Replies

We had 20 years of pro-life presidents (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) and not one of them denied a woman to an abortion.

That's correct. But, that hasn't stopped the left from demagoging every Republican on the threat that they might try. And, it is a factor in every US Senate election, due to their role in Supreme Court confirmations.

All you have to see is what happens when a Republican makes a comment like Akin did. It becomes national news. The state-run media turns it into an issue for every Republican candidate, who is put on the defensive. You aren't going to change that.

Look, I told the original poster that he wouldn't like it. I was wrong about him, but I was right about you.

Until the Republican party accepts the issue as settled and moves on, or forges a compromise with Democrats and finds a middle ground, they will continue to lose national elections -- because it will be resurrected every election as a "war on women" meme.

Of course, there aren't Democrats that will be willing to compromise, either. They have their own activists that would never let them.

Without a strong economy, we will go the way of Greece, and France, and the UK: stagnation, and eventually failure. If that occurs, abortion issues will be the least of our worries.

My personal opinion about abortion is probably very close to yours. But, I consider economic issues to be far more important, and any chance the Republicans have to win on those issues are negated by their intransigence on abortion (and a couple of other issues).

I'm going to have to disagree, rather flatly. It's one thing to say "let's save the fiscal situation"... but if we give the "sad tip of the hat" to child-murder (for the sake of "fiscal expediency"), then what are we "saving the fiscal situation" FOR? Trade babies for cell-phones and cable? We need to remember that money is here as a mere object to serve US, not the other way around. I really don't want to be in a world where everything is "fiscally solvent" at the cost of destroying every possible reason for a morally upright person to live.

Seriously: for anyone who claims to believe in God, this sort of idea is lunacy; hell and eternity are forever, and money is not. If we make money a god (i.e. are willing to sacrifice anything and everything in order to protect it), then we deserve all the slavery and agony that "god" dishes out against us.

“Until the Republican party accepts the issue as settled and moves on”

Some issues are simply unacceptable.

The economy is more important? How many Germans said that in the 1940s?

How many southerners said that in the 1860s?

If accepting thousands of murders per day is good for the economy, you are willing to accept that?

Until the Republican party accepts the issue as settled and moves on

Incorrect. In fact, the thing to do with the abortion issue is to INCREASE the frequency of discussion about it, at the demotic level.

Look - after Roe v. Wade in 1973, support for abortion on demand (aka elective abortion) was in the high 70% range. It is now around 40-45%. What happened? Reasonable pro-lifers (i.e. the non-dead-baby-blood-throwing type) engaged the culture at the demotic level and changed a lot of peoples' minds. Continue that, and we'll see the change we want. Giving up on the issue, or going the other direction and taking the absolutist position that many on Free Republic (but not many outside of FR) want, are NOT the ways to go.

First and foremost needs to be the repeal of Roe v. Wade, coupled with the widespread knowledge that doing so won't "abolish abortion" but will throw it back to states where it belongs.