“But you may be willing to enable one:
“In order to take the real moral high ground regarding abortion and its potential outworking in either a Clinton or Giuliani presidency, one must reach the conclusion that there will be a potential for less abortions during one or the other...because in the event of their respective party nominations, one or the other will be elected president.”
False.
I don’t know if there will be more abortions or fewer abortions whether either Mr. Giuliani or Mrs. Clinton are elected, during their respective term of office.
Abortions declined during the presidency of Mr. Clinton. One might argue that they would have declined further if he hadn’t been elected. I’m agnostic on the point. I could argue it either way. I think that a lot of folks tolerated Mr. Clinton as president because they think he did a tolerable job, but were repulsed by his obvious moral squalor. In that case, one could argue that his bad example caused at least some folks to take heed.
As well, if a Democrat-controlled Congress made noises about, say, general federal funding of abortion, I don’t believe that Mr. Giuliani would resist. Seeing the leader of the party going along for the ride would likely embolden the pro-murder elements of the Republican Party. The pro-life elements of the Republican Party, already diminished in power by the fascists in the party who would point to the Giuliani victory as “proof” that people are generally pro-abortion and that pro-lifers and social conservatives should be thrown out of the party, might not be able to successfully oppose such legislation.
Thus, general federal funding of baby-killing for poor women would likely pass the Congress, and would certainly be signed into law by President Giuliani (* spit *).
On the other hand, the Republican Party would rally round restrictions on federal funding of abortion just for the politics of opposing President H. Clinton.
Thus, I think one can make the case that there would be fewer with Mrs. Clinton. I think that one can also make the opposite case.
But that isn’t what I’ve argued.
Rather, my belief is that the eventual demise of the legal regime of abortion on demand generally throughout the United States will be substantially delayed by the election of Mr. Giuliani than by the election of Mrs. Clinton.
If it’s Giuliani vs. Clinton, honest, mindful social conservatives will be forced to admit: we’ve already been defeated. The cause of the unborn, the cause of families, the cause of decency will have received a body blow, a huge setback. No matter which one of these baby killers win, we, and unborn babies, will have already lost. A liberal will be president. No matter what.
It will be time to look to the future, to a time when neither of these baby killers is president. It will be a time to think of a long-term strategy to recover from the blow of the election of either of these baby killers.
My own judgment is that we will be able to rebuild better if the Republican Party is in OPPOSITION TO a baby killer, rather than in CONSPIRACY WITH a baby killer. I think that in the very long term (not necessarily over the next four to eight years), more babies will die, and legal protection of the unborn will be significantly delayed, with the election of Mr. Giuliani.
Honestly, I’m a few years short of 50. If either of these moral horrors is elected president, I think it’s likely that I’ll be dead before the unborn are again generally protected in law.
But if Mr. Giuliani is elected, perhaps even my children won’t see that day, either.
sitetest
If you're able to presuppose with such authority under this scenario ("would point to the Giuliani victory as 'proof' that people are generally pro-abortion and that pro-lifers and social conservatives should be thrown out of the party"), why can't you prognosticate with regards to Hillary vs. Rudy and the probability of more or less infanticide should either be elected president?
Rudy has recently said that he wants to "end abortion." Do I believe him? I tell you this: I read between the lines when the Clintons state that they want to keep abortion "safe, legal and rare."
Now there is no equating these two statements; the sentiments expressed are as far apart as day and night. I do not see how a Republican (much less a conservative) can enable Hillary Clinton's election considering that the most liberal GOP candidate in the field has come out with a statement in such opposition to her pro-death declarations. It's frankly astonishing.
The pro-life elements of the Republican Party, already diminished in power by the fascists in the party who would point to the Giuliani victory as “proof” that people are generally pro-abortion and that pro-lifers and social conservatives should be thrown out of the party, might not be able to successfully oppose such legislation.
Let's turn that one around:
"The pro-death elements of the Democrat Party, already entrenched in power by the fascists in the party who would point to the Clinton victory as “proof” that people are not only overwhelmingly pro-abortion, they are also pro-Communism, anti-war, pro-tax hike, pro-Socialized Medicine, anti-military, pro-growth-in-entitlement-spending and anti-school choice, and that pro-lifers and social conservatives are to be disregarded completely, might be able to successfully pass any legislation they damn well please, since 43% is a mandate."
I honestly don't understand your position. You have laid it out well, but you write as though the Democrat field is populated by George McGovern, Al Gore and John Kerry.
These are the Clintons, sitetest. They are hell-bent on vengeance, destruction, socialism, military defeat and dictatorial power. If you think the Johnson and Carter administrations were disasters, just wait until Hillary's elected with a plurality, and then come find me so I can post an "I-told-you-so" note...if they haven't taken my PC away.