[Jim Robinson]

That was the premise. Who would you vote for in the general election if it's Hillary vs a real deal conservative? It's a no brainer.

And who's asking you to jump on a bandwagon early? My objection is there are too many people already on a bandwagon early and, unfortunately, it's not a pro-life conservative wagon. The Harriet Meiers appointment was a near fiasco that turned out well because pro-life conservatives demanded someone with a known conservative track record. I hope and pray we do as well this time. Why should we settle for less than a known pro-life conservative in the primary? Doesn't make sense to me.

[McGavin999]

Because there may be pro life people who are NOT known but would be better and more effective if we found out they were pro life.

One of the things that makes me angry is that we have been fighting this battle for 30 years and babies are STILL being slaughtered, that means we're not fighting it the right way. We finally manage to get someone on SCOTUS who will help to overturn Roe v Wade and then what? It gets turned back to the states and the fight starts all over again as people in a non-abortion state fight to keep their daughters from obtaining an abortion in a pro-abortion state.

How about we switch tactics and spend as much energy in teaching people just what it is they are flushing down the toilet? How about we expend a little of that energy teaching people the moral consequences of what they are doing. How about making it socially unacceptable to kill your baby instead of a fashionable right of passage?

If choosing a president who was pro-life would eliminate abortion, why wasn't abortion eliminated during Reagan's presidency?

I want Roe v Wade overturned because there is NO constitution "right" to an abortion, but overturning Roe v Wade is not going to eliminate the problem, it's going going to slow it down and change the battlefield.