Some people call themselves pro-life, despite saying abortion should be allowed in some cases.  The most common are when the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life or health, when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or when the unborn child is disabled.  Other people even call themselves pro-life simply because they say that elective abortion should be legal only during the first trimester. 

To see how intellectually dishonest these positions are, paraphrase them.  For example, “I am pro-life, but it’s okay to kill babies who were conceived in rape” or, “I am pro-life, but it’s okay to kill children with Down’s syndrome” or, “I am pro-life, but it’s okay to kill babies during the earliest stages of their lives,” etc.  When paraphrased like this, the “pro-life with exceptions” philosophy always contradicts itself.  It is as irrational as saying, “Everyone has a right to be free, but slavery should be legal in certain situations.”

To be accurate, when someone says that they are “pro-life with exceptions” what they are really saying is that they support the “choice” to kill some babies (those conceived in rape, those who are handicapped, etc.) but oppose the “choice” to kill others.  In other words, the only honest way to define their position is, “pro-choice with exceptions.”