I’m fighting to keep you and your man Mitt from making the republican party pro-abortion.
You are fighting for the first officially, openly, aggressively, pro abortion republican presidential candidate in history, one who is officially rejecting the republican Party Platform on abortion.
I'm assuming that your continued personal attacks (I had also assumed that you are Catholic, or at least Christian, right?) are based on my willingness (not to be confused with eagerness) to provide exceptions for the life of the mother. This is not the same thing as supporting Mitt Romney. If you want to continue this conversation, I am asking you as a Christian to tone it down a bit. Getting rid of abortion is my #1 personal goal, and I am as emotional about it as you appear to be. Our differences are based on strategy. From my perspective, your rhetoric may make you feel morally superior, but it accomplishes nothing.
As an example: If abolishionists in the mid 19th century had been able to get behind a law that made all children born to slaves free men at that 18th birthday, might that have prevented the Civil War and accomplished their goal in a generation? Would they have been willing to make this concession? Would they have been able to convince a majority of the American people to accept this compromise?
Now apply it to the current situation? Strong words have accomplished nothing in three decades. A supermajority supports overturning Roe tomorrow with provisions for the life of the mother. Will a sizeable percentage of women suddenly present with mental health complaints. Undoubtedly. But the important point is that the debate will return to the states. And the health qualifications won't be the same in Utah as they are in Massachusettes. As a result millions of lives could be saved. So, again, if it helps your personal ego to continue making childish accusations it is your right to do so, but I'm done with you.