No, you can´t have it both ways.

You can´t be pro-abortion and pro-life.

The DemonRats don´t have any intention of making abortion rare. It is already legal and common. They want it to be free and accepted as normal and no big deal.

The "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" branch of the Republican party gave California over to the Democrats, because they don´t have any real principles to inspire voters.

There´s a couple who had a healthy baby boy that´s suing the clinic because they gave the mom vitamins instead of birth control pills by accident. Instead of enjoying the blessings of a healthy baby,they want to make a quick buck off the clinic. Luckily the judge ruled against them but let open the angle of mental anguish for another suit.All this shows in the varying degree on the value of a baby.

Obama´s free birth control in Obamacare doesn´t even reach the women most likely to have an unwanted pregnancy,all it´s doing is driving premiums up.

Look, the republicans ran a pro-abortion candidate, romney, and that still was not enough. They ran a man who signed gay marriage into law. Not enough. They ran a man who signed government managed healthcare into law. Not enough. The republicans cannot out dem the dems. But, by trying to do what they ARE doing, I´ll bet they lose a lot of republican voters. They lost this one.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion law would go back to the states. And my guess is at least one-third of the states would outlaw abortion, with the ususal exceptions.

And then women could be arrested, convicted and sentenced to I would asssume at least 10 years in prison (abortion is murder after all; and the notion that you could charge the abortion provider and let the woman off is ludicrous).

There would be such a backlash to imprisoning women that every governor who criminlized abortion would be thrown out of office. So be careful for what you wish for. And a large number of those who call themselves pro-life don´t want to criminalize abortion, they want to change minds.

That is a lovely straw man you´ve built there, #4. I especially like the fancy hat. It pulls it all together.

If Roe V Wade were declared unconstitutional tomorrow (which it is BTW) nothing will change overnight or even in the near future. Ultimately there will be exceptions applied with varying degrees of strictness in 2/3 of the states. The remaining 1/3 will become unrestricted abortion mills. For a pregnant woman who wants an abortion the major change is that it will be free and available in the usual locations (Chicago, NYC etc.) even if the fetus is eminently viable. And the matter will disappear from the national debate.

GOP counts on conservatives to stick with them, thinking that most conservatives are, after all, stupid, and that most will remain with the party regardless of its move to the left.

In some cases, they´re right. But where they´re wrong, is where they think most conservatives are stupid. They will lose badly on that miscalculation, and will soon be extinct.

#4 & #6 -- I would argue that this is NOT a states´ right issue. This is EXACTLY the same debate our country was having in the 1850s regarding slavery. Under our Federal Constitution, it is either (a) acceptable to own another person and deem that person to be "property" OR (b) It is not acceptable because a person is not property to be "owned" by another person.

Either (a) the willing murder of an unborn (yet human) child in the womb is perfectly acceptable and upheld by the U.S. Constitution or (b) It is not acceptable because our U.S. Constitution clearly does NOT makes allowances for the right of one person to willfully terminate the live of another person. And furthermore, the Declaration of Independence declares that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So, if we allow murder clinics in Massachusetts, but not in Georgia, is it ok because Massachusetts just decides it´s okay with killing babies? If Massachusetts decides tomorrow to legalize the sex-trade should we just turn a blind eye as a nation and say, "Eh, that´s a states´ rights issue?"

No, it´s a state issue and I have never understood how pro or con abortion became the dividing line over who could or could not be considered politically conservative. Politics is about the economy, the nation´s security, our constitutional laws. Gay marriage, nationalized health benefits, abortion and way too many crimes should never ever have been morphed into federal issues and federal control.

It is a Federal issue because it is a Constitutional issue.

5th Amendment:

No person shall... be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; [emphasis mine]

#9 -- You need to re-read the Constitution and get a better understanding of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights exists for the sole purpose of protecting the INDIVIDUAL. An individual inside a womb is still an individual. WHO is an individual doesn´t get to be determined by the states. Again, that issue was resolved by the Civil War and the entire nation paid an awful price for declaring certain people, "property", instead of people. Over half a million died.

There will be a national reckoning for abortion. I don´t know the exact form it will take, but it´s coming.

Also, thank you #10.

The slavery issue is the perfect analogy. The pro-aborts claim it is a woman´s body, i.e., her "property". It just baffles me how GOP thinks that by moving left they will gain more voters. They will lose conservatives in droves and will never "out-left" the left, so it is pointless to try. They will gain nothing and quite possibly lose everything.

The real point is that abortion should be pushed out of a political spotlight. It´s not a political cause, or shouldn´t be. I fail to understand those voters, liberal or conservative, who would support or fail to support a political candidate solely because of that candidate´s view on abortion. It makes absolutely no sense.

Well, #5, it´s not a straw man to point out that women with resources will simply travel as far as is required to procure an abortion. It has always been that way, up to and including going to another country. I´d like to think their minds and hearts could be changed, but I´m a pessimist and I would imagine that if they are women of means, they´re quite used to having things their way.