A number of folks have taken my suggestion and flipped this over to the question of EXECUTING THE RAPIST, which includes establishing the evidence necessary to prove that a rape occurred.
If we ban abortion but leave an exception there, we need to establish what the details in that sticky wicket are. Simply stipulating that if this is a crime worthy of the death of someone we should certainly consider the rapist a candidate for that first, we can see where the exception really takes us.
Through experience arguing this case for over 3 decades I've noticed that MOST PEOPLE find it easy enough to say "give an exception" but they have difficulty dealing with the EVIDENTIARY TRAIL necessary to justify executing the rapist.
It's just a corollary.
Let me say this about your post. If you can dump that much stuff into the hopper, I'd think you could argue the EXECUTE THE RAPIST side equally well.
Try it, let's see what you've really got to say!
The evidence needed to permit an abortion under a rape exception is different from that needed to convict a rapist (whether capital punishment, castration, or imprisonment is the statutory punishment): for the first it is necessary to establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the woman was raped, for the latter, it is also required that the identity of the rapist be established beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I would think that a properly constructed rape exception would require an evidentiary hearing to establish that a rape had taken place. Alas, we are very far from needing to consider the exact details at this point, even though a pro-life policy with such exceptions should garner majority support among the populace (unless the no-exceptions folk let the perfect be the enemy of the good and perversely side with the pro-abortion folk because they can’t get everything they want).