Lol, you're living up to your forum name, my friend:
If you are Pro-Life, would rape/incest count as a exception? If not, why?
I'm not pro-life, but I think you could argue for the exception and not be logically inconsistent (I don't think they are being logically consistent, but you could argue it).
A woman has a right to life, but she also has a right to good health. She has a right to be free from mental anguish, which is a component of good health. She has a right to privacy. With the exception of the most radical, the debate is over what the balance should be within the law between these rights that all potential mothers enjoy and any presumptive rights that a embryo or fetus should enjoy.
As a moral question, this is obviously one of the most difficult questions to answer. As a legal matter, the courts basically say that the mother's life and health (including mental health) has the higher claim. However, her privacy right moves on a continuum, weakening as the pregnancy progresses until, eventually, the privacy right has the weaker claim. It's this last issue that is the most contentious, as most pro-life politicians concede the first two points, but fervently dispute any privacy right.
This is why it is much more radical to take the position that the embryo's rights trump every right the mother has, including her right not to suffer the mental anguish of mothering her rapist's child.
So, in conclusion, it's not really the case that there is some logical fallacy in being anti-choice with exceptions. It's actually a mirror image of Roe, which is pro-choice with exceptions.
^^Keep in mind that this argument isn't one I'd make because I disagree with it, but if you asked me in Debate Class to argue that it's not logically inconsistent to make exceptions for rape and incest, this would be my argument.
On the flip side of that, which is ultimately my own argument, people who make this exception are just exposing why they're against abortion in the first place: to control a woman's sex life and her body. People who make exceptions are like Puritans placing Scarlet Letters on women and shaming them: "Oh, you weren't raped? You [bleep], you can't have an abortion."
Still, to say that a woman must carry a rapist's baby to term is beyond your average pro-lifer; it's outright obscene, and even most abortion ban laws don't take it that far (Brazil, for example, makes these exceptions). However, what do we have running for the Senate this year? Extreme pro-rape child Republicans with Rand Paul of Kentucky, Ken Buck of Colorado, Joe Miller of Alaska, Sharron Angle of Nevada, and Christine O'Donnell of Delaware all holding this position.
Does an unborn fetus have a right to life?
Lulz, no. It'a a fetus. It doesn't even know it exists. However, even if you argue that it has a right to life, I argue that a mother's right to privacy trumps its right to life.
Under what circumstances would it be okay to abort, and where do you draw the line?
Any reason the mother chooses is okay with me during the first and second trimesters; it's her damn body. I'd say that beyond 24 weeks is only ok if there is a complication with the mother's mental or physical health, the baby is going to die, the baby won't live long once it's born, if the baby will be severely physically or mentally handicapped, or if the fetus is already dead.
However, though I draw those lines, I don't like the government regulating it because I don't trust America's politicians. They're extremely right-wing, and will do anything they can to limit a woman's choice or make it extremely difficult to get an abortion. Not to mention the fact that there's so few abortion providers in many of the red states (in some of them, there's ONE in the entire state). So I don't support the government making any laws regarding it. It's a decision between the doctor and the woman, period, and the government can get its hands out of it totally.