I kinda respect your friend's choice too, but (1) dang I hate "litmus tests" and (2) you might be able to reason with him that a Democratic administration might actually succeed in reducing the net number of abortions performed. As such: Democrats will fund social programs that support people who might otherwise say "no way I can afford a baby." And they'd support social programs that help pregnant girls get through to adoption rather than having to panic and have an abortion. Whereas the Bush administration (NOT specifically any other Republican mind you) refuses to fund any program that might possibly be interpreted as helping anyone with anything.
Well, that's perhaps a little harsh - but not much. I'm sure you get the gist of what I'm saying.
And Bush's battle to outlaw abortion (oh God, the carnage) would be a MUCH harder battle to fight than getting a few relatively inexpensive social programs in place. No?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-09-08 02:45 pm (UTC)Well, that's perhaps a little harsh - but not much. I'm sure you get the gist of what I'm saying.
And Bush's battle to outlaw abortion (oh God, the carnage) would be a MUCH harder battle to fight than getting a few relatively inexpensive social programs in place. No?