Sherry Colb discusses the logical problems with having a rape exception for abortion. She claims the "most coherent account of the rape exception - as a defense for the sin of intercourse - relies heavily on a punitive and religiously-tinged view of sex" yet at least notes that she doesn't intend to suggest that "pro-life individuals who support a rape exception necessarily view pregnancy as a punishment for consensual intercourse. Those who believe in a rape exception likely feel an admirable sense of compassion for rape victims. . . "
I think the problem here is assuming that people with a rape exception have thought long and hard about why they have that exception. From my interactions with people who are generally prolife but have exceptions, their positions on exceptions are typically based on their feelings as opposed to deep thinking on the issue.
I recently came upon this audio file of the PBS show "To the Contrary" on President Bush's veto of expanded funding of embryonic stem cell research. Though the commentators aren't identified (which makes me guess it was originally broadcast on TV), I believe it is former NIH chief and current columnist for U.S. News and World Reports Bernadine Healey who tries to make the discussion of the issue honest. Some of the other commentators (including D.C.'s delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton) and the host seem to have a very limited knowledge about what they are talking about. The host, Bonnie Erbe, even seems to believe her father would have been saved by embryonic stem cells.
Yvonne Perry is continuing to show she has no clue what she's talking about regarding embryonic stem cell research. According to Yvonne, embryonic stem cells shouldn't include the moniker "embryonic" because that somehow "suggests that a tiny baby has been formed in the lab." In her world, all the embryonic stem cell researchers and experts have got it wrong and are "mislabeling" what they're working on.