# Why should incest be an exception for pro-lifers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 28, 2006, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537 "2006-02-28T22:54:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/61 "2006-03-02T01:59:33Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Not necessarily. The cops are pretty good at fereting out fakers, and you can be prosecuted of making false criminal claims. Remember the Runaway Bride? I anticipate the unprovable rape claim, then, from women who say they went to a club, woke up with a headache and no memory of the night before, vaguely suspected they _might_ have been drugged but didn’t realize they were pregnant (and thus had been raped) until they missed their period and took a home test weeks later. Considering the existing panic over “date-rape” drugs, are the cops going to give her a hard time? Heck, I can easily imagine lots of sympathetic websites describing the above scenario in detail, giving abortion-seekers clues about what to tell the cops, while keeping their stories sufficiently vague so they can’t be proved or disproved. It’d be walking a fine line, of course, risking prosecution on a variety of charges, but muddy up jurisdiction issues by posting such advice on an overseas computer and how much of their budget do you think local cops would be willing to spend chasing down cases like this? Especially since all it’d take is one case of a woman who was disbelieved who could later prove she was raped, and suing the department for ignoring her complaint. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/62 "2006-03-02T02:11:10Z")
Apos: > [@](#): > > Are you joking? > > First of all, it’s not either/or. You can pass a bill banning all abortions except rape and incest today and then pass a bill banning abortions even in the case of rape and incest tommorow. The former doesn’t prevent the later at all. There’s no “burning building dilemna” here. Well there is…for those rape-incest fetuses that would be aborted between the time this bill becomes law and the time a bill banning rape-incest abortions can conceivably be enacted. If their interest is in saving unborn lives, then those are lives that will be lost and cannot be revived. > [@](#): > > Why would you lie so blatantly like this? Third trimester abortions are heavily restricted in many states. I didn’t mean it to be a lie. We talk so casually without the trimester qualifier about banning or permitting abortion that it becomes second nature to ignore the third trimester restrictions. My point remains the same in essence, however, do amend what I said to specifically refer to first and second trimester fetuses. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/63 "2006-03-02T02:57:45Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Heck, I can easily imagine lots of sympathetic websites describing the above scenario in detail, giving abortion-seekers clues about what to tell the cops, while keeping their stories sufficiently vague so they can’t be proved or disproved. I believe it’s already been done, long before the internet. I’ll need to dig up the cite for this, but I recall hearing similar stories about the days before legalized abortion. In some places a woman could obtain a legal abortion if she could convince a panel of doctors that her mental health was at risk if she were forced to continue the pregnancy. I’ve read accounts of women who went before such a panel, falsely claiming that they would commit suicide or otherwise harm themselves if the pregnancy weren’t terminated. These women had been advised beforehand what to say in order to be regarded as mentally unstable enough to warrant an abortion, but not so unstable as to get themselves committed. ---
**Author:** ![blueslipper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5a626/32.png) [@blueslipper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blueslipper)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/64 "2006-03-02T03:12:18Z")
> [@AFAIKnow](#): > > I just saw a blurb on the new that Bush doesn’t like the SD proposal on banning abortion because it doesn’t make some acception, and on of them being incest. I also often here the phrase “unless rape, incest, etc.”. I understand incestuous rape, which is covered under rape. I also understand if the child obviously has major birth defects, which even non- consanguineous offspring can have. I don’t understand that incest should be a blanket acception > > From what I understand, the chances of acquiring the defective genes from both parents go from 5 percent to 50 percent, depending on the degree of relativity. While that is a high chance, it is not a determined outcome. Why would so called pro-lifers be willing to abort so many perfectly healthy unborn? Is the use of the term incest just a synonym for “health of the child”? I can understand such an acception, especially if it covers even non-incestuous offspring. I just don’t understand using the term “incest” if it is a synonym of not. My dad always says that what is produced is a baby. Not a monster. So he is against all abortion. He sticks to his principles. Abortion is abortion. I f one thinks it is wrong there are no mitigating circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/65 "2006-03-02T03:22:57Z")
> [@blueslipper](#): > > My dad always says that what is produced is a baby. Not a monster. So he is against all abortion. He sticks to his principles. Abortion is abortion. I f one thinks it is wrong there are no mitigating circumstances. Even if it kills the mother, or will live for just a few months in constant pain, or is the result of rape ? That’s barbaric. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/66 "2006-03-02T03:38:51Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Even if it kills the mother I really try to rationally discuss the issue of abortion, without namecalling or hyperbole, but saying that the fetus “kills” the mother is absolutely asinine, brainless, and seriously fucked up. And it tells me all I need to know about the fruitlessness of engaging you. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/67 "2006-03-02T06:21:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Well there is…for those rape-incest fetuses that would be aborted between the time this bill becomes law and the time a bill banning rape-incest abortions can conceivably be enacted. If their interest is in saving unborn lives, then those are lives that will be lost and cannot be revived. No. Did you listen at all? There is no need to link one bill to the other, especially if the more extremist bill doesn’t have as good a chance of bypassing the courts. You can pass the first less extreme bill and then seconds later start to work on the ore extreme version to see if you can get it passed. The latter has no need to hold up the former. And yet, in practice, that’s exactly what happens. In part because I suspect keeping abortion alive as a contentious issue is more important to the right than actually preventing abortions. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/68 "2006-03-02T17:38:31Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I really try to rationally discuss the issue of abortion, without namecalling or hyperbole, but saying that the fetus “kills” the mother is absolutely asinine, brainless, and seriously fucked up. And it tells me all I need to know about the fruitlessness of engaging you. Well, the _growing_ of a fetus as it develops certainly can, in the presence of a pre-existing medical condition, put the mother’s life at severe risk. Pregnancy certainly _does_ carry some health risks to the mother, especially in its later stages, and in rare but proven cases the risk can include death. I’m sure this would have occured to you if your outrage hadn’t gotten in the way. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/69 "2006-03-02T17:46:36Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Well, the _growing_ of a fetus as it develops certainly can, in the presence of a pre-existing medical condition, put the mother’s life at severe risk. Pregnancy certainly _does_ carry some health risks to the mother, especially in its later stages, and in rare but proven cases the risk can include death. Golly gee willickers, I didn’t know that. Thank heavens for your genius, or I would have wandered around in the desert of ignorance. That, or, it could have been the phrasing used that purports the fetus taking an active role in the killing the mother that I had a problem with. I understood his point fine, thanks, but I took issue with his treatment of the fetus as some kind of murderous invader. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2006, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/70 "2006-03-02T17:55:52Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Golly gee willickers, I didn’t know that. Thank heavens for your genius, or I would have wandered around in the desert of ignorance. That, or, it could have been the phrasing used that purports the fetus taking an active role in the killing the mother that I had a problem with. I understood his point fine, thanks, but I took issue with his treatment of the fetus as some kind of murderous invader. I apologize, **Bryan Ekers** , my response to you was overly venomous and somewhat silly. Yes, I am aware that pregnancy carries health risks, and we could spend a whole thread (or threads) discussing the “health/life of the mother” exception to proposed abortion law. My problem with the prior post was that it put the fetus as an active participant in the killing of the mother, which is, I think, unfair. I am sorry I sniped at you. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/71 "2006-03-06T19:25:09Z")
Here’s the South Dakota view we’re been hearing a lot about lately: > [@](#): > > FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls “convenience.” He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother’s life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked. > > BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. **She was religious.** She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life. Oh, so you see, it’s only those ATHEIST sluts who predictably became sodomized rape victims which have to worry about this law. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2006, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537/72 "2006-03-08T14:58:31Z")
Show me a case of incest that’s not also a case of sexual assault. Consensual incest among adults is very rare. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-incest-be-an-exception-for-pro-lifers/346537.md?page=3)