You forgot to include the word "human" to modify life, and proving that a fetus is a "human life" is a hurdle no one on earth can clear -- regardless of what the Constitution does or does not provide. (Incidentally, the Constitution does not explicitly protect people who commit adultery from being imprisoned or stoned to death for it.)
Abortion has yet to be proven void of taking human life, so the assertion that what the woman is doing is not affecting another's life, cannot be made.
So you are asserting that everyone has the burden of proving that nothing they have done has "affected another's life" and/or has not resulted in the "taking of human life"? OK, prove to me that your decision not to have as much sexual intercourse as you possibly could has not "affected another's life" or resulted in the "taking of human life"?
I must be forced to pay for state schools that do not allow one to chose freely to worship God...
You shouldn't be forced to pay for state schools at all, but by promoting governmental interference with the family life of pregnant women, you are also promoting governmental interference with mothers and their children.
You tried to assert that both parties accept each other's morality, which is simply not true.
I never stated that at all. I just asserted that Republicans aren't as squeaky clean when it comes to adultery as Ann Coulter claims that they are.
which party champions paying for both multiple children out of wedlock and abortion?
I would have no problem with Coulter (or you) calling Democrats the party of subsidized abortions and subsidized poor single motherhood -- but of course that wouldn't get her much publicity would it?
Conservative Republicans tend to want to see the mother take responsibility and care for the baby rather than live a lifestyle of adulterous affairs.
Don't a lot of Conservative Republicans support the giving up of babies of unwed mothers to adoptive parents? That's not encouraging mothers to take responsibility for their babies, is it? Moreover, single mothers cannot by definition be guilty of adultery, can they? Isn't it true that what most of the so called "social conservatives" really want is for no one to have sex unless they're doing it with their spouses for the sole purpose of making a baby?
Are you trying to assert that no moral differences exist between Republican and Democrat idealologies?
There are certainly moral differences between those two parties, but neither gets very close to the high moral ground -- while not hesitating to push innocent people around in the process.