I think the GOP has been a 'limited' pro-life party for years. JMHO. They have always supported the rape, incest, life of mother exceptions, iirc. That makes them 'limited' pro-life. I've never agreed with the 'incest' exception, unless it's 'rape', so that really is redundant.
There was a time I vehemently argued for the rape exception, and I still have great sympathy for victims of VIOLENT rape. I'm not talking statutory rape, and never considered that the discussion, but I initially turned against the rape exception because it is so fuzzy. Anyone can claim anything, and there's absolutely no way to prove it one way or another.
Probably wagglebee nailed me to the wall with a requirement to decide when life begins. God says in the bible about Jeremiah "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
It's hard NOT to see that as even before conception, so in biological terms one can only conclude conception.
So, my sense is that unless you nail down a person's belief on when life begins, you can't understand them or any contradictions they're espousing. In that regard, the GOP is schizoid. Their base is pro-life, and their establishment leadership is pro-choice....limited pro-life at best.
No they haven't.
Why do you make these kind of arguments?
August 27, 2012 CBS interview with Scott Pelley:
PELLEY: Well, the platform as written at this convention for the Republicans does not allow for exceptions on abortion with regard to the health of the mother or rape or incest. Is that where you are?
ROMNEY: No. My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I’m in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother.