> 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.

OK, being Canadian, I don't know too much about how these things work. However, my roommate told me that he heard that the way things are right now, it is VERY likely that the next president will get to select THREE supreme court judges... That is a HUGE amount of moral influence, since the president is likely to select people with similar moral beliefs to himself. Thus, if all this is true, it may be quite reasonable to select this particular president on the basis of morality alone... That may be the only difference that will be made. In so many other ways, it seems very likely that neither presidential candidate will make too many lasting changes, so this may be it... But again, I'm just a Canadian, so what do I know, eh? ;-)

> 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.

I totally agree with you there... Can you imagine having to make that decision? Can you imagine being the mother (or the father) in that case? (Rhetorical question, I know that thinking about that kind of thing could drive you mad... If anyone here at RinkWorks has ever been in that sort of position or been close to someone who has, my heart goes out to you...)

> -Faux "probably for several nights" Pas

Don