To rephrase your question, how can someone claim someone else is pro-life when they have never considered any protections of a life inside the womb to be constitutional?

Whether you like it or not, the term “pro-life” specifically refers to those who believe that (a) Roe v. Wade is the worst SCOTUS decision since pre-Civil War, (b) unborn children are the most innocent of all life and are worth, minimally, SOME level of protection, and (c) certain abortion methods are so heinous, so brutal, and so depraved that anyone who can’t find it within themselves to stand up to the liberal wing of their party and vote against them has a complete lack of moral character.

If YOU think it’s OK for a baby’s brains to be sucked out halfway through a breach childbirth, then go right ahead and take that position. But any sensible position on abortion – even for someone who doesn’t want it criminalized – should include the basic belief that it should not be done in such a barbaric fashion.

Further, your point that favoring criminalization of abortion has done nothing to reduce abortion rates – well, legalizing abortion certainly did wonders for it, didn’t it?

If abortion can’t be criminalized, and if every conceivable rational restriction is turned down by politicians such as Obama, how can the position have any statistical effect?

On a federal level, I would be supportive of criminalizing abortion, but I don’t realistically think that would happen, and it’s actually not my goal. But given the current monstrosity of Roe v. Wade, it would require a constitutional amendment – or, at least, Supreme Court justices who can read, and thus can know what’s in the Constitution and what’s not – to put abortion into the area of democratic and public debate rather than in the area of holy writ for liberals.

And in an area of democratic and public debate, we’re much more likely to get to a place where abortion is tolerated on some level, but barbaric methods certainly are not. Where the truth about abortion can be disseminated, rather than those who try to educate about abortion being termed as someone trying to deny someone else their rights.

Whatever you think about war, it is a legitimate function of government. The power to declare it is vested in Congress, and the power to wage it is vested in the president.

Nowhere in the Constitution will you find any right that can be imaginatively construed to give people the unrestricted right to murder babies in the womb.

People who understand THAT are pro-life. Obama is not.

How can someone claim to be pro-life when they support war?

How can someone claim to be pro-life when they think health care should only be available to children whose parents are well-off enough to afford it?

Put quite succinctly – how can someone claim to be pro-life when it’s more than clear that after the fetus has left the mother’s womb, they couldn’t possibly care less about its fate?

You think being pro-life is equal to being in favor of criminalizing abortion. That’s an extremely narrow view, and it’s a view that has done exactly bupkis to change the abortion rate over the past 35 years. Numerous studies have demonstrated that improving the economic conditions of families, making health care, jobs, and education more widely available, and ensuring opportunity for all is the most effective thing we could possibly do to reduce abortion. Not only that, but it would improve a whole lot of other people’s lives as well.

That is the pro-life position, and you do yourself and your audience a disservice by continuing to pretend that a party that thinks perpetual war is completely okay, that isn’t in favor of providing equal opportunity for all, and that continues to push the charade that (a) they’re actually interested in criminalizing abortion and (b) that it would make the slightest difference in abortion rates, is somehow “pro-life.”

If you were honest, you’d describe yourselves as “pro-criminalizing-abortion.” But that doesn’t have quite as positive a ring to it as “pro-life,” does it?