Premise 1: If I believe life begins at the conception of human baby, I am pro-life.
Premise 2: If I am pro-life, I will do my best to limit and eventually stop the legal practice of abortion
Condition 1: If the baby was conceived during rape or incest or if the mother’s life is in danger, then I will not limit or stop the legal practice of abortion.
This was the basic argument of Rep. Paul Ryan during the vice presidential not long ago. Needless to say, his argument is hopelessly incorrect.
Condition 1 does not follow or interact logically with Premises 1 and 2. A person is either pro-life or pro-abortion, a person cannot have it two ways.
If we acknowledge his argument, we would have to ask why suddenly the child is no longer living because of the way he/she was conceived, or if the woman’s life is in danger. There is no answer for this question, because it's impossible. Either the child is a human life at conception, no matter the situation, or its not.
This is the frustration that accompanies Republicans trying to play the center. Either you believe all of something or you don’t. You’re either all for life, or you’re not.
Either you believe, or you don't.