And you have just touched on what I believe to be the biggest pitfall of the Pro-Lifers...rape & incest.
Millions, myself included, find abortion abhorrent. And it's agreed by the aforementioned that life begins at conception; that this life is indeed precious.
So, how come the proviso appears in the great majority of Conservative and/or Republican opinions on abortion that outlaw it except in the case of rape or incest? Wouldn't terminating a birth brought about by rape or incest put them in the same league as the Pro-Choicers? Wouldn't this be an unwanted pregnancy?
Abortion is vile, and it's certainly inhumane. A lot of us can easily agree on that. The hard part is remembering that in cases of rape or incest.
I know I struggle with it, as have many well-intentioned Conservatives.
"rape/incest" is more accurately described as a successful wedge-issue for life opponents. This is because it shifts focus from the true victim (child) to the mother. An adversarial relationship between mother and child is also embedded in the argument by identifying the child as something OTHER than a 'wanted' child, and therefore assigns it to the 'other' category of human identification.
The reason, IMO, that we find some lifers and fence-riders accepting such exceptions is not the primary issue of "is it wrong or not", but rather in "what to do about it." Most people are just plain hesitant to criminalize a victimized woman.
Thus the wedge is created and principle is defeated by expediency and people's natural desire to avoid such discomfort. We then see the wedge used to justify the unbridled infanticide destroying child, mother, and country simultaneously.