How would a rape/incest exception be implemented?

[Elok]

I'm honestly not trying to start yet another general should-abortion-be-illegal thread, though I'm not so silly as to think it won't turn into one. This is just a focused question: if abortion were illegal, with an exception for cases of rape or incest, how could that be practically enforced? Emphasis on practical here; I don't want to get into a frenzy of moral condemnation from either side.

I'm not trying to say that all women who want abortions are immoral liars or anything like that, but if a substantial number of women in the past wanted abortion so badly they shoved wire coat hangers up their crotches (or resorted to other obviously unsafe practices), why wouldn't a larger number be willing to lie to a stranger at a clinic to get the service? It's not unthinkable by any means, though I'm sure I'll be excoriated as a horrible misogynist for even suggesting such a thing. If something happened to me and I thought it meant my life was effectively over, I probably wouldn't hesitate to lie to make it go away.

Obviously you can't wait for the crime to be proven in court, because a woman could have one kid and be started on a second by the time that's concluded, even if it returns a guilty verdict. You could have it be like gunshot wounds, where they have to report it to the police every time, but there are problems there too. By involving the police you drive off everyone with legal difficulties (such as illegal immigrants) and everyone who'd be reluctant to prosecute, which I imagine is a large percentage of cases. If everyone's scared off, it defeats the purpose of the exception. You'd have to pretty much take the woman's word for it--and that wouldn't be a lot different from what we have in the U.S. now.

Again, I'm not trying to condemn anyone here, I'm just wondering how you could work such a scenario. It's a question that doesn't seem to be asked.

[DinoDoc]

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

[Elok]

You can't--at least, I don't think you can--but I can see such an exception being put into law as a simple compromise despite its philosophical incoherence. Politics is the business of compromise, after all. My question is, would such an exemption even work?

[giblets]

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.

[SlowwHand]

There are generally medical signs indicating rape. As a pro-lifer, I support it. Why penalize a woman while also expanding deviant genes/behavior?

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Guynemer]

There are generally medical signs indicating rape.

This is actually false.

[rah]

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

[Lorizael]

This is actually false.

What about rape kits? A lot of false negatives?

[Guynemer]

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.

[giblets]

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.

No, I am pretty sure that people who oppose universal healthcare are a majority in the "pro-life" movement.

If someone doesn't think an embryo is a person then forcing a rape victim to keep it seems deeply wrong. And bringing up rape victims shows the full, ghastly implications of enacting strictly "pro-life" legislation.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Elok]

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.

[Kuciwalker]

.

[Guynemer]

While I understand and appreciate the point Kuci is trying to make, it does seem to belittle the issue of rape. It is far more common than most people think--every single person in this thread knows someone who has been raped, I guarantee it. You may not know that you do, but you do.

Now, that said, I think what Kuci was trying to get at was using that sort of victimhood to make a political or philosophical point is, to put it charitably, ugly, and on that score he is correct.