As I’ve worked in pro-life ministry and talked with many people about abortion, I’ve noticed that the basic positions on the matter tend to fall into three main groups. On one side, I hear shouts of “my body, my choice!” and “abortion is healthcare!”

On the other side, I see some strong pro-lifers who believe that abortion is never acceptable. And in the middle, I find a large group of people who do have reservations about abortion, but who are unwilling to claim that it is always wrong or should always be banned.

Here’s a common statement I hear from people in this third group:

“I’m mostly against abortion, but I think there should be exceptions, like in situations of rape or incest.”

Now, I can see where this is coming from, and it may initially seem somewhat reasonable. After all, this person is against abortion in all “normal” cases—situations that don’t involve an exceptionally wicked crime or perversion of some kind—and it’s just in those few exceptions that he thinks abortion should be allowed.

Can’t this person be considered pro-life overall?

Unfortunately, I don’t think so. This position is not “pro-life.” Rather, this position is “life supporter by default.” This person concedes that life is pretty valuable overall (so we respect it by default, all else being equal), but then claims that there are other important things that need to be weighed against life and sometimes prioritized over it, such as the circumstances of that life’s conception.

So, all this means is that the default position is “unborn life is valuable”—that is, until you’re presented with a situation serious enough that you then hop off your default position and devalue that particular human life in that particular instance.

Think about it this way. You might as well say you’re “pro-marriage” because you believe that adultery is wrong by default—unless there are other important things that show up that need to be weighed against marriage and sometimes prioritized over it.

Like that one cute coworker. You see, your default position might be faithfulness toward your spouse, but that’s only until you’re presented with a situation compelling enough that you then hop off your default position and devalue your marriage in that particular instance.

You see how silly it is to claim this is still “pro-marriage.” It doesn’t value marriage as the kind of inviolable covenant it is, no matter the circumstances. Rather, it’s simply “marriage supporter by default… until something better comes along.”

It’s ultimately anti-marriage, because it fails to respect any marriage according to its nature—an inviolable covenant from God, regardless of your illicit feelings for others.

Likewise, I believe it’s nonsensical to claim that someone can be “pro-life except for rape and incest.” This position doesn’t value life as the inviolable gift from God that it is, no matter the circumstances.

Rather, it’s simply “life supporter by default… until something more pressing comes along.” Therefore, it’s ultimately anti-life because it fails to respect any life according to its nature—an inviolable gift from God, regardless of any illicit circumstances of conception. 

Don’t get me wrong, rape is a tremendously horrible crime that God hates and will bring His wrath upon either in this life or the next. Move with caution when discussing this with someone, as many people have had crimes like these affect them or their family members.

Nevertheless, the circumstances of conception still do not devalue the life conceived. If you believe they do, then you really do not value any life according to its nature. This is because if any life can be sacrificed because of circumstances, then all life is only circumstantially valuable.

I believe the easiest way to show this to someone who disagrees with you is to use one simple question. This one question exposes the error of treating life as circumstantially valuable by bringing up a situation in which no one would ever treat life as such.

I call this the Pro-Life Power Question. Stay tuned for part 2.