Republicans should give up on abortion.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

We lost in 2006 and 2008 because we betrayed our real base.  Our "base", the fundamentalists hijacked our message and twisted it into their own freakish political agenda and we allowed it because the means justify the ends.  Unfortunately Bush was the means and he took us to a very different ends.  We lost our credibility in fact-based responsible governance.  That's what our base supports and we haven't actually acted upon those principles in years.  That's why we lost.  Our message was destroyed and turned into a vehicle for the Baptists' social crusade.

Dude, get real. We lost in 2006 because of Iraq. Sure, the base wasn't motivated because of fiscal betrayal as well but that's not what cost us Congress.

I love the use of the word "fundamentalist." It's your code for social conservatives. You want to isolate us and still expect to win? That's incredibly naive.

I'm a fiscal/economic conservative as well, my friend, but don't try to move what is equally important to me out of the debate just because you don't like it.

That is because fezzyfestoon is an anti religious person who wants to censor those who disagree. Why are you surprised?

[RIP Robert H Bork]

They should make it a states rights issue like Ron Paul advocated. The state parties than should decide on their own but they should give it up as an issue in states like California.

why? Federalism for the sake of federalism is just as stupid as the alternative. Some things are genuinely solved better at state level, no question, but why abortion? Seems like a moral issue shouldn't have 50 seperate sets of rules.

I agree. States' rights just for the sake of states' rights is stupid.

Some issues are better determined on the local levels, but it is beyond me as to why some pro lifers think of this as a states' rights issue.

The pro lifers could justify a federal ban on abortion, instead of leaving it to the states, by saying that it is not right that the unborn are protected in some states, like Utah, but not in other states, like Washington. A similar argument could even be used by the pro choicers: "why is choice allowed in Maryland but not in Oklahoma?". Then again, there are hardly any pro choicers who hold that abortion is a states' rights issue.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

They should make it a states rights issue like Ron Paul advocated. The state parties than should decide on their own but they should give it up as an issue in states like California.

why? Federalism for the sake of federalism is just as stupid as the alternative. Some things are genuinely solved better at state level, no question, but why abortion? Seems like a moral issue shouldn't have 50 seperate sets of rules.

I agree. States' rights just for the sake of states' rights is stupid.

Some issues are better determined on the local levels, but it is beyond me as to why some pro lifers think of this as a states' rights issue.

The pro lifers could justify a federal ban on abortion, instead of leaving it to the states, by saying that it is not right that the unborn are protected in some states, like Utah, but not in other states, like Washington. A similar argument could even be used by the pro choicers: "why is choice allowed in Maryland but not in Oklahoma?". Then again, there are hardly any pro choicers who hold that abortion is a states' rights issue.

This is why I think we need to uphold Roe v. Wade. Why have it legal in one place and not in another? It just causes too many problems.

Why do you say "we"? I do not "need" to uphold Roe versus Wade, nor do I think the same as you do. Further, you entirely disregarded my other points. I said that it went both ways, but you are acting as if pro lifers cannot use that argument too.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

They should make it a states rights issue like Ron Paul advocated. The state parties than should decide on their own but they should give it up as an issue in states like California.

why? Federalism for the sake of federalism is just as stupid as the alternative. Some things are genuinely solved better at state level, no question, but why abortion? Seems like a moral issue shouldn't have 50 seperate sets of rules.

I agree. States' rights just for the sake of states' rights is stupid.

Some issues are better determined on the local levels, but it is beyond me as to why some pro lifers think of this as a states' rights issue.

The pro lifers could justify a federal ban on abortion, instead of leaving it to the states, by saying that it is not right that the unborn are protected in some states, like Utah, but not in other states, like Washington. A similar argument could even be used by the pro choicers: "why is choice allowed in Maryland but not in Oklahoma?". Then again, there are hardly any pro choicers who hold that abortion is a states' rights issue.

This is why I think we need to uphold Roe v. Wade. Why have it legal in one place and not in another? It just causes too many problems.

Why do you say "we"? I do not "need" to uphold Roe versus Wade, nor do I think the same as you do. Further, you entirely disregarded my other points. I said that it went both ways, but you are acting as if pro lifers cannot use that argument too.

Dude, we get that you aren't like me. You think the GOP needs to be pro-life and march arm in arm with all the fetuses till we ban all killing of them. Until someone can actually PROVE life begins at CONCEPTION, we shouldn't ban it anywhere. Don't like abortion? Fine! Don't chose to do it, but don't try to patrol other's lives who chose to do it. It is none of my concern.

Of course it can go both ways, but your thought process seems silly. Who is going to go across state lines to choose life? Are people going to come to homes and forcibly kill fetuses if the state is a pro-choice state?

It has been "proven" for a long time already. You merely are acting as though it is not, to justify your pro choice abortion stance.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

They should make it a states rights issue like Ron Paul advocated. The state parties than should decide on their own but they should give it up as an issue in states like California.

why? Federalism for the sake of federalism is just as stupid as the alternative. Some things are genuinely solved better at state level, no question, but why abortion? Seems like a moral issue shouldn't have 50 seperate sets of rules.

I agree. States' rights just for the sake of states' rights is stupid.

Some issues are better determined on the local levels, but it is beyond me as to why some pro lifers think of this as a states' rights issue.

The pro lifers could justify a federal ban on abortion, instead of leaving it to the states, by saying that it is not right that the unborn are protected in some states, like Utah, but not in other states, like Washington. A similar argument could even be used by the pro choicers: "why is choice allowed in Maryland but not in Oklahoma?". Then again, there are hardly any pro choicers who hold that abortion is a states' rights issue.

This is why I think we need to uphold Roe v. Wade. Why have it legal in one place and not in another? It just causes too many problems.

Why do you say "we"? I do not "need" to uphold Roe versus Wade, nor do I think the same as you do. Further, you entirely disregarded my other points. I said that it went both ways, but you are acting as if pro lifers cannot use that argument too.

Dude, we get that you aren't like me. You think the GOP needs to be pro-life and march arm in arm with all the fetuses till we ban all killing of them. Until someone can actually PROVE life begins at CONCEPTION, we shouldn't ban it anywhere. Don't like abortion? Fine! Don't chose to do it, but don't try to patrol other's lives who chose to do it. It is none of my concern.

Of course it can go both ways, but your thought process seems silly. Who is going to go across state lines to choose life? Are people going to come to homes and forcibly kill fetuses if the state is a pro-choice state?