I did the research, estrogen has not been used to stop pregnancy since the 60's (when Ron Paul practiced). Now progesterone, mifepristone and/or misoprostol are used.
I'm against abortifacients of any kind being used to perform an abortifacient (killing an embryo) function. I don't consider anyone in favor of an abortifacient pro-life. I'm uncertain of where you stand because I think one of us (possibly me) must have a misunderstanding of how things work.
Be careful of how you interpret the word "conception" because some people consider it to mean "implantation" instead of "fertilization".
Finally, I'm not looking for a law or laws from a President. I'm looking for a consistent world-view and mindset that protects innocent blood and does not hold children responsible for the sins of their fathers. Sure we're arguing on the extreme and complicated margin of the debate, but if everyone who claims they are pro-life really is, then the slaughter would be abating and it is not. The Mississipi Personhood Amendment loss is proof of that.
I'll follow your posts as you defend Ron Paul, and I'll keep an open mind but you have not convinced me yet. I think he wants it both ways which is duplicitous. I'm also interested in any specific criticism you have for Santorum.
I am not saying it isn’t life because of the rape just that in the first hours no one, absolutely no one is going to stop a women getting a shot of whatever to prevent her egg from becoming fertilized so she does not become pregnant. Condoms prevent the sperm from reaching the egg and no one is going to outlaw them just as no one is going to outlaw and punish a woman who was raped from preventing herself from becoming pregnant.
Santorum voted for bills that included funding for Planned Parenthood. Ron Paul did not. Both men knew that funding would be used to kill a great many babies as PP is largest abortion chamber(s) in America. Which one is truly pro-life and which one keeps saying one thing to get the nomination but has a record of doing the opposite?