[PapaBear3625]

Again, this isn’t about Love. It’s about your post 88.

OK, I said "Personally, I think it's sufficient that she's in favor of any sort of reduction in government support for abortion, which is a position that is very much more pro-life than her Dem challenger."

What I mean is that as long as the candidate:

(1) Is in favor of reducing abortion in some way (in Mia's case, ending federal funding for it), and

(2) Will not vote in favor of any pro-abortion legislation, nor vote against any pro-life legislation, nor make public statements against pro-lifers or supporting pro-aborts

Then that candidate has my support even if she refrains from making statements like "I vow to make abolishing abortion my #1 priority while in office".

[Elsie]

(1) Is in favor of reducing abortion in some way (in Mia's case, ending federal funding for it), and
(2) Will not vote in favor of any pro-abortion legislation, nor vote against any pro-life legislation, nor make public statements against pro-lifers or supporting pro-aborts

...in some way...

HMMMmmm...

I guess this would be like docking a boxer puppy's tail.

Take it off, a joint at a time, over a long period, so he wouldn't be so traumatized at losing it all at once.