Obviously yes. Call me radical, but I believe in science and know that embryos aren't human beings 
This is honestly one of the least pleasant issues to debate, it's basically pushing against a stubborn wall of people who religiously believe that embryos are humans that can be murdered are refuse to let go. But the problem with religiously believing in something here, is that you want to translate your beliefs into theocratic laws. On economic issues, for example, debating and respecting each other's views is crucial because there's just no definitive proof that onw side is right, but when people want to oass theocratic laws because of unscientific beliefs, I can't and won't "respect" that, sorry.
I find it interesting that you bluster about science and religion without actually showing how science proves that an embryo isn't human.
Now I'm just a dumb fundamentalist but it seems obvious that an embryo is genetically speaking:
a) human
b) not it's mother
For all your talk about science it's rather difficult to get around these facts. Me thinks the pro choice emperor has no clothes.
First of all, those two conditions alone don't work. A tumor satisfies both.
And even if you disregard the scientific definition of life and decide that an embryo is a human life, it's also
c) stealing the mother's resources without consent.
As a Republican, I'm assuming you oppose forcing taxpayers to give their hard-earned money as welfare to people who haven't done anything for it. Why, then, should mothers be forced to give not only their hard earned food but also their continuing labor (the embryo relies on the mother's heart, lungs, and various other organs to survive) as welfare to embryos and fetuses?
Poll
