‘What if a woman is raped or is a victim of incest?’
‘Should we make an exception if a woman was raped or there was incest’ around a restrictive abortion policy?
I think the above are fallacial, red herring questions in terms of them mattering or being aligned with the major political/social positions on abortion.
If you are pro-choice, arguing that those working to restrict abortion should make exceptions for rape and incest is irrelevant and allowing anti-choicers to frame the debate on their terms. If women have the right to choose, arguing for exceptions to the LACK of choice is giving away the abortion position to anti-choicers, and logically, moot.
If you are anti-choice, unless you’re ready to admit it’s a patriarchal thing, you’re anti-choice because you believe a fetus is a full human life with rights. If you believe a fetus has rights, then HOW that fetus came into existence is irrelevant. That’s why the anti-choice argument is so typically hypocritical when coming from conservatives — they’re willing to suspend human life rights for undocumented immigrants, prisoners, etc...but want to grant them to a fetus. Human life is human life and if you’re using that position to fight abortion, then you can’t make exceptions (about abortion or anything else) and be anything but a hypocrite.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t try to get SOMETHING from those who have successfully limited or ended abortion choice in their US state — of course if you can get exceptions for rape/incest etc, that’s better than nothing.
But when you’re discussing or debating choice, leave out the ‘rape or incest’ stuff — it doesn’t work for either side.