Is the Republican party truly pro-life?

I’m not a liberal and never will be, but there are some good points they bring up when conservatives condemn the Democratic party for not being pro-life. At the same time, Republicans are:

-complicent with inhumane border control detention centers where people are put in cages, and some even dying.

-looking down on the welfare system that would allow poor mothers to actually take care of the child when it’s born.

-Passive on climate change.

-Blackballing people who protest police brutality and racial injustice.

This is the reason why I have voted 3rd party, because while I am pro-life, it seems kind of hypocritical to look at all of these other issues with the attitude of “well, they’re not that big of a deal compared to abortion.”

I also admit, I don’t know all the facts about all of these topics, so that’s why I’m here asking how do we justify Republicans as truly pro-life.


Prolife means anti abortion. That’s it. And yes, the Republican party is prolife.


Republicans aren’t even pro-life when it comes to abortion. Roe vs Wade was passed by Republican appointed justices, and Republicans have done little to nothing to restrict abortion even when they have had a majority in the house and senate.

Abortion is a marketing tool for the GOP. If they were to outlaw it, they would lose their single issue voters.


Pro-life means pro-life.


This is where I struggle with the GOP…I consider myself a Libertarian (of the Minarchist variety) yet vote GOP b/c of the abortion issue. I wish RvW were overturned and it wasn’t an issue anymore.


I’m in roughly the same ideological camp, but I usually don’t vote GOP. I find myself abstaining if there are no good candidates.


Abortion is not the only pro-life issue.


I should have written in a candidate on my ballot…I didn’t and I’m regretting that.

On local levels I am more apt to vote 3rd party…I did for the gubernatorial race in my state…proud of it too! :slight_smile:

Because none of the stuff you mention (which btw Democrats dont exactly have clean hands here) rises to the level of killing.


The term pro-life came about to mean anti abortion. That is it. The term has been twisted by the left to weaken the pro-life cause as you guys are clearly showing. If a person is anti abortion, by definition, they are prolife. Likewise, if a person is in favor of abortion, they are not prolife.


I don’t see how adopting the consistent life ethic in any way weakens the pro-life cause.


I agree with BigBoom, and this is why: we can’t continually expand definitions or we won’t be able to communicate about anything.

If pro-life means against abortion’s being legal, we can be really clear about what we mean when we say pro-life.

If we expand pro-life to mean all these other things as well, anti-death penalty, anti-poverty, anti–climate change, anti–anti-illegal immigration, then we have a mishmash. A person could be vigorous in opposing climate change and completely on board with abortion’s being legal, someone else could be indifferent to climate change and spend a lot of energy helping the poor.

You would have people with completely different ideas all labeled the same thing!

Pro-life means wanting it to be illegal to kill innocent humans (which is why it often also covers euthanasia). It is not so much that we have a right to life as that we have a right not to be deliberately targeted for killing, and that others have an obligation not to kill us.

Suppose the worst Democrat nightmare were to happen and we eliminated all government aid to the poor (notice too that Republicans generally do not want this. Any “cuts” they advocate generally turn out to be cuts in expansion of aid, so the Ds want a 7% increase and the Rs say how about 4%)

Would we still be able to help poor people? Yes. It would require a massive amount of work, because there is no infrastructure, but it could be done. The poor still could be helped.

But if an unborn child is killed, there is nothing that can be done to help that victim.



Pro-life just doesn’t mean anti-abortion.

Otherwise, the Church wouldn’t be against euthanasia.

The right to life from conception to natural death is what pro-life should be about.


Isn’t it funny when the National Right To Life website lists over 10 issues that are under the term Pro-Life and half of them aren’t abortion related…

National Right To Life

Do research before you make inflammatory comments that are inaccurate, you lose integrity and credibility that way.


The National Right to Life doesn’t own the term. They’re a good organization for sure, and they have every right to focus on other issues. That doesn’t mean every issue is a life issue.

Yes, the Republican party’s OFFICIAL policy position is pro-life.

In regards to the rest of this stuff, it’s far more nuanced:

complacent with inhumane border control detention centers where people are put in cages, and some even dying.

  • we must acknowledge that President Obama started this policy. His administration built the cages and President Trump simply continued it. Trump may have even increased it because he thought it was effective. But it was NOT the Republican Party’s policy position to start or do this. This was the policy position of Presidents Obama and Trump.

looking down on the welfare system that would allow poor mothers to actually take care of the child when it’s born.

  • this is a mischaracterization. Republicans support a welfare system that helps people when they are down on their luck. However, Republicans also believe that the goal of a proper welfare system is to get the people off welfare. Republicans believe if a person is on welfare for life (unless they are disabled) then something is wrong. Republicans believe that the Democrats prefer to give people fish, while the Republicans prefer to teach people how to fish.

Passive on climate change

  • This is an oversimplification of the conservative position. Conservatives love to hunt, fish, boat, camp, etc. In other words, conservatives love the environment. However, conservatives are hesitant to hurt the economy for environmental policies that may not work. The truth is that NO ONE knows if climate change is 100% man made vs. a mixture of man made + natural changes. And we don’t know the percentages of changes that are 100% man made vs. natural. So it’s not that conservatives disagree that the climate is changing, they disagree with making rash/abrupt changes to the economy without evidence that new policies will work.

Blackballing people who protest police brutality and racial injustice.

  • this is a gross misrepresentation. I don’t know a single person who thinks what happened to George Floyd (for example) was just. Everyone, conservative and progressive, can agree that we have an issue with police brutality. The issue is that conservatives do NOT condone violent protests and we do NOT condone protests that use socialist/marxist strategies. The founders of the “Black Lives Matter” organization (not movement) proudly proclaim that they are trained marxists.

Here is a video of Black Lives Matter protesting after Biden’s win. They start arguing with a white man who has a Biden sign out front. These are the “protestors” that Republicans are against. (note: the protestors were going after Trump supporters in a neighborhood, but this video shows them attacking a Biden supporter in the neighborhood)

I pray I’m making some sense, and I would love to have a civil discussion with you.

God Bless


Right back atcha…

The 7 issues NRL website lists are all related to either abortion or euthanasia.

Study history. At the time Roe v Wade was passed, abortion was not a partisan issue. When most of those justices were appointed, it wasn’t even an issue at all.

A book could be written (and probably has been) about the decision and how it came to be (in part due to lies spread about abortion by NARAL), so who appointed the justices at that time is irrelevant.

Rs did a lot to pass legislation to at least limit or restrict abortion, which for a long time was ruled unConstitutional by the USSC.

Additionally, it has been Republicans who have held the line on federal funding both domestically and abroad (while Democrats keep allowing federal funding for abortion overseas), tried to reduce or eliminate funding for PP, and maintained the prohibitions on embryonic stem cell research.

Democrats on the other hand have it in the platform to maintain the legality of abortion come what may.


I want to preface this by saying I support neither the Democratic nor Republican Parties and honestly feel that Catholics should abandon both of them and just join up with the American Solidarity Party. That said, I wish to defend the Republicans somewhat on this point:

Who cares? That was 50 years ago. Political parties shift and change over time. I’m not sure if any of the Republicans who nominated or confirmed the justices in question are even alive right now, let alone still in politics. Case in point in terms of changes, back in the time of Roe v. Wade, abortion wasn’t really a partisan issue, with there being a good number of pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. The parties shifted their positions considerably since then.

Another thing to note. While many of the justices on the Supreme Court at the time were appointed by Republican presidents, we need to remember a president can’t simply put someone on the court. They have to be confirmed by the Senate. (this is why later on Robert Bork, who would have been an almost-certain vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, didn’t make it onto the court–the Democratic Senate shot him down) And all of the justices who voted in favor of Roe v. Wade, I believe, were confirmed by Democratic Senates.

This is more fair.

Limiting it to abortion actually harms the pro-life cause. If you mean anti-abortion say anti-abortion, as for me, I am consistently pro-life. Also nothing is clearly showing.

Then say anti-abortion. But the solution to not letiting pro-choicers pretend to be “pro-life” is to push for consistency and they would fail on that ground.

1 Like
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit