What I don't understand is what you think electing a President who will put the same emphasis on this issue that you do can accomplish, in the absence of moral conversion of the pro-death population, or at least a significant number of them.
Abortion is a moral problem. Voting, and electing Members of Congress and Presidents, CANNOT solve the root problem.
That's why I can vote for a candidate who is wrong on this issue. Politics and political life can't solve moral problems - they can only reflect, or measure up to, the virtue or vice of the people who are doing the choosing.
There is in my opinion no legislative solution for the abortion problem, given the level of vice in our society.
Of course Roe can be and will be overturned. A constitutional order cannot survive the naked assertion of power which lies behind Roe.
But after Roe goes, I don't believe that the number of abortions will fall - it may even rise as legislatures compete with each other to be more permissive than other states.
Can you explain to me what your goals in electing a "pro-life" President are, which will make progress that has not been achieved already by twenty years of "pro-life" Presidents from 1981-1993 and 2001-the present?
And, as I've said, if there are enough primary voters who feel as you do, Rudy can't be nominated. But I think that remains to be seen.
Three responses to that.
First, we've seen that a pro-life president and two pro-life judges can both get a PBA ban signed and upheld by SCOTUS. So Roe could fall as well in the near future. Pro-lifers in position of power matter.
Second, the American populace has gradually drifted more to the pro-life position. Having a pro-lifer in the bully pulpit is critical to continue that motion. Having a guy with a 100 percent NARAL rating as the standard bearer for the GOP would grossly undermine that position of leadership that the GOP has taken for the pro-life movement.
And third, at the end of the day, even if you cannot effect the change you want as quickly as you want it, if you believe that abortion is murder, it is impossible to rationalize away your vote on a guy like Rudy who is so far left on the abortion issue.
It would be, and has been defined as a mortal sin in my neck of the woods, whenever there is a choice of candidates, to vote for someone who is clearly pro-abortion, pro-Euthanasia, and related areas.
There are clear theological reasons that I agree with this definition; infanticide has pretty much been anti-Christian and considered heinous most of the history of Christianity.
Moreover, it’s not a case of pick and choose. If it’s murder (i.e., the immoral taking of life), it’s murder and my voting for someone who publicly states that in his opinion, it isn’t that bad, and the government ought to pay for it would be assenting to the immoral taking of life by the auspices of the government.
It’s not a case of “today this will be less sinful than tomorrow or it was yesterday.” If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. There is no fudge room.
You are asking me to commit a major wrong for political expediency. I don’t do moral relativism, or I try not to, any way.
I am not going to commit a mortal sin to keep the GOP happy. That’s all there is to it.
By which standard, you could comfortably vote for Pol Pot and against Ronald Reagan. It is no standard at all.
The question is not whether the state can outlaw original sin. Of course it can't. The question is how we can use politics, election campaigns and elective office to teach and reinforce moral values. It isn't the electing that does any good, it's the teaching. Teddy Roosevelt called the presidency a "bully pulpit." When JFK was shot, Barry Goldwater knew he was doomed to lose badly. He nevertheless accepted his party's nomination in order to teach the then-new conservative philosophy and its goals.
The general problem with a Giuliani is that, having taken a pro-abortion position, he is morally unfitted to use his campaign to teach that it is wrong to kill babies. People always react badly to that kind of hypocrisy. In contrast, they respond most positively to a statement of principle by a candidate who has maintained higher standards and who speaks with personal conviction.