If Abortion is THE Issue for Deciding How You Vote...

Well, it depends on what "mostly legal" means. Does that mean if the life of the mother is in jeopardy only, or does that mean it should be legal in just the first trimester but not the other two? Both of those could fall under the purview of "mostly legal." So which did these people mean? What was asked? See what I mean?

 

Abortion is merely an issue to mobilize the right-to-life vote, nothing more. As usual, nobody in Washington will be talking about abortion in 2009.

The real issue is the economy. If the Democratic Party can frame that argument, they will win. But judging by what we saw last week, that ain't gonna happen. [sic]

Regards, hope all is well,
BiR

 

We tend to forget that if R v W was overturned, the right to an abortion would not be overturned. Instead, the issue would return to the states --- where it was beforehand -- and where abortions were legal in various degrees depending on the state.

 

Abortion is an issue to save the needless slaughter of children. It is rather disgusting to dismiss this type of infaniticide as a political tool. Just goes to show how far this depraved world will go.

 

Regardless, that is precisely what it is: a tool to get the pro-life vote to the polls. Just watch: it will go to the back burner after the election, just like it did in 2000, and 2002, and 2004 and 2006.

Regards,
BiR

 

The abortion issue will always be number 1 to me. I will never vote for a candidate who supports abortion on demand. Never.

 

I have shared your sentiments on this issue for a long time. Lately, I've had to ask myself what I would do if both of the main candidates were pro-abortion. Most likely, I'd vote for a 3rd party candidate or not vote at all. But what if a candidate arose that was for the persecution of Christians? I believe such a candidate may not be too far off. Would I vote for his opponent even if his opponent was pro-abortion? Hard to say. Until one of those horrible situations arise, I will always vote pro-life. Further, I prefer candidates that really support pro-life causes over those that say they are against abortion but are likely not to do anything about it, as so many politicians have been lately.

 

Wouldn't matter. The Constitution protects free exercise of religion. Oh...I forgot...Bush has already shown that the Constitution can be ignored.

Never mind.

 

A man who thinks it is ok to murder the unborn cannot be trusted. Therefore, I would never vote for such a man. McCain's voting record has been consistently pro-life, even though he may not "crusade" on this issue that much. As far as I'm concerned, he's met the first hurdle of at least opposing the evil of abortion. Now I can look at his other policies to see if he is worthy of my vote.

I just don't understand how people can think it is ok to murder the unborn.

 

I have found that if the candidate is right on the issue of abortion, they are usually right on other issues that are important to me. And the opposite is also true - if they are for murdering the unborn, they are usually for other things I am against.

 

This issue is also a good issue to measure the committment of Christians to God's Word and living out biblical principles.

It tells us much more about Christians than it does most candidates.

 

Good point, and I completely agree. And by their fruits they are known.

Also an excellent point, one that must be taken into consideration on these boards, with some of the loudest members being pro-abortion.

 

That is actually a good point.

What did you think about that initiative in Georgia (I seem to recall it was an amendment) concerning the definition of life beginning at fertilization?

Regards,
BiR

 

Your perception that it goes to the back burner unless you can see someone talking about it in the press is incorrect. It is quite a fact that it is always on the front burner with conservative whether the press is discussing it or not.

 

That may be true for those who make this their primary issue, but the so-called pro-life politicians will put it on the back burner. I guess you will see for yourself in 2009, when it is shelved until 2010 - the midterm elections - and is brought out to mobilize those people who do talk about it. Whether "the press is dicussing it or not" is irrelevant.

As far as my "perception that it goes to the back burner," the proof that I am right lies in what happened in 2001, 2003, 2005 and this year with respect to abortion - absolutely nothing.

Regards,
BiR

 

Me too...

Usually, Pro abortion candidates are tree hugging, pro gay, tax the heck out of others, while supporting things like filthy art, and the ACLU...

 

It's a big issue and I'll never vote for anyone who supports abortion. :saint: