Abortion Exceptions

There is a lot of newsworthy stuff going on this week, but there is one thing in particular that's been on my mind for awhile now. With all of the hoopla surrounding Congress and various states trying to pass abortion bans with different levels of success, much of the discussion seems to revolve around the issue of exceptions for rape and incest.

And you know what? I think abortion exceptions are bullshit. Yes, you read that correctly: Bull. Shit.

And here's why. I know it seems to be the popular thing for pro-choicers to bring up this issue to show how unreasonable the anti-choicers are being (they don't even want exceptions for rape or incest!!), but I think it only serves to reinforce the idea that some women deserve abortions and others don't.

I mean, if you're against abortion because you think it's murder, then why in the world would you think that any exceptions are okay? Murder is murder, right?  So to me, it seems like what we're really saying when we talk about these exceptions is that, okay, we agree that abortion is bad, but can we at least agree that the "non-slutty" women can get them?

Why don't we just make a law that says you can only get an abortion if you promise that you only had sex once and agree to never do it again? It seems just as ridiculous to me. We shouldn't be conceding that AT LEAST rape and incest victims should have access to safe abortion, we should be arguing that ALL women can decide for themselves if they want to carry a pregnancy to term or not. The manner of conception should have no bearing on the pregnancy itself. A woman who is not raped should have just as much agency over her own body as a woman who is raped. If not, then you've created a situation where a group of people get to decide for you what is "legitimate rape" and what is not (which is exactly what we see happening now).

In the pre-Roe days, it was actually possible in some places to get a legal abortion. But you know what you had to do? Get at least a couple of different doctors (almost always men) to say that you really needed one. That, you know, you weren't just having one for fun. Or, you could go in front of a medical panel (again, male doctors) and convince them of your case.  If they thought you had a convincing argument, then maybe they would let you terminate the pregnancy. If not, you were SOL.

It seems to me that pushing for abortion exceptions only furthers the idea that men need to "regulate" what kind of sex women are having. Once the government determines what kind of sex you had, then they will tell you whether your body belongs to someone else for nine months or not. And if you were having sex just for pleasure, well. . . . .

I know we're trying to make the best out of a bad situation, but the whole thing seems much more damaging in the long run than it is helpful right now.  Or am I being totally unreasonable about this?