Self-proclaimed "common sense" politicians say they are in favor of abortion in cases of rape or incest. At first glance that seems to indeed make common sense. But when we start to ask how will we know that the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest the issue gets a lot stickier. In a rape case, won't the alleged rapist have to be convicted of rape before we will know that the child conceived was due to rape? Won't either a court conviction or a DNA test of the father matching the fetus have to provide proof that the child was the result of incest? And what if the incestuously act was consensual? Should the baby suffer the penalty of his or her parents' act? If we must rely upon a conviction for rape or incest to be legally proven, won't that be too late for an abortion? Criminal trials are seldom decided within 9 months of a criminal charge being filed. It would appear that we are back at the "me too" point of "women are to be believed" no matter how sparse the evidence. In other words, for the rape or incest exception to be effective, we are left to taking whatever claim the pregnant woman makes as the God's Honest Truth. News flash. Women have achieved full equality in the field of lying. If "because she said so" becomes the legal standard for abortions in antiabortion states there will be stadiums full of women suddenly claiming their pregnancy is because drunk Uncle Charlie snuck into their bed or some unknown sailor docked and raped them and then conveniently headed back out to sea. When we look at these potentialities, are common sense abortion exceptions as sensible as we thought?

---