richardhutnik, the term pro-life is perfectly adequate to cover the GOP's position and everyone knows what the term means.

I don't really have a stance on abortions, but I have a questions for people that say this. At what point does terminating an unborn life count as murder. Would killing sperm count as murder? What about the moment sperm contacts a woman's egg? Would that be considered murder? Basically, what's the definitive moment where a life is established enough to be able to be murdered? Three months in pregnancy? Three weeks? Three days? 

It means "pro-birth" politically.  

For most pro-life advocacy groups stopping  a pregnancy from happening is not an abortion. Abortion would come after conception. So in your terms it would be murder to terminate a pregnancy after the sperm combines with the egg.

But for most reasonable people, rape, incest, and in the case that the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother all reasonable reasons to have an abortion. That doesn't mean they want public money to be used for it, but they wouldn't judge someone who's been raped who decided, after counseling, to terminate.

Why are you arguing symantics. It has no effect on the issues.

Why do they call it "pro-choice" when it should be called "pro-death?"

See how pointless that is?

American politics is a nightmare then. I'm just talking names for philosophical positions.

You're being very partisan. Take a step back and realise that they want you to be this angry, and that voting the other way isn't fixing anything.

The GOP party wants an end to all abortions, period.  This isn't just a case of funding abortions, it has to do with actually outlaw women, who even can pay to have an abortion, from having abortion.  That is in their platform:

http://ontheissues.org/Republican_Party.htm#Abortion

http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_Abortion.htm

So, combining your view with theirs, it forbids women who were raped from terminanting their pregnancy and requires them to give birth.  After that, laws of child protection forbid abandonment.  All along, the government does nothing to help, based upon your opposition to taxes.  At least if you are going to be Libertarian and oppose coersion, you end up opposing the GOP's view on this.

And I am looking at the underlying reasoning behind it, and the labels people use.  Do you think, for example, if I showed up at an advocacy group for "right to work" laws looking for them to find me employment, they would help?

And this isn't partisan, it is focused on one issue.  And fall out from it.  I asked a partisan question (or more pointed at one party), because I want to know exactly what is pro-life about forcing a woman who is raped to give birth, and doing nothing to help in the process. I am pro-life in a far more general sense than the partisan pro-birth view of the GOP side.  And that is what it is.  The GOP platform says it has a "pro-life agenda". This thread asks to show it.

Find me a charity or group of charities that can provide a social safety net as comprehensively and equitably as government.

Leaving things up to charities is far too YMMV, as it can vary wildly based on location, not to mention charities can (not saying they do in any significant numbers, just that they can) discriminate based on lifestyle, race, and so on.

Why do I have to provide you with data? I stated that people believe that charities do a better job than government. It's debatable whether private charities could take over in day, but it's not debatable that it's a common conservative opinion. I will say that I believe this country has become far too complacent with welfare. It should be a path to self reliance rather than the multigenerational lifestyle it has become.