I seriously don't understand how a pro-life person can actually support rape/incest exceptions as anything other than a compromise.
Forcing a woman who has been raped to give birth seems evil, no? And, mutant babies, not a good idea, no?
For a pro-life person, you'd be literally punishing the child for the sins of their father. I'm pretty sure western law has rendered that mode of thinking quite obsolete, and for good reason. Killing them would be far more evil than forcing the mother to endure some possible temporary trauma.
As I said, this is provided you're a pro-life person who believes an unborn child is a person. If you don't believe that, then it would seem harsh, yes. If you do, then your assertion seems even moreso.
There are in fact plenty of pro-choice activists who argue that even if the fetus is a person with a right to life, the mother’s right to control her body trumps that right, and so abortion should be legal regardless of your opinion of the status of the fetus. See the “violinist” thought experiment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_AbortionA more mild version of that line of thinking could be constructed to defend a “pro-life with rape exception” position: You may think that if the mother has engaged in sexual intercourse knowing that it may lead to pregnancy, that implies her taking responsibility for any life that may be created as a consequence of her freely chosen decision to have sex. But that if the conception came about via rape, then she never made that choice, and so her right to control her body then trumps the right to life of the fetus.
