I can tell you what I think.

I am from Canada, and in our last federal election this became a major issue, considering that the newly chosen leader of our opposition party, the Canadian Alliance, was strongly pro-life.

As a side note, I realize the political ramifications of terminology in debates on this issue; I will henceforth dispense with political correctness in favor of communicative expediency.

So, in Canada, abortion is legal, at the federal level and in all provinces, and is paid for under all (as far as I know) provincial health plans. The leader of the Liberal party and the current Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, as well as the leader of the Progressive Conservative party, Joe Clark, turned the abortion issue into a live one, as both are pro-choice. Canada, being a moderate country, has about one half or more of its citizens moderately pro-choice, slightly more pro-choice for men, and a fair amount less for women.

Now, in Canada, the Supreme Court makes rulings on such issues, and the Canadian Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the Prime Minister, so they, too, are a fairly moderate to liberal bunch. The Canadian Alliance ran on a platform that included a clause that would allow for legally binding referenda (I think the correct term is plebiscite)for all issues on which a majority of Canadians felt they should have a say. This included the issue of the legality of abortion. Chretien and Clark focused on this issue and spun it to make it seem as though Day (the leader of the CA) would push his own pro-life agenda by forcing a vote on the issue.

Because Canada has basically a party system, I voted for my local Canadian Alliance candidate. Despite the fact that my local candidate had a pro-life stance, a moral and legal view to which I also subscribe, I did not vote for him for that reason; in fact, it had little bearing on my vote at all. In general, being what many would call a 'social conservative', I try to vote for candidates with whom I agree on important moral issues in the social arena. But whether a candidate was pro-life or pro-choice, specifically, has little bearing on my vote, as it is unlikely that a candidate would have any power to legally change such an issue without a government of such candidates established for time enough to replace the current Supreme Court Justices (or most of them, at least).

If, however, it were the case that my candidate were able to make legal changes to the status of abortion in my country by his or her vote, his or her stance on abortion would be quite important, though still not the most important issue in his or her platform.

This has become rather long. To summarize, a candidate's stance on abortion is an important, though by no means primary, factor I use to decide whether I will vote for said candidate. I believe that using the issue as a 'litmus test', especially in the media, is probably irresponsible, especially considering that it is usually relegated to the status of a scare tactic used against pro-life candidates. This was certainly the case with Day in the Canadian federal election; though he repeatedly pointed out the impossibility of his changing the issue by his will alone, and that he would govern according to what the people would decide, this issue, among others particular to his religion, basically blacklisted him among voters.

Far more important than whether a particular candidate is pro-life or pro-choice is, for me, the actual character of the candidate, and their stated views about how they will govern. Their stated views are important, simply to know how a candidate will govern; his or her moral character is important to know about, so that I can know whether they can be trusted enough to follow through. I find that candidates who fail in the latter almost universally fail to keep their promises from the former ...

Fr "may not vote again because he has never had a candidate voted in in his voting history" um