Don't get Matthew Warner wrong. According to him, supporting any type of exception allowing abortions means you are "just a pickier, more measured pro-abortionist." But what really makes him confused is how you can support an exception for incest. After all, if it's rape, it's covered, but shouldn't "consensual incest" mean you have to carry a pregnancy to term?
First, if incest occurs as a result of rape, then the abortion exception we're talking about is really about the rape part (already covered above). But if the incest is just incest (and not rape), why is it that we should allow the parents to abort their baby? I'd like to hear somebody defend this.