? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 29, 2018, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013 "2018-06-29T19:09:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/41 "2018-06-30T05:04:40Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > One of the reasons is that, in cases of rape and incest, the woman did not consent to the intercourse, and therefore did not give implied consent to the possible pregnancy. > > [Abortions due to rape or incest are quite rare](https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html) so the question doesn’t come up very much, even though > > Regards, > Shodan I need a little more explanation here. If I understand your argument correctly, every act of consensual intercourse by a woman implies consent to the possibility of pregnancy; therefore, since the only 100% certain way to avoid pregnancy is not to have intercourse, especially for women whose religion forbids birth control or sterilization, a woman who _absolutely_ does not want to or should not become pregnant should refuse to have intercourse. This includes married women. In fact, if she’s on teratogenic medication, she’s really compelled not to have intercourse because those medications may cause embryonic or fetal death. Am I close? What about women who’ve had consensual incestuous sex? I’m assuming no exception for them, right? ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/42 "2018-06-30T11:07:59Z")
There are three sides to this argument, not two. 1. Pro-life 2. Pro-choice 3. The truth The truth is that abortion is a “grey area” every time and in every case. The truth is that sometimes abortion is the right thing to do and sometimes it’s not. The truth is that the reasons for abortion and the reasons against abortion are often both very strong, and the decision is difficult either way. If the correct answer is easy or clear to you in any particular question of abortion, then you have not really thought about it yet. If you think abortion is wrong, you don’t know what you’re talking about. If you think abortion is always a valid choice for those who make it, you don’t know what you’re talking about either. This makes abortion a political disaster, because every campaign slogan on both sides is bullshit, and because the truth - that every case is grey and every decision is unclear and all principles must be applied relative to each other and none can apply absolutely - is boring and confusing and nobody will vote for it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 11:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/43 "2018-06-30T11:49:00Z")
It isn’t necessarily about the fetus, but misogyny. If the sex was rape or incest, then it wasn’t really the woman’s fault and she shouldn’t be punished for it. ---
**Author:** ![senoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@senoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/senoy)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/44 "2018-06-30T12:33:54Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I think the point is that this may be attributed to a certain demographic not properly using birth control, yet still only wanting a certain number of children. > > If a woman only wants two children, it doesn’t matter if she has two pregnancies and no abortions, or twenty pregnancies and eighteen abortions. The absolute number of abortions don’t necessarily correlate with a decreased population. Yes, but we’re not talking about wants, but rather demographic realities. About 50 percent of all pregnancies are unplanned and about 60% of those produce a child. So 3/8 of all children are unplanned. If you remove those unplanned children disproportionately from the population, you end up with a demographic shift and pretending that abortion hasn’t resulted in a major demographic drain on the black population is ludicrous. I’m not one that buys the genocide explanation, but I am saying that without abortion, black people would have much more power at the polls and would definitely still be the largest minority group by far. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/45 "2018-06-30T13:21:02Z")
I’m definitely for the rape and incest exception. And, since fully formed adults are morally and ethically, and maybe someday legally, the same as two-week embryos, I think the rape and incest exception should carry on throughout that human’s life. Ergo, I think it should be fine to kill off anyone conceived through rape or incest at any time in their lives. We should probably gather them up and create some kind of Big Hunt reality show. “His mother didn’t consent to sex, so his life is forfeit. We have 20 more like him and five heavily armed big game hunters. Next time on…The Hunt!” One thing I don’t understand is, why incest? Aren’t those cases that folks think should remain legal really rape? It’s really father/daughter, uncle/niece, stepfather/stepdaughter, etc., that we’re talking about here, right? Those are rapes. No one is thinking adult brother/adult sister or first cousins (depending on the state). Is incest just a polite way of avoiding saying that this fine gentleman raped his daughter? (Note, it’s possible for those genders to be reversed, just seems much less likely) For example, would stepfather/stepdaughter qualify for the incest exemption for murder or the rape exemption for murder? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/46 "2018-06-30T13:47:15Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > Yes, but we’re not talking about wants, but rather demographic realities. About 50 percent of all pregnancies are unplanned and about 60% of those produce a child. So 3/8 of all children are unplanned. If you remove those unplanned children disproportionately from the population, you end up with a demographic shift and pretending that abortion hasn’t resulted in a major demographic drain on the black population is ludicrous. I’m not one that buys the genocide explanation, but I am saying that without abortion, black people would have much more power at the polls and would definitely still be the largest minority group by far. It’s interesting and I see both your point and Whack-a-Mole’s point. I think at the end of the day, a group of people who have a large number of abortions is not doing so generally because of responsible family planning. And in a world where abortion in not an option, they aren’t going to stop having sex or suddenly become responsible family planners once the predetermined number of kids are reached. I tend to side with you on this; further, those numbers you cited are simply appalling. ---
**Author:** ![CelticKnot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/celticknot/32/3392_2.png) [@CelticKnot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CelticKnot)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/47 "2018-06-30T15:07:08Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > Just to be clear, I do NOT think abortions should be denied to rape victims or women who’ve had incestuous relationships. Actually, as much as I dislike abortion, I don’t think it should be denied to anyone. > > The ongoing _Roe_ v. _Wade_ thread reminded me of questions I’ve had for a long time. Why do pro-lifers believe abortion is murder but make exceptions for rape and incest? If you believe abortion is the murder of an innocent person, do rape and incest constitute justifiable homicide to you? If the reasoning is that a woman who’s been raped has been traumatized, and pregnancy and birth would be too emotionally damaging to her, why not make exceptions for women who haven’t been raped but for whom pregnancy would be seriously emotionally damaging? > > As for incest, is the exclusion due to fears of fetal defects? If so, then why the OK for that but not for severe fetal defects NOT from inbreeding? > > I assume there are answers. I just can’t figure out what they are. Not every pro-life person supports those exceptions. To abort a child created by rape or incest is to apply the death penalty to a second victim of a crime. Considering that the criminal receives no comparable punishment makes it that much more unjust. If the woman doesn’t want to raise the child, the child can be adopted by a family that does, and there is no “reminder” to “torment” the first victim. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/48 "2018-06-30T15:46:46Z")
> [@CelticKnot](#): > > Not every pro-life person supports those exceptions. To abort a child created by rape or incest is to apply the death penalty to a second victim of a crime. Considering that the criminal receives no comparable punishment makes it that much more unjust. > If the woman doesn’t want to raise the child, the child can be adopted by a family that does, and there is no “reminder” to “torment” the first victim. Yes, I should have said “some” or “many” pro-lifers. As I understand it, if the woman lives in Maryland, Alabama, Minnesota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Mississippi, or New Mexico, the rapist has parental rights and may have to give consent to the adoption. In another 20 states, the rapist must be convicted to lose parental rights–which may seem fair until you remember that only a small percentage of rapes go to trial. So in 27 states, a rapist who is not convicted could potentially block the adoption. That would mean almost 19 years of “living with the reminder,” assuming the rapist doesn’t want custody. I said 19 instead of 18 because the nine months of pregnancy still entail “living with the reminder” I use quotation marks because this is a very mild way of describing the experience. Do you oppose abortion if the mother’s life is at stake? If she’s 12 and pregnant, for instance? ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/49 "2018-06-30T15:50:04Z")
A pro-lifer once told me “the baby didn’t do anything wrong.” I asked him if he considered tying a woman to her rapist for the rest of her life was wrong. He had no answer. There was a case where the Catholic Church excommunicated the woman and the doctor who allowed her nine year old daughter to abort the twins she was carrying. They did not excommunicate the stepfather who raped her and got her pregnant. Many people who think abortion is wrong think a woman who was raped was “asking for it.” ---
**Author:** ![Warm\_blood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df705f/32.png) [@Warm\_blood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Warm_blood)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/50 "2018-06-30T15:52:39Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > That’s a more succinct version of what I said, thanks. > > The only reason some people see a rape or incest exception to an abortion ban as a ‘contradiction’ is that **_they_ insist the only way to look at the issue is as if either a) it’s exactly the same as an already born child and the mother would have no right to end that child’s life** so why this one? or b) it’s a ‘lump of cells’, like a bunion on one’s foot, so who else’s business would it be for the person to have it removed? > > But those are not the only two ways to think of it. Who is “they”? Do try to keep in mind that this argument originates from the pro-life crowd so we’re only holding them by their own standards, not strawmanning their position on the matter. If you say life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder, you shouldn’t be making exceptions based on how that life was conceived… otherwise you’re admitting to being pro-murder in some instances. Like another poster pointed out, based on pro-life logic it should be okay to kill living people who are the product of rape/incest since again, according to pro-life logic a fetus/embryo at any stage of development is no different from an already living child. > [@nelliebly](#): > > I need a little more explanation here. If I understand your argument correctly, every act of consensual intercourse by a woman implies consent to the possibility of pregnancy; therefore, since the only 100% certain way to avoid pregnancy is not to have intercourse, especially for women whose religion forbids birth control or sterilization, a woman who _absolutely_ does not want to or should not become pregnant should refuse to have intercourse. This includes married women. In fact, if she’s on teratogenic medication, she’s really compelled not to have intercourse because those medications may cause embryonic or fetal death. > > Am I close? > > What about women who’ve had consensual incestuous sex? I’m assuming no exception for them, right? I wonder about that too, but then I remember these type of people will say that it’s “God’s will” to end up with a bunch of kids you don’t want to have. A lot of pro-lifers oppose access to contraceptives, even the “I make exceptions for rape/incest” types. So if it’s not obvious that it’s really about controlling women’s bodies, I don’t know what is. Also note that no one arguing on behalf of the pro-life crowd in this thread has responded to us highlighting the glaring contradiction of refusing to make that exception for fetuses with severe birth defects that aren’t the product of rape/incest. This isn’t nuance, this is blatant hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/51 "2018-06-30T16:04:52Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > Yes, I should have said “some” or “many” pro-lifers. > > As I understand it, if the woman lives in Maryland, Alabama, Minnesota, North Dakota, Wyoming, Mississippi, or New Mexico, the rapist has parental rights and may have to give consent to the adoption. In another 20 states, the rapist must be convicted to lose parental rights–which may seem fair until you remember that only a small percentage of rapes go to trial. So in 27 states, a rapist who is not convicted could potentially block the adoption. That would mean almost 19 years of “living with the reminder,” assuming the rapist doesn’t want custody. > > I said 19 instead of 18 because the nine months of pregnancy still entail “living with the reminder” I use quotation marks because this is a very mild way of describing the experience. > > Do you oppose abortion if the mother’s life is at stake? If she’s 12 and pregnant, for instance? A rape exception will be hard to implement in practice. I think that any state abortion regime which allows a rape exception, there will have to be some sort of reporting requirement prior to a permissible abortion lest the exception swallow the rule. The law would be toothless if a woman could find out that she is pregnant by her boyfriend or husband, yet go to the abortion clinic and claim that she was raped by “some guy” that she “met in a bar” who “said he was just passing through so I don’t know his name.” Further, what about a date rape scenario in which a pregnancy results? What if the man swears it was consensual, but the woman claims it was not. Is it a “yes means yes” type of law or a “no means no”? Will every case be fully litigated in the time frame necessary while preserving due process rights to all parties? ETA: It’s possible we will see a lot more false rape allegations so that a woman can have an abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Warm\_blood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/df705f/32.png) [@Warm\_blood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Warm_blood)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/52 "2018-06-30T16:09:00Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Many people who think abortion is wrong think a woman who was raped was “asking for it.” This is very much true, and now that you mention it I wonder if the exceptionists hold their stance out of genuine compassion for rape victims or only to give the appearance of not being cruel. Didn’t an anti-abortion, anti-birth control US senator infamously declare that the body can shut down rape some years back? As I have previously asked in this thread (and was conveniently ignored), how would such an exception be respected in a scenario where all abortion for fetuses that are the result of consensual sex is outlawed? One would obviously have to demand proof that the woman seeking an abortion was raped, so how would that go about? If it requires an accused rapist to be convicted, then there is absolutely no point in making that “exception”. Police investigations of serious crimes don’t conclude in a fortnight, never mind a criminal trial. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/53 "2018-06-30T16:24:07Z")
I asked one person with such beliefs, including the idea that gay adoption was “child abuse” what should happen if a lesbian gets pregnant as a result of rape? Should she be forced to give birth (The baby didn’t do anything wrong) and give up the child (Gay parenting is child abuse). His response was (and I quote) “Most lesbians are too ugly to be raped.” I cannot begin to tell you what is wrong with that statement. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/54 "2018-06-30T17:49:57Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It isn’t necessarily about the fetus, but misogyny. If the sex was rape or incest, then it wasn’t really the woman’s fault and she shouldn’t be punished for it. Nobody has adequately explained how a woman is never at fault for consensual incest. ---
**Author:** ![DavidwithanR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3bc359/32.png) [@DavidwithanR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidwithanR)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/55 "2018-06-30T18:54:51Z")
> [@Warm\_blood](#): > > Who is “they”? Do try to keep in mind that this argument originates from the pro-life crowd so we’re only holding them by their own standards, not strawmanning their position on the matter. If you say life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder, you shouldn’t be making exceptions based on how that life was conceived… otherwise you’re admitting to being pro-murder in some instances. Like another poster pointed out, based on pro-life logic it should be okay to kill living people who are the product of rape/incest since again, according to pro-life logic a fetus/embryo at any stage of development is no different from an already living child. > > I wonder about that too, but then I remember these type of people will say that it’s “God’s will” to end up with a bunch of kids you don’t want to have. A lot of pro-lifers oppose access to contraceptives, even the “I make exceptions for rape/incest” types. So if it’s not obvious that it’s really about controlling women’s bodies, I don’t know what is. > > Also note that no one arguing on behalf of the pro-life crowd in this thread has responded to us highlighting the glaring contradiction of refusing to make that exception for fetuses with severe birth defects that aren’t the product of rape/incest. This isn’t nuance, this is blatant hypocrisy. Both sides are just as blatantly hypocritical. If you are on a side, it is the wrong one, no matter which one it is. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/56 "2018-06-30T19:33:51Z")
> [@senoy](#): > > Because abortion is a difficult topic? > > It’s actually only about 60% of pro-lifers who do support rape and incest exceptions. The other half oppose them. Political expediency as velocity said is one of the reasons. The pro-life movement actually doesn’t come down on politicians who put in the rape exceptions because they obviously know that the sight of a crying 15 year old rape victim who can’t get an abortion is not a good thing to see on the nightly news. There’s also the reality that our morality does allow exceptions to a great many things and very few of us maintain a very strict ethical code that harbors no exceptions. It’s a different visceral reaction to a rape victim and a woman who is on abortion number 12 because she never gets around to birth control. I think that most people can understand that. > > Again as velocity mentioned, 80 percent of pro-choicers don’t support third trimester abortions even though that’s also a possibly logically untenable position. The difference is that you can see a 24 week old baby and it looks a heck of a lot like a person and the ‘my body, my choice’ stance seems like just a little less of a priority. There are practical and pragmatic reasons for that as well, the main one being that the mother has had opportunities to get an abortion prior to entering the third trimester. If she just puts off the decision until the day before her due date, that’s not very responsible of her. Of course, in cases where outside forces had deliberatly prevented her from having access to abortion services until the third trimester, I would make an exception. > [@Shodan](#): > > One of the reasons is that, in cases of rape and incest, the woman did not consent to the intercourse, and therefore did not give implied consent to the possible pregnancy. So, punishing her for having consensual sex, got it. > [@](#): > > [Abortions due to rape or incest are quite rare](https://www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/rape-and-incest-just-1-of-all-abortions.html) so the question doesn’t come up very much, even though That still comes out to thousands a year. Just because it is a small percentage of the total doesn’t mean it is rare. > [@UltraVires](#): > > If it’s her body and she can do what she wants with it, can she inject heroin into it? Refuse to wear a seat belt around it on a public highway? Prostitute it? It would seem like the last three should not only be legal but constitutionally protected under the “It’s my body, I’ll do what I want with it” argument. I agree with two of those, in that I do not think that the government should have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with your body. The seatbelt thing is a bit different, in that not wearing your seatbelt as the driver increases your chances of losing control over your car in an unexpected maneuver or minor collision, which can make the incident far more dangerous to other drivers around you. > [@UltraVires](#): > > This is the correct answer. A woman who engages in vaginal intercourse assumes the risk of pregnancy. Indeed, that’s the very reason animals do that sort of thing on a biological level. The also assume the risk of STDs. Does your logic say that they should not be allowed to be treated for that? > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Because they recognize that abortion always represents a weighing of the mother’s autonomy interest and the fetus/unborn child’s life interest. They value the fetal life interest very high, such that it ordinarily outweighs the mother’s autonomy interest. When the pregnancy is the product of rape or incest, however, the infringement on the mother’s autonomy is that much greater, enough to override the interests of the fetus. So, it is to punish her for having consensual sex. > [@DavidwithanR](#): > > There are three sides to this argument, not two. > > 1. Pro-life > > 2. Pro-choice > > 3. The truth > > The truth is that abortion is a “grey area” every time and in every case. The truth is that sometimes abortion is the right thing to do and sometimes it’s not. The truth is that the reasons for abortion and the reasons against abortion are often both very strong, and the decision is difficult either way. If the correct answer is easy or clear to you in any particular question of abortion, then you have not really thought about it yet. If you think abortion is wrong, you don’t know what you’re talking about. If you think abortion is always a valid choice for those who make it, you don’t know what you’re talking about either. > > This makes abortion a political disaster, because every campaign slogan on both sides is bullshit, and because the truth - that every case is grey and every decision is unclear and all principles must be applied relative to each other and none can apply absolutely - is boring and confusing and nobody will vote for it. Hmmm, it seems like there really is no one in a position to make that decision for someone else. So, as there is no one really able to make that decision, we have two choices, leave it up to those most effected, or have the state make a decision binding over everyone. > [@UltraVires](#): > > A rape exception will be hard to implement in practice. I think that any state abortion regime which allows a rape exception, there will have to be some sort of reporting requirement prior to a permissible abortion lest the exception swallow the rule. > > The law would be toothless if a woman could find out that she is pregnant by her boyfriend or husband, yet go to the abortion clinic and claim that she was raped by “some guy” that she “met in a bar” who “said he was just passing through so I don’t know his name.” > > Further, what about a date rape scenario in which a pregnancy results? What if the man swears it was consensual, but the woman claims it was not. Is it a “yes means yes” type of law or a “no means no”? Will every case be fully litigated in the time frame necessary while preserving due process rights to all parties? > > ETA: It’s possible we will see a lot more false rape allegations so that a woman can have an abortion. Would they have to have a conviction in order to get an abortion? If so, what happens if the child is born while the trial drags on? You do bring up a good point though, rather than having an exception in the case of rape, as you said, that has many negative consequences, instead, just leave the decision up to the mother. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/57 "2018-06-30T19:52:59Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I do not think that the government should have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with your body. So the government shouldn’t have the right to tell you you can’t use your body to murder, rape, or rob somebody? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/58 "2018-06-30T20:30:00Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > So the government shouldn’t have the right to tell you you can’t use your body to murder, rape, or rob somebody? Even in the context of the post that you responded to, I even pointed out that I agree with seatbelt laws to protect other people on the road. To make the conclusion that you have chosen to post requires some pretty serious gymnastics to get to the conclusion that you wanted to get to, even accounting for you taking my words out of their context. I really don’t understand the motivation behind that sort of behavior. But, just to clarify in case you actually _are_ confused, the government should not tell you how to use your body, as it effects you and your body. Of course, if what you are doing is effecting another person’s body or property, that is a completely different thing. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/59 "2018-06-30T20:31:26Z")
> [@Warm\_blood](#): > > Who is “they”? Do try to keep in mind that this argument originates from the pro-life crowd so we’re only holding them by their own standards, not strawmanning their position on the matter. If you say life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder, you shouldn’t be making exceptions based on how that life was conceived… otherwise you’re admitting to being pro-murder in some instances. Like another poster pointed out, based on pro-life logic it should be okay to kill living people who are the product of rape/incest since again, according to pro-life logic a fetus/embryo at any stage of development is no different from an already living child But my point is that you _are_ ‘strawmanning’ a lot of ‘pro life’ sentiment. IMO, whether or not the argument is made explicitly, a large proportion of the possible plurality, large minority anyway, of Americans who are pro life believe there are two sets of rights at stake, mother’s and unborn child’s. Rather than really believing the mother’s relationship to the child is exactly the same as years after its born, or the extreme pro-choice position that it’s ‘a bunch of cells’ till its born. IOW you’re just ignoring my point, and again insisting everyone has to look at it as either ‘same as murdering an adult’ or ‘lump of cells’. But those simply aren’t the only two choices whereas someone believing in both mother’s and unborn child’s rights but generally leaning toward the latter if the unborn child’s life is to sacrificed, would generally also be called ‘pro life’. And OP only said ‘pro lifers’, not ‘people who insist an abortion is exactly like murdering an adult’. OTOH among very pro-life people, many don’t like the idea of any exception, true. But if murder of unborn children (in their view) is legal and happening in the millions there is a serious moral question whether one would stick to an absolute position that would in theory stop all those murders (again their view) but be very unlikely to be enacted, v. a position which would stop the vast majority of the murders (‘rape and incest’ accounts for a small % of abortions) but might realistically be enacted. That’s not necessarily cynical or contradictory either. So in summary this supposed ‘contradiction’ is mainly a fairly shallow talking point by some on the pro-choice side IMO. There’s not a lot of logical weight to it. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2018, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013/60 "2018-06-30T21:12:07Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > But, just to clarify in case you actually _are_ confused, the government should not tell you how to use your body, as it effects you and your body. Of course, if what you are doing is effecting another person’s body or property, that is a completely different thing. And that is the reason that that particular argument/slogan bugs me so much: it begs the question (and I’m frustrated by the amount of question-begging I see on both sides of abortion debates). The whole anti-abortion claim is that abortion _does_ affect another person’s body, namely the fetus’s. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-pro-lifers-make-exceptions-for-rape-and-incest/817013.md?page=4)