Peruse the comments attached to this diary on abortion at RedState.org.
What's interesting to me is the number of people commenting on this diary that oppose a woman's right to an abortion in the case of a pregnancy arising from rape. While such a position is not based on any sense of humanity toward the victim and is based purely on religious speculation, at least the position is consistent--a human life begins at conception. People like this could only support an abortion, then, when a seriously anomalous medical condition occurs--such as an ectopic pregnancy--in which the consequences to life according to this definition will probably be worse than doing nothing at all.
The inconsistency actually begins with what we might consider a more moderate position--namely, no abortions except in the case of rape or incest. The reasoning is this: when proponents of this line of thinking permit abortion in these cases, it cannot be because they genuinely believe that abortion kills a human life, because if that were the prevailing opinion, one would be constrained by logic to say that the commission of one crime--either rape or incest--does not justify the commission of the more serious crime of murder.
What becomes instantly clear when you see these positions contrasted and argued is that there is a rift between those who would seek to outlaw all abortions purely on religious grounds in keeping with their definition of human life, and those of a less principled faith who seek merely to legislate morality--i.e., legislating the difference between those who "deserved it" and those who didn't--while using protection of fetuses as a false pretext for keeping young women in line.
Because of this, I contend that one cannot be considered pro-life if one thinks that rape or incest qualify as suitable pretexts for an abortion, because the life in question does not deserve to be ended based on the circumstances of its creation. This category of thinking needs a new term altogether--and I'm open to suggestions.