[Dan Calabrese]

Hiya.

No I’m not. I’m trying to urge the pro-life movement to focus its efforts in a direction by which it can save a lot more babies than it is saving - or ever will have any hopes of saving - by trying to do it through politics.

[BlackElk]

Dan Calabrese: Whatever your internal intentions, you are wrong on Caesar and wrong on policy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using government to cram a pro-life policy down the throats of its opponents as the opponents have forced the murder of 50+ million innocent babies under Roe vs. Wade on us. We are conservatives not libertarians. We are not joining in your apparent effort to water down conservatism (or Christianity) to elect baby killer “Republicans.” If the babies are at risk, so are the materialist interests and stock portfolios of the libertarian amorality cheerleaders.

[Ol' Sparky]

I’m trying to urge the pro-life movement to focus its efforts in a direction by which it can save a lot more babies than it is saving - or ever will have any hopes of saving - by trying to do it through politics.

The best way to save the lives if the unborn is to overturn Roe. Presuming, we're only one vote away on the Supreme Court from doing so, the most important objective for pro-lifers would be elect a pro-life President dedicated to getting justices on the court to overturn Roe.

Another objective should be to stop Rudolph Giuliani from turning the Republican party into a pro-abortion party. If that happens, any attempt to reduce abortion at the Federal level and through the courts will be eliminated.

And, I don't think any pro-lifer opposes means other than political ones to reduce abortion. But, that doesn't mean pro-lifers should give up the political and legislative fight, which has been used to save the lives of the unborn.