I get it. I really do. If you really believe that abortion is the killing of a little baby, then the origin of that baby (including via rape or incest) is not germane, and having those sorts of exceptions in anti-abortion bills is, itself, saying that it's sometimes okay to kill babies.
(The "threat to the life of the mother" exception is different, though its own moral conundrum — why value the mother's life over the baby's?)
So I get it. I don't agree with the premise, but I get it.
But that's raising a huge problem for anti-abortion groups and the politicians who want their vote. Because, as Lindsey Graham (hardly a raging liberal) notes, it's just not politically possible to not include those kind of exceptions. Because while the American public remains emotionally conflicted on abortion (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx), they are pretty clearly sympathetic to the victims of rape and incest, and telling said victims that they should be required to bear any offspring to term is seen as uncomfortably cruel.
(And, yes, that's still not a rationally coherent position, but this is not necessary a rational subject.)
Lindsey Graham Tells Anti-Choice Activists: Need To Find ‘Way Out Of This Definitional Problem With Rape’
Sen. Lindsey Graham, chief Senate sponsor of the GOP’s effort to undermine Roe by banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, spoke this morning to the Family Research Council’s “
Smarmy Little Git simply needs to find a way to educate people that the wimmins are really just incubators, and should also campaign for cameras in every delivery room so, if It’s A Girl! parents can capture that magical moment when their female child is born and loses her Right To Life.