But the goal isn't to overturn Roe v. Wade anyway. The goal of the pro-life movement is to outlaw abortion. Once Roe is overturned, it is at that point when we will need a pro-life president more than ever before, to lead at the bully pulpit toward protecting life.
George Allen apparently believes that whatever a state decides on abortion is fine with him. That is the same position as Mitt Romney and others who can only be described, metaphorically, as on the Confederate side of the slavery issue.
There are some things the national government must prevent states from doing. Taking innocent life is one of them.
You are not going to get an amendment to outlaw abortion' you are not going to get states like New York and California to close their abortion mills. A bit like expecting the Alabama of 18601 to accept an amendment abolishing slavery.
Dear Gelato,
"There is no reason to believe Allen would appoint justices who are better than himself."
I agree. In that Sen. Allen wishes states to be able to restrict abortions to somewhere in the first trimester, and that necessitates overturning Roe, I will, for now, credit him with following his own position to its own logical conclusion, which is to overturn Roe. As I've indicated before, I'll need a little more to go on from Sen. Allen during the election season, but I expect it will be forthcoming. If it isn't, then as I said before, all bets are off regarding Sen. Allen.
"But the goal isn't to overturn Roe v. Wade anyway. The goal of the pro-life movement is to outlaw abortion."
That's true. However, short of either a Constitutional amendment (not gonna happen anytime soon), or some other very nasty discontinuity (the Civil War was just such a discontinuity that brought about the end of slavery), overturning Roe is what gets us to the point where we get to actually try to outlaw abortion, right?
"Once Roe is overturned, it is at that point when we will need a pro-life president more than ever before, to lead at the bully pulpit toward protecting life."
I agree, and if you've read my posts, I've actually said that post-Roe, Sen. Allen may become our adversary.
But I'm willing to cross that bridge when we come to it.
"George Allen apparently believes that whatever a state decides on abortion is fine with him. That is the same position as Mitt Romney and others who can only be described, metaphorically, as on the Confederate side of the slavery issue."
I agree that that is Sen. Allen's view, and I agree that ultimately, it's inadequate.
However, in that to implement that point of view requires overturning Roe, I'm willing to accept that motivation for now, to get to post-Roe.
I disagree that that's Mr. Romney's view. I don't really know what Mr. Romney's views really are. He apparently is trying to go from being a rather committed "personally-opposed-but-pro-choicer" to a pro-lifer. At this point, I ain't buying.
Should Mr. Romney go on "60 Minutes" and confess that he has had a major conversion experience, is becoming a Catholic, and thus is becoming adamantly pro-life, then I'll give him some consideration. Much short of that, and I'll credit him with the consistent abortion views that he held up until last summer, which were pretty much heavily pro-choice.
"There are some things the national government must prevent states from doing. Taking innocent life is one of them."
I agree completely.
But we ain't to that point, yet.
sitetest