Question Dlew. Who should be responsible for the support and rearing of these rape and/or incest babies that we're forcing women to have? The already victimized mothers? Society at large? Some facts to ponder in determining the inviolate sanctity and inherent value of human life:
World Population:
7,021,836,029 (July 2012 est.)
Birth rate:
19.14 births/1,000 population
note: this rate results in about 252 worldwide births per minute or 4.2 births every second (2012 est.)
Death rate:
7.99 deaths/1,000 population
note: this rate results in about 107 worldwide deaths per minute or 1.8 deaths every second (July 2012 est.)
Population growth rate:
1.096%
note: this rate results in about 145 net additions to the worldwide population every minute or 2.4 every second (2012 est.)
Point being, there are plenty of us and then some. I don't see it as an automatic that we need to protect human life at all costs.
Which brings me to my next question, could you be the one to look the victim of rape and/or incest in the eye and tell her she has to have that "baby" her feelings on the subject (i.e., her carrying, birthing, financially/emotionally supporting the child, etc.) be damned? "I know it's horribly tragic sweetheart, but it's irrelevant what you feel. Chin up." 
Not me, friend.
Perfectly valid questions. I don't claim to be 100% right on the subject.
I'm going to tackle your post, which really has 3 arguments, one at a time. The first: who should be responsible for the "babies" (your words, not mine)? Yes, I think society at large should be responsible, if the mothers are unwilling. I know it's a strain, but I
do think there is inherent value to human life. If these are "people" (an admittedly debatable label) we're dealing with, then I think it's irresponsible to "kill" them, because the alternative would be a financial strain. We do not kill foster children, we do not kill all prisoners. My point is, society does care for human life. We already carry the burden of the poor, and the elderly, and the sick, and those in prison. Is it not just as reasonable to care for innocent children (assuming, of course, that they are "humans")?
Regarding your Malthusian argument citing population statistics: I understand. Abortion certainly helps to control growth which has terrific consequences for the rest of us, the most interesting of which, in my opinion, is the sharp decline in the crime rate, as noted in Freakonomics. But sheesh, it seems even staunch advocates of abortion would shy away from that argument. It seems awful nihilistic.
Finally, could I tell the victim of rape they need to have children? Gosh, I don't know. It'd be really rough. I guess I would have to if I really believe in this philosophy, but I'd certainly try to put it a little more delicately than "chin up."
Further though, I think I may have done a poor job of explaining what I meant. I don't find the feelings of rape victims irrelevant. I find them extremely relevant. My heart goes out to them and I couldn't imagine being in their shoes. However, I do find their feelings do not constructively contribute to the argument. Again, my point is, if the "thing" is a "human" we shouldn't kill it, even if the mother has undergone a profound injustice, I think it's wrong to kill an innocent life.
