Giuliani could easily be the one republican with a shot at winning and this is why. I would ADVISE people to avoid abortions in 90% of the cases I hear about, but that other ten percent includes cases compelling enough that the idea of outlawing abortions strikes me as basically a bad idea.
I think you win the award for the most poorly-reasoned post of the morning. First, to say that he's the only Republican with a shot at winning because he's pro-abortion is just silly: President Bush is the most pro-life president we've had, and he won two elections that way.
Second, why would you "ADVISE" people to avoid abortions in 90% of the cases you hear about? What's wrong with it? Either it's killing an innocent child or it's not. If it's not, there's no reason to ban it. If it is, though, that child deserves the full protection of the law just as if it had already been born. To "advise" people to avoid it, or to act like there's something wrong with it but not something in which the state has an interest, is to sidestep the core question and try to have things both ways. But you can't have it both ways: either it's a person or it's not.
OK. I'll bite. Please describe the kind of cases you feel should keep abortion from being outlawed and explain why those particular cases could not be excluded in a law that bans abortion in general.