While I think legal abortion is disgusting and abhorent, I can certainly see the logic behind an argument that we should refrain from making abortion a central issue in campaigns if that issue is causing us to lose elections. IOW, get elected first, using whatever issues necessary to do so, and then work on eliminating abortion. I don’t really think that’s necessary since the majority is on our side on this issue, but I can understand the argument.
Yeah, I understand that as well. While a position on abortion itself is non-negotiable, I would think that there could be healthy debate among pro-life people about the best way to achieve that goal.
The only way to end (some)abortion(s) is by overturning Roe v. Wade. As long as it stands, anything we try to do will be overturned. If a politician is pro-choice death, I could live with it if I knew that as president, he/she would nominate judges of the Thomas/Alito/Scalia ilk, and that as a senator would vote to confirm such judges.
However, I don't see how/why we could take pro-life out of our platform unless we are agreeing with the death-mongers that abortion is okie-dokie.
I didn’t see the original thread. And agree with Jim Robinson’s statements about this being a pro life site, but understand that there’s a difference between political mechanics and belief/ideaology.
I hope the person in question wasn’t banned for the former. Discussions of political mechanics, even heated ones, oftentimes have a way of producing ideas that drive better solutions than the participants had, individually, going into the discussion.