[nathanbedford]

Motivated no doubt by schadenfreude, The New York Times has found this news fit to print.

We shall see who ultimately bears the pain and who the joy on the issue of abortion.

In the meantime, Dobson is perfectly right to stand by his position on this transcendent issue. To Dobson and many of us, the issue is our modern equivalent of national independence from Britain in the 18th century and slavery in the 19th century.

We speak here not of tax cuts, highway bills, or midnight appropriations, we speak, after all, of killing babies. There can be no equivocation, no flirting with appeasers, no compromise.

Here we stand, we can do no other.

[Darkwolf377]

While I tend to be pessimistic about our chances in 2008, nothing gets my hackles up more than those who say Republicans have to "soften" their position against abortion.

Abortion is the Quiet Holocaust, happening all around us while most Americans just go about their business and say it's such a shame but it HAS to happen, as if pregnancy is some airborne virus.

[Proudcongal]

It’s almost a choice between “principle” and actually having the chance to stop abortion. It’s a tough choice, but doing anything to enhance Hillary’s chances of being elected (or any dem for that matter), means the certainty of many, many more years of innocent babies dying, or one more conservative on the bench and the hope of this atrocious evil being stopped. So the question becomes: in the event of a Rudy v. dem choice, if I vote principle, can I live with the consequences; if I vote for Rudy who has vowed to appoint strict constructionists to the bench, do I at least have a chance to see innocent babies’ lives saved in the near future? It’s a challenge I’m genuinely pondering.

[Valin]

Maybe you or someone else could explain to to me just how Hillary (or any democrat) sitting in the Oval office nominating pro-choice judges/supreme court justices advances the pro-life cause?
Because I don’t see how it does.