I honestly want to know.

 

Is the abortion supporting former Mayor really the kind of candidate the GOP will support?

As opposed to Hillary,

 

In the best Democratic tradition I'll vote for him three times.

No, in the primary.

 

Maybe in the election.

Yes. Nobody's going to pass an abortion bill or even anything that affects the practice. Therefore, his "Pro Choice" stance won't ever come in to play. I'd vote for Rudy G. because I want someone to "show me the money."

What do you do? For me it's not a deal breaker as I don't vote based on a single issue. For those that consider it THE issue, do you sit out the election? It's pretty certain that if he were to get the nomination his opponent would have similar views on abortion.

... Nobody's going to pass an abortion bill or even anything that affects the practice....

Exactly.

 

This is precisely why I am amazed that people use this single issue as a litmus test on which candidate to support or vote for.

 

Issues such as the national debt and the war in Iraq are actionable items that MUST be addressed and resolved. The issue of abortion will not be legislated away, regardless of which party is in power, or which slate of candidates one votes for.

 

 

Frances

Actually, 75center, whomever the Democrats nominate will be required to have a radical view on abortion rights. Giuliani or any other Republican will be the lesser of the evils since he would, at least, show some concern for the sancitity of life.

 

I am a prolife voter. However, I also know that Roe v Wade is accepted precedent. the decision was announced over 33 1/2 years ago. It will not be overturned by the Supreme Court regardless of who is on the court. Therefore, right to lifers need to argue for more local control. This argument is reasonable since, prior to Roe, abortion rights were, more or less, a local issue (10th Amendment). Prior to Roe, abortion was not, as many like to argue, illegal. It was merely subject to state control. Right to lifers will never extinguish abortion as a thriving business. However, they need to work on returning some of the regulation of it to local control. After all, that was the interpretation for about 180 years.

Frances, to the prolifer, abortion is a moral issue which supercedes most other issues. The war could be called a moral issue, I suppose. However, since the antiwar group likes to point out all the lives lost in Iraq, I would submit that the number of babies killed in this country each year through abortion far exceeds the casualties of war.

 

As for the national debt, I would suggest that we make a real effort to cut out all the graft, waste, and theft. Of course, many, particularly Democrats, would cry that this is immoral since it would severely cut down on "entitlements".

 

It all gets down to basic beliefs.

I honestly want to know.

 

Is the abortion supporting former Mayor really the kind of candidate the GOP will support?

First, I am not a Republican, so wouldn't be voting in the primary. But as far as the general election.....

 

If all of the candidates were pro-abortion, I would look at the rest of his record to make my decision or simply decide to not vote since I have no viable candidate to support.

 

If a candidate was anti-abortion (notice Jim how I have been trying to remember to refer to it this way instead of pro-life??? ), unless they are just flat out horrible in the other areas, I would support them. For example, I wouldn't support David Duke just because he was anti-abortion.

I would vote for Rudy. I think he would do an excellent job.

Frances, to the prolifer, abortion is a moral issue which supercedes most other issues. The war could be called a moral issue, I suppose. However, since the antiwar group likes to point out all the lives lost in Iraq, I would submit that the number of babies killed in this country each year through abortion far exceeds the casualties of war.

 

As for the national debt, I would suggest that we make a real effort to cut out all the graft, waste, and theft. Of course, many, particularly Democrats, would cry that this is immoral since it would severely cut down on "entitlements".

 

It all gets down to basic beliefs.

I read somewhere that it had grown to 4,000 babies PER DAY. Much more of an immoral decision by this country than the war.

Yes. Nobody's going to pass an abortion bill or even anything that affects the practice. Therefore, his "Pro Choice" stance won't ever come in to play. I'd vote for Rudy G. because I want someone to "show me the money."

Not sure that I agree with this totally. As far as the entire practice of abortion, I understand your post. But if I remember right the law that the Supreme Court is now considering was passed by Bush AFTER Clinton had vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Bill.

 

Also, I believe I remember Clinton doing something that allowed abortions to be performed on US medical bases across the world and GW removing that. I could be wrong on that because it has been awhile that I read about it.

Partial birth abortion will be gone when the court makes their decision.

 

Kennedy voted for the regulation prohibiting partial birth abortion in Stenberg.

 

His vote is the swing vote, and he will vote with Scalia et al.

I read somewhere that it had grown to 4,000 babies PER DAY. Much more of an immoral decision by this country than the war.

 

I won't challenge the number of abortions performed each day, but I will point out that those are FETUSES being aborted, not babies.

 

 

Frances

Yes. Nobody's going to pass an abortion bill or even anything that affects the practice. Therefore, his "Pro Choice" stance won't ever come in to play. I'd vote for Rudy G.

....Agreed