The 2016 Presidential Election

Wow. I'm not sure if you're being serious with the above or if you're playfully baiting RMA.

I like that statement

I believe it. In a lot of ways, those people are on the front lines of this kind of stuff, around the world. It's a shame the church is corrupt and doesn't actually do anything about it, other than looking for more members to support their cult.

In my view, pro-life would mean ensuring that every child has access to adequate health-care, housing, clothing, nutrition, and education.
In this statement, where do you see anything about destroying life? That is a separate issue. I stated what I think pro-life means. Nothing more, nothing less.

I look at things like this: the best possible outcome involves the least amount of suffering for the greatest number of lives. The worst possible outcome would be the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest number of lives. Without focusing too much on value judgement, I'd call the first scenario "good" and the second scenario "bad".

Look around.
Look at the current average family size in America, Canada, Australia, Western and Northern Europe, et al.; countries with a high standard of living and the least amount of suffering. I don't think we suddenly got good at the rhythm method. Family planning, including all forms of birth control, are responsible for manageable family size. It's also no coincidence that females in these societies have also become more educated, have some say in their social position and have access to adequate health care (to some or a greater degree).
The poorest, most poverty stricken regions (and groups within the developed countries listed above that are living in poverty) have larger families and uneducated women that often have no say in their social position, and have little to no access to adequate health care. The amount of suffering in those parts of the world is tremendous.

It is no coincidence.
I firmly believe that if every viable pregnancy had been carried to full term for the past how-many-ever decades, there would be more human suffering in the world, not less.

The subject of abortion is serious and though I'm not against it, I am thankful for those who oppose the procedure as it helps curb what could become a blithe attitude towards what could and should be one of the most important and difficult decisions in a woman's life.

Then I'd look to the underlying causes and conditions as to why the parent aren't able to adequately provide for the child.
It seems to me that you're begging the question: if the terms of my pro-life definition were met to some degree worldwide, then there would be little to no need to address your question except to manage outliers such as acute dysfunction or some sort of sociopathy in the home environment.

My point is this: there seems to be great concern to obligate women to carry their pregnancy full term - regardless of most circumstance - and after the child is born any inadequacies are laid solely upon the parents. Actual societal concern for the child post-birth becomes secondary, as evidenced by the number of children that face degrees of insecurity in their basic physiological and safety needs - both worldwide as well as here in a developed country like the U.S.A.

You and your mate must be a masters at the rhythm method.

Man...what a day on the market. The DOW broke 21,000 for the first time ever. It only took 24 trading days to transverse the 1000 points from 20,000.

Dow: 21,115.55, +303.31, (+1.46%)
S&P 500: 2,395.96, +32.32, (+1.37%)
Nasdaq: 5,904.03, +78.59, (+1.35%)

President Trump surprised a number of people in both camps and hit one out of the park with last night's address. The devil is always in the details, but he's looking pretty good to a lot of people right now, especially Wall Street. Personally, I think he's taking a page out of Reagan's playbook and emphasizing optimism with a heavy dose of Supply Side Economics. I hope it works...we could use a break.