It’s been almost two weeks since the election, and there is still much talk over how the Republican Party needs to revamp its image in a sense.

In whatever ways the GOP may “revamp” itself, I pray that the party never changes its pro-life stance. Whether it’s the Democratic or the Republican Party, pro-lifers and the unborn children they are fighting for need a political party to stand by them.

Now, I personally place my vote for the more pro-life candidate, Republican or Democrat. If the Democratic candidate were more pro-life, I would vote for him or her. The 2012 Democratic Party platform stated in its  section “Protecting a Woman’s Right to Choose” that it “opposes any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right [to abortion]” and even called on taxpayer-funded abortions with such language as “… including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.” These statements, along with pro-abortion Hillary Clinton being considered a hopeful for the 2016 presidential election, make me sad and pessimistic about the Democratic Party.

It would make me even sadder, though, if the Republican Party gave up on its pro-life views in order to appeal to more voters. If this should happen, it raises the question as to where social conservatives will turn. However, despite such a worthy consideration, some believe that the GOP needs to do this in order to appeal to women more.

One such Republican supporter who believes in adjusting the stance on abortion is Michael Burns, vice chairman of Lionsgate, an entertainment company. Burns describes himself as a “moderate” Republican and seems to have a bemoaning attitude with such statements as “[b]eing a moderate Republican can be very lonely,” which is his opening sentence, and “[i]n truth, there is no real Republican Party today.” Burns made these statements in a piece he wrote for Newsmax the day after the election. Here is an excerpt regarding how he feels about abortion, under the category “Women’s Rights”:

I do not know where a human life actually begins, but no sane person is ever “pro-abortion.” Although Paul Ryan’s sonogram heartbeat story resonated with me, I do not believe that we can completely deny a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy.

Instead, I would draw a line in the sand and give that right only in the first trimester…

In his first sentence, Burns shows how ignorant he is on the matter of life. It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception. And if he thinks that “no sane person is ever ‘pro-abortion,'” then he seems to be forgetting about those who work for Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocacy groups.

Burns and whoever else suggests that the Republican Party needs to become more lenient toward abortion is ignoring that there still are pro-lifers out there. A recent telephone survey from Rasmussen claims that the majority of likely voters are pro-choice. However, even if we assume that the results of this poll reflect reality, such voters already have a political party that advocates for their cause. Pro-lifers need a political party to stick by them as well.

I wish that Mitt Romney had not shied away from abortion so much during his campaign. Barack Obama sure as heck didn’t. The president’s position on the issue is not only radical and extreme, but so much so that a poll discovered that when voters – even pro-choice voters – learned of his position in battleground states, they were less likely to vote for him.

I not only wish, then, that Mitt Romney had not been afraid to bring up such a divisive issue, but wonder why he did not. Such a definitive view on abortion from Obama provided the Romney campaign with an opportunity to play any treatment of the issue as an opportunity to educate voters about where Barack Obama really stands on abortion. Perhaps more pro-lifers would have gone out to vote and could have even swayed the election toward a Romney victory. If not? Well, at least Mitt Romney would have lost still sticking to his convictions and the convictions of pro-lifers throughout this country.

Fortunately, there are still possible Republican contenders for 2016 who want to stick to a platform of conservatives ideas. Bobby Jindal, though he has stayed mum on addressing a possible run, is one of those hopefuls. The governor of Louisiana wrote an opinion piece for CNN stating that the party needs to stick to its values.

Bobby Jindal is on my own personal short list for 2016 Republican contenders. So are Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan, both pro-life. Whoever the nominee may be, I make a plea to him or her that he or she may remember the pro-life values that I, and so many other voters, hold dear.

It’s been almost two weeks since the election, and there is still much talk over how the Republican Party needs to revamp its image in a sense.

In whatever ways the GOP may “revamp” itself, I pray that the party never changes its pro-life stance. Whether it’s the Democratic or the Republican Party, pro-lifers and the unborn children they are fighting for need a political party to stand by them.

Now, I personally place my vote for the more pro-life candidate, Republican or Democrat. If the Democratic candidate were more pro-life, I would vote for him or her. The 2012 Democratic Party platform stated in its  section “Protecting a Woman’s Right to Choose” that it “opposes any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right [to abortion]” and even called on taxpayer-funded abortions with such language as “… including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay.” These statements, along with pro-abortion Hillary Clinton being considered a hopeful for the 2016 presidential election, make me sad and pessimistic about the Democratic Party.

It would make me even sadder, though, if the Republican Party gave up on its pro-life views in order to appeal to more voters. If this should happen, it raises the question as to where social conservatives will turn. However, despite such a worthy consideration, some believe that the GOP needs to do this in order to appeal to women more.

One such Republican supporter who believes in adjusting the stance on abortion is Michael Burns, vice chairman of Lionsgate, an entertainment company. Burns describes himself as a “moderate” Republican and seems to have a bemoaning attitude with such statements as “[b]eing a moderate Republican can be very lonely,” which is his opening sentence, and “[i]n truth, there is no real Republican Party today.” Burns made these statements in a piece he wrote for Newsmax the day after the election. Here is an excerpt regarding how he feels about abortion, under the category “Women’s Rights”:

I do not know where a human life actually begins, but no sane person is ever “pro-abortion.” Although Paul Ryan’s sonogram heartbeat story resonated with me, I do not believe that we can completely deny a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy.

Instead, I would draw a line in the sand and give that right only in the first trimester…

In his first sentence, Burns shows how ignorant he is on the matter of life. It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception. And if he thinks that “no sane person is ever ‘pro-abortion,'” then he seems to be forgetting about those who work for Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocacy groups.

Burns and whoever else suggests that the Republican Party needs to become more lenient toward abortion is ignoring that there still are pro-lifers out there. A recent telephone survey from Rasmussen claims that the majority of likely voters are pro-choice. However, even if we assume that the results of this poll reflect reality, such voters already have a political party that advocates for their cause. Pro-lifers need a political party to stick by them as well.

I wish that Mitt Romney had not shied away from abortion so much during his campaign. Barack Obama sure as heck didn’t. The president’s position on the issue is not only radical and extreme, but so much so that a poll discovered that when voters – even pro-choice voters – learned of his position in battleground states, they were less likely to vote for him.

I not only wish, then, that Mitt Romney had not been afraid to bring up such a divisive issue, but wonder why he did not. Such a definitive view on abortion from Obama provided the Romney campaign with an opportunity to play any treatment of the issue as an opportunity to educate voters about where Barack Obama really stands on abortion. Perhaps more pro-lifers would have gone out to vote and could have even swayed the election toward a Romney victory. If not? Well, at least Mitt Romney would have lost still sticking to his convictions and the convictions of pro-lifers throughout this country.

Fortunately, there are still possible Republican contenders for 2016 who want to stick to a platform of conservatives ideas. Bobby Jindal, though he has stayed mum on addressing a possible run, is one of those hopefuls. The governor of Louisiana wrote an opinion piece for CNN stating that the party needs to stick to its values.

Bobby Jindal is on my own personal short list for 2016 Republican contenders. So are Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan, both pro-life. Whoever the nominee may be, I make a plea to him or her that he or she may remember the pro-life values that I, and so many other voters, hold dear.