Since Roe vs. Wade made first trimester abortions legal, and did so while studiously ignoring scientific data on the subject, calling it bad law and bad science is without doubt a ststement of opposition to first trimester abortions. These attempts to turn a pro-lifer into a pro-choicer remind me of the Dems trying to turn John Kerry and the Silky Pony into defense hawks three years ago.
I stand by that statement. And this one:
Once again, I'm wondering why the Rudy supporters consider their candidate's hardcore pro-abort position to be a plus or not worth talking about, but are so eager to "catch" his opponents in the sin of being less than rabidly pro-life. Perhaps y'all instinctively realize that your guy is pretty much the definition of a pro-abortion extremist.
And why do I consider Rudy to be the definition of a pro-abortion extremist?
I have some regard for Rudy, but the bottom line is that he thinks that I should have to financially support it when some poor woman decides to have her child ripped limb from limb, and his supporters on this board are trying to pretend that is somehow more conservative [and better for the pro-life cause!] than a guy with a 0% rating from NARAL. Sorry, not buying.
I hope there are no questions, but I'll be glad to answer any you have. What I won't be willing to do is continue to indulge your bizarre idea that a thirteen year old account by one media jackal makes this guy a hardcore pro-abort flip-flopper. That dog ain't hunting, folks. If he was what you say he is, you'd have more evidence than that.