> > The one thing about the abortion issue (which I do not believe is the most important issue in the election)...
>
> The proper time frame for responding to this seems to be long past, and so when a response first formulated in my head during my commute, I figured I wouldn't bother. The thing is, the thoughts have kept churning in my head, demanding expression. And so I'm going to give them that.
>
> The following post is NOT a discussion of pro-life vs. pro-choice. Please do not make it one.
>
> After reading the quoted line above, I was quick to agree. There are problems more important that are facing our nation today. But then I started to think, is there? After some more thought, I came to the conclusion that someone who is pro-choice may or may not feel that it is the most important issue facing our nation today, but someone who is pro-life such as myself, at least by the line of reasoning that gets me there, MUST consider it the most important problem facing our nation today.
>

Sam, you have misinterpreted what I said. I said "issue", not "problem".

I still stand by my statement that abortion is not the most important issue in a [presidential] election.

What is to be done in a presidential election is to find someone who will be the best choice to lead the nation. There are only two things the President of the United States could do to change the abortion situation in our nation: signing/vetoing a law passed by Congress and replacing vacancies on the Supreme Court. The President can go on and on about protecting "women's rights" or about how abortion is murder and it won't make any lasting legal change. He can only do one of those two things. During the course of a President's term, he may not even have a chance to one of them.

Someone in the role of the President can make sweeping changes in other venues. It is more realistic to think that President Bush (or President Gore) will be able to make lasting strides in relations with other countries, solve the medical insurance problem, improve public schools, and reshape our nation's military than to think that they ever will solve the abortion issue.

If you want to talk about trying to solve the abortion issue and want the government to do so, you're going to have to look at the House and the Senate races and your state's legistlatures -- they're going to be the ones to propose and pass a constitutional amendment. The President will not be able to do that.

As far as the Presidency is concerned, I'd rather vote for someone who can actually do something while in office, not for someone who thinks the same way I do on _one issue_ that he will be unlikely able to act on.

That _one issue_ thing is what really bothers me. People are ready to let our space program, our military, our social programs, our education system, or whatever you really care about go to hell just because they are blinded by the abortion issue and don't realize who can actually solve it.

As an aside, it seems that you wrote some of the above to be directed at me (if I'm mistaken, you have my apologies). You and I agree on the pro-life and pro-choice camps. I would go one step farther and call the people who believe that abortion is wrong, except in the case of rape or incest, to be hypocritical. If you believe it's murder, then it's murder, whether the child was wanted or not. As to the "mother's life is in danger" argument, I am really torn about that. One person is going to die -- if it's a point where they're going to lose the child anyway, then the child's life should be ended and the mother saved. If the child might live and the mother might die... well, I'd vote to save the mother, but I'd still have a hard time sleeping that night.

-Faux "probably for several nights" Pas