How would a rape/incest exception be implemented?

[Kuciwalker]

WTF? I didn't say rape makes it bad, I've been claiming the whole time that rape makes it even worse.

Rape shouldn't make it enough worse (compared to how bad it already is) for that to be the deciding factor where you suddenly go "yup, making abortion illegal is wrong".

[onodera]

There are generally medical signs indicating rape. As a pro-lifer, I support it.

Quoted for posterity.

[DaShi]

Abortions should be opt-out.

[Guynemer]

Viva le Wiggy.

[Felch]

Personhood is a philosophical question.

No it isn't. Personhood is a legal status. Congress can make General Electric into a person, it can make a fetus into a person.

[-Jrabbit]

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.

[Asher]

No it isn't. Personhood is a legal status. Congress can make General Electric into a person, it can make a fetus into a person.

It's a philosophical issue that society tries to legislate.

[The Mad Monk]

Well, that didn't take long. Can anybody think of a feasible way to enforce the exception? And, if not, would you expect to see a rather large increase in the number of reported rapes (but only reported at doctors' offices where abortion is provided, not to the police)? Because, if the exception is a giant, easily exploited loophole a significant number of people would be comfortable exploiting, the whole argument over whether or not there should be an exception is pretty well moot.

Again, that's leaving aside the fact that it doesn't make sense except as a compromise anyway.

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.

[The Mad Monk]

Viva le Wiggy.

That's not Wiggy, that's a pod person!

[Felch]

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.

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

[Kuciwalker]

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.

Corporate personhood has nothing whatsoever to do with the moral notion of personhood. Corporate personhood is nothing more than saying "the corporation can enter into contracts as one entity, rather than forcing each individual shareholder to sign his name on every contract".

[Wiglaf]

Also, that they have free speech rights.

[loinburger]

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

That strikes me as being the only reasonable measure to go by.

[Elok]

IIRC the majority of rapes go unreported, so that still leaves the majority of victims without the option of abortion. But that's probably the "best" option, yeah.

[The Mad Monk]

Yeah, that's the "isn't perfect" part. :\