You’re not the only one there on the pro-abortion issue. That is one bridge too far.
What I don't understand is what you think electing a President who will put the same emphasis on this issue that you do can accomplish, in the absence of moral conversion of the pro-death population, or at least a significant number of them.
Abortion is a moral problem. Voting, and electing Members of Congress and Presidents, CANNOT solve the root problem.
That's why I can vote for a candidate who is wrong on this issue. Politics and political life can't solve moral problems - they can only reflect, or measure up to, the virtue or vice of the people who are doing the choosing.
There is in my opinion no legislative solution for the abortion problem, given the level of vice in our society.
Of course Roe can be and will be overturned. A constitutional order cannot survive the naked assertion of power which lies behind Roe.
But after Roe goes, I don't believe that the number of abortions will fall - it may even rise as legislatures compete with each other to be more permissive than other states.
Can you explain to me what your goals in electing a "pro-life" President are, which will make progress that has not been achieved already by twenty years of "pro-life" Presidents from 1981-1993 and 2001-the present?
And, as I've said, if there are enough primary voters who feel as you do, Rudy can't be nominated. But I think that remains to be seen.