[TheRealVille]

Okay, I'll play. I already posted at length on this very topic recently. According to the NY Times a mere 1% if all abortions are rape/incest, well being of mother related. If I were running for president I wouldn't support abortion for any reason other than a life threatening situation for the mother. In that case, the number of abortions is miniscule. The actual percentage of abortions directly associated as being a threat to the mother's life is 0.006%, according to a study done in England. (And even then, IMO it should be a decision made by the family involved on a case by case basis.) That's about 384 out of over 6 million abortions done every 4 years here in the USA. So you tell me, is 384 a better number than something north of 6 million every presidential term? But back to you're effort to make me look shallow. If I get to pick, you can bet your last dollar I'll be going with the 1% candidate as opposed to the sky's the limit candidate.

Now, if Romney were to ask me, I'd be more than happy to share my views with him. In the meantime, if we have a president willing to lead the way to rape/incest, health of mother abortions only. We would be saving the lives of 5,940,000 unborn innocents every 4 years while loosing an admittedly still unacceptable, 60,000 lives every 4 years.

Considering the above, I can very happily support Romney over the murderous abortion policy of the present admimistration.

Romney said "it was a matter of the courts, and had already been settled by the courts". Romney basically is saying he has the same views as Obama, where Obama said the subject was "above his pay grade". What you are saying, is that you will vote for your party(conservatives, since I already know you are registered democrat), when they have the same view, even when that view is for abortion, even though you have said you wouldn't support somebody that supports abortion.