Ok, this is the following, if I go with the GOP priorities on welfare, and the political views of the GOP on abortion issue:

* No abortions, period.  Rape (incest as a subset of rape) is not an excuse to terminate the life of a child.

* It is not the role of the government to provide any form of welfare to anyone, outside of the elderly.  The Federal government has no place providing any sort of prenatal care for women either.  

Combining these two policies, the following is a reality: Women who got pregnant due to being raped will get no help from the government to help bring the child to birth, or to help care for the child afterwards.   Heck, the government isn't even going to fund adoption support either.

So, how exactly can anyone, like the GOP, have a policy where women are forced to give birth on the one had, and also provide no resources to enable them to do that?  How exactly is that pro-life?  At best, it is a weak form of pro-birth, AT BEST... but there is no indication of that even be supported.  It is a case of back-alley birthings... and I guess the newborn gets put in a dumpster and abandoned.  But then again, maybe seeing this, the state can step in and put the woman in prison for considering this.  So, maybe the best policy would be to put women who are raped in prison.  They would at least get some health care.

I think you are exaggerating quite a bit with your argument here. Now, I don't agree with outlawing abortion so I'm not going to defend it. However, if abortion isn't an option then I would think most women would just go through adoption agencies, I don't think you would find many women dumping babies in dumpsters. When couples adopt, they also agree to pay for all the healthcare related to the birth of the child.

So, yeah... a bit of an exaggeration.

The GOP does not have such a policy. They only say it to get votes from their base. Any actual attempt to deconstruct welfare or repeal abortion rights would fail immediately in practice, for example by illegal abortions or vastly increased numbers of homeless.

Pointing out that the Republicans say contradictory things is not original but you have to understand their motivation and it's not that they genuinely want it to happen.

Really? Not only are you exaggerating, but you aren't looking at it from the right perspective. If unborn babies are humans then killing them is murder. The US government outlaws murder for obvious reasons. Welfare has nothing to do with the outlaw of killing. Your argument is pure straw man.

The argument has to be do with calling oneself "pro-life".  How can you argue the scenario I described is anything pro-life at all?  Welfare has to do with the case of being a party of life, which is what the GOP claims.

Pro-life is a label for people who oppose abortion. The words "pro" and "life" themselves in this context don't mean anything so there's no point arguing over it.

Good grief man. Let's forget for one second that most republicans are conservatives and conservatives prefer to donate to charities rather than pay taxes that go to wasteful welfare programs. Let's forget about that for one sec ok. Oh and while we are at it let's forget that what the republican party wants is to stop public money from being used for abortion more than an outright ban on all reasons for abortion. Ok so we've forgotten about all that. Now lets' talk about the government's role. It is supposed to uphold the constitution, protect our borders, and enforce the law. None of that has anything to do with abortion/healthcare or welfare.

None of us have a god given right to be taken care of by the government nor do we have a god given right to a free abortion paid for by people who don't like abortion. That's the rub man. People don't want their money going to something they consider to be the murder of babies. They would rather give their money to charities that do a better job of helping people in need then the government does. Ok, you can remember that other stuff now.

Charities should help raped women if the predator is not caught. If he is, his assets should be given to the woman and the man potentially killed depending on the manner which he conducted it and if it is a reoccurance, if she has proof that she indeed was raped. Only problem is gold diggers who want money and don't care about ruining lives, but no process is perfect right?

I could show example after example of the GOP slashing funding to social programs.  I would like you to show where the GOP would support any sort of funding to make this so.

Here is the GOP platform on abortion, where they speak of a pro-life agenda:

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm

What they offer is a salute:

Alternatives like adoption, instead of punitive action

Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services.

Besides a salute, I would like you to find details of what their pro-life agenda is, beyond it being pro-birth.

It certainly doesn't seem to involve funding for family planning:

http://www.socrei.org/House_Subcommittee_Eliminates_Title_X_Funding/

And about actually funding prenatal care?  Well, it looks like that is cut to:

http://gonzalez.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=553&Itemid=4

And more cuts:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/02/09/173778/gop-war-on-babies/

Again, what is this "Pro-life agenda" the GOP has?