They're pretty indistinguishable to the people who never made it out of the womb alive.
the idea that ending a baby's life -- if this is one's opinion of abortion, there can be no gray.
I’d agree, except I’d add that there’s little difference between a pro-abortionist and a pro-lifer to the millions who never made it out of the womb alive, because the act of electing pro-lifers hasn’t changed the equation much.
Medved’s argument boils down to this: On all the things we can do now about abortion, Giuliani SAYS he is on our side. He will stop federal funding, he will support restrictions like partial birth abortion, and he will appoint judges that could well overturn Roe V. Wade, which is necessary before we can legislate a solution.
If you trust Rudy (and most are leery of that), his argument is sound. Until we actually can PASS legislation, Rudy’s position has the same effect as the rest of our candidates.
I don’t want someone who is not personally opposed to abortion in the White House. Rudy is saying that he IS personally opposed, but he certainly never showed that before. I don’t want my candidate speaking kindly to NARAL. Rudy has.
But in a race between Rudy and Hillary, if I decide to vote solely on which choice will save more babies, I’d have to vote for Rudy. At least a few mothers won’t have the money to kill their children, and a few late-term children won’t get their brains sucked out.