Is America great?

[Sancocho]

That would be damning had I, in fact, done that. Sadly, no.

Please explain these comments then:

"I've already spoken to blaming one people's failure of character on another people's. As with the drug trade, the choices we make are ultimately our own and the responsibility for them also...that or you perpetuate the racist myth of a child like subculture led by the nose with ease."

My comment:

Furthermore, their drug consumption isn't even in the same universe as the US.

Your response:

Why is that important and what is that a counter to again? So they only turn tricks on Friday. They're more virtuous whores than the five days a week sort?


Again, I will repeat, America's drug problem is not because of the minority element of criminals that supply drugs in LA but due to the millions of drug addicted Americans that send billions of dollars to these criminals every year which the local police and military forces can never control. Even the US can barely control the drug trade and it is one of the richest countries in the world. The source of this problem are millions of American drug users, not a minority of criminals that supply the drugs.

I'll post links to the other thread where you reinvented the chart a little later, thanks. I think it would be instructive as to your methodology and mindset.

Please understand you cannot redefine homicide nor science. Per the lexical and scientific definition a human life is created at birth and taking said life is homicide. Making the argument that abortion is not homicide is siding with the godless who will do and say anything to support their cause. Are you willing to stoop so low to try to make an argument? A servant of Christ always tells the truth even if it personally hurts them or causes them to suffer.

 

[Shasta]

After seeing this sort of "we're all about to be persecuted" meme from so many different fundamentalists, so often, I'm convinced that you guys want this to happen.

After seeing this sort of "we're all about to be persecuted" meme from so many different fundamentalists, so often, I'm convinced that you guys want this to happen.

That is a silly conclusion. I do not think anyone who has suffered so far from Gay Activism would say they looked forward to being shut down, and fined.

The fact is the Gay Activist lobby is already persecuting Christians. What else do you call targeting and bankrupting that couple who owned the cake shop when there were many other cake shops that would have made the Gay cake? The Activists sought this one out to make a point. They wanted to make an example of this couple to coerce others into submission through fear. You see, it is not enough that homosexual "marriage" is allowed. This ruling will be taken by Liberals as a social mandate and such matters as religious liberty and freedom of conscience will take a back seat. As the President said, people of faith must adjust their beliefs to match this policy. It's high time we changed eternal verities.

Is it really so unreasonable to think that homosexual "marriage" will not only be allowed but actively propagated as The Official State Truth? Why not? The Court and the Chief Executive are both in agreement. How much more authority needs to be given to it. Now it must be taught to children in public schools. Teachers and parents must be forced to comply regardless of their personal convictions. Already there is a dispute over gay propaganda being introduced into the Children's section of a School library. Also, since the Official Truth applies to all Faith organizations public dissent must be silenced, just as the court put a gag order on the owners of that cake shop.

The Gay activists see themselves as victims and therefore feel justified in abusing others. They will not be content with being able to make legal contracts of "marriage" They want us to participate. They want to make us see what they do. They want to hear us say that their practices are right and good. Those who do not cooperate with the State's campaign will be fined, taxed, dismissed or have their property confiscated or be shut down as Catholic orphanages were shut down in Mass. You are naive to think there will be no persecution. It has already begun.

 

[Town Heretic]

Please explain these comments then:

"I've already spoken to blaming one people's failure of character on another people's. As with the drug trade, the choices we make are ultimately our own and the responsibility for them also...that or you perpetuate the racist myth of a child like subculture led by the nose with ease."

That would be me noting that people are responsible for their own actions. The peoples in that case would be the suppliers as opposed to those creating the demand. Both have moral and legal culpability for their actions. So a prostitute and a John are both individually responsible for their part in breaking the law.

My comment:

Furthermore, their drug consumption isn't even in the same universe as the US.

Your response:

Why is that important and what is that a counter to again? So they only turn tricks on Friday. They're more virtuous whores than the five days a week sort?

Right, noting a lesser degree of the problem has nothing to do with the problem itself or the morality and legality attached.

Again, I will repeat, America's drug problem is not because of the minority element of criminals that supply drugs in LA but

That wasn't our difference. The why of drug use varies, from too much money and too little self control to simple addiction and the desire to escape circumstances, to a simple love of the chemical rush and state.

Please understand you cannot redefine homicide nor science.

You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the statistics as complied by the principles involved in charting the thing. What you're doing is misleading. That's why the U.S. didn't even rank in the top 25 countries relative to that particular designation until you got creative with your math.

Per the lexical and scientific definition a human life is created at birth

Life is created when something new is introduced, which would be conception. There's no scientific basis for withholding that recognition until birth. Birth is merely the arbitrary point where legal status and right has been unambiguoulsy conferred by every existing state/compact on the planet.

and taking said life is homicide.

That's legal, not scientific and you can actually be charged with a criminal and unjustifiable homicide before birth, in this country.

Making the argument that abortion is not homicide is siding with the godless who will do and say anything to support their cause.

It really isn't. But trying to paint a culture as violent by swelling those numbers with abortions isn't an honest approach.

A servant of Christ always tells the truth even if it personally hurts them or causes them to suffer.

Complete nonsense. "Are there any Jews in your house sir?"

"No, no there aren't." By way of, but I wasn't speaking less than the truth in disputing your practice. Again, I'll set out links in a bit and a few notes of what I'm particularly speaking to. I'm a bit busy and only in and out in bursts at present. No time to hunt them.

 

[Sancocho]

That would be me noting that people are responsible for their own actions. The peoples in that case would be the suppliers as opposed to those creating the demand. Both have moral and legal culpability for their actions. So a prostitute and a John are both individually responsible for their part in breaking the law.


Right, noting a lesser degree of the problem has nothing to do with the problem itself or the morality and legality attached.


That wasn't our difference. The why of drug use varies, from too much money and too little self control to simple addiction and the desire to escape circumstances, to a simple love of the chemical rush and state.


You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the statistics as complied by the principles involved in charting the thing. What you're doing is misleading. That's why the U.S. didn't even rank in the top 25 countries relative to that particular designation until you got creative with your math.


Life is created when something new is introduced, which would be conception. There's no scientific basis for withholding that recognition until birth. Birth is merely the arbitrary point where legal status and right has been unambiguoulsy conferred by every existing state/compact on the planet.


That's legal, not scientific and you can actually be charged with a criminal and unjustifiable homicide before birth, in this country.


It really isn't. But trying to paint a culture as violent by swelling those numbers with abortions isn't an honest approach.


Complete nonsense. "Are there any Jews in your house sir?"

"No, no there aren't." By way of, but I wasn't speaking less than the truth in disputing your practice. Again, I'll set out links in a bit and a few notes of what I'm particularly speaking to. I'm a bit busy and only in and out in bursts at present. No time to hunt them.

I can see that your goal is to argue.

I will pray to Jesus to break your bondage to the "principles charged in charting this thing", who in fact are the propaganda arm of the Planned Parenthood who have been falsifying statistics since abortion was approved in the US. Peace.

 

[Town Heretic]

I can see that your goal is to argue.

No, but it tends to happen when someone speaks a thing contrary to your understanding in a public forum...you have to expect that sort of thing. Else, it's like feigning surprise when at some point in a musical people burst into song and dance.

I will pray to Jesus to break your bondage

I think that after the ever popular game play charge, directly or indirectly advance, the surest sign of someone in argumentative trouble is to wrap themselves in the Holy and pretend the other fellow must be in league or enthralled.

So you're on a real roll.

 

[Sancocho]

I think that after the ever popular game play charge, directly or indirectly advance, the surest sign of someone in argumentative trouble is to wrap themselves in the Holy and pretend the other fellow must be in league or enthralled.

So you're on a real roll.

You are promoting the abortionists argument based on what? That since they control the forum in the US we must obey them??????

YOU have the ability to think on your own. Believe it.

 

[Town Heretic]

You are promoting the abortionists argument based on what?

I'm not promoting abortion at all. In fact, I frequently fight with doofi attempting to justify it. And your science says was and is wrong headed as answers go.

The rational rejection of abortion is a product of agreement. We agree in our compact that at some point rights attach, fundamental to them the right to exist. This right cannot be abrogated absent a fairly horrific violation of the compact that safeguards it (murder, mostly).

Here I stand with those inarguable and full rights vested. Looking back along my chronological being at what point can that right be divested absent the application of an arbitrary standard that is no more or less objectively certain than another?

The unborn have not abrogated the compact. The unborn are arguably fully vested in right with no way to objectively and definitively choose between the otherwise arbitrary valuations for asserting right, from conception to birth.

So, regardless of where we believe right vests the only way to guarantee that we do not abrogate that which we agree we have no right to is to protect life at every point along that chronological line.

That since they control the forum in the US we must obey them??????

That bears no relation to any point I've ever made on the subject.

YOU have the ability to think on your own. Believe it.

Without question. :e4e:

 

[The Barbarian]

So while it is true there was a nominal decrease in abortions the unprecedented AMOUNT compared to other causes clearly demonstrates a grave problem.

One abortion would be a grave problem as far as I'm concerned, but let's look at your "nominal amount" claim:

I can't see any way to twist this into "bad news." At least it isn't for anyone who thinks abortion is a bad thing.

 

[Stripe]

One abortion would be a grave problem as far as I'm concerned, but let's look at your "nominal amount" claim:

I can't see any way to twist this into "bad news." At least it isn't for anyone who thinks abortion is a bad thing.

Hooray. We murdered slightly fewer babies than we did last year. lain:

 

[Sancocho]

One abortion would be a grave problem as far as I'm concerned, but let's look at your "nominal amount" claim:

I can't see any way to twist this into "bad news." At least it isn't for anyone who thinks abortion is a bad thing.

If your baseline is 1980 it is.

However, what if the baseline is 1965, as shown on the graph? There is a net gain of 60, hardly a reduction.

BTW, I will REPEAT you are using the tactics of abortionists to promote their cause. They manipulate data and by consequence public opinion as you apparently unwittingly demonstrate.

 

[Sancocho]

I'm not promoting abortion at all. In fact, I frequently fight with doofi attempting to justify it. And your science says was and is wrong headed as answers go.

The rational rejection of abortion is a product of agreement. We agree in our compact that at some point rights attach, fundamental to them the right to exist. This right cannot be abrogated absent a fairly horrific violation of the compact that safeguards it (murder, mostly).

Here I stand with those inarguable and full rights vested. Looking back along my chronological being at what point can that right be divested absent the application of an arbitrary standard that is no more or less objectively certain than another?

The unborn have not abrogated the compact. The unborn are arguably fully vested in right with no way to objectively and definitively choose between the otherwise arbitrary valuations for asserting right, from conception to birth.

So, regardless of where we believe right vests the only way to guarantee that we do not abrogate that which we agree we have no right to is to protect life at every point along that chronological line.


That bears no relation to any point I've ever made on the subject.


Without question. :e4e:

I have no idea what you are trying to say above but I think this quote from an earlier post is relevant:

Birth is merely the arbitrary point where legal status and right has been unambiguoulsy conferred by every existing state/compact on the planet.

This is of course FALSE. Most Latin American countries are signatories to the American Convention on Human Rights which protects human life FROM CONCEPTION.

Also, you cannot provide a scientific reference to refute my claim that a human life begins at conception. Furthermore, the abortion rights issue in the US resolves currently around FETAL VIABILITY, which will fall as science advances. Those of us in the prolife movement who know the issues know that we need to promote what science says in order to generate enough consensus so that a bill can be presented that recognizes what science has long known. In fact one attempt was made to do this but the Democrats shot it down of course.

Furthermore, the abortionists, knowing that fetal viability will fall are spending millions of dollars in Latina America promoting abortion as a justifiable homicide as they cannot take advantage of the legal loophole that was created by Roe vs Wade in the absence of a Nasciturus law. They are doing this to gain worldwide consensus for abortion as justifiable homicide, thus being able to resit any legal challenges in the States to abortion in the future. Ironically, they can't promote abortion as legal homicide now in the US because of the implications so they depend on a grey area between what the law and science say. This is how Planned Parenthood convinces young minority women to kill their children in fact. In keeping with PP racists and eugenics roots they have been very effective at using this propaganda to limit minorities from growing as a population because in inner city areas more black children die than are conceived. In fact the homicide rate in NYC is twice that of WWII.

If you are truly pro-life as you say and a servant of Christ you need to accept the truth and help us fight this horror before it is too late for our country as God will not sit back and do nothing as we slaughter our children at levels only seen during global modern warfare.

 

[Jose Fly]

That is a silly conclusion. I do not think anyone who has suffered so far from Gay Activism would say they looked forward to being shut down, and fined.

Maybe not the people actually involved in the case, but a lot of you on the sidelines seem to be cheering for there to be some sort of persecution. It's why so many Christians I see commenting on these cases have to exaggerate and make things up.

The fact is the Gay Activist lobby is already persecuting Christians. What else do you call targeting and bankrupting that couple who owned the cake shop when there were many other cake shops that would have made the Gay cake? The Activists sought this one out to make a point. They wanted to make an example of this couple to coerce others into submission through fear.

This is what I'm talking about. If you're referring to the Oregon case, you don't even have the basic facts right. The couple didn't "target" the bakery; they had had their cakes before, had seen them at a wedding show, and liked their cakes. That's why they went there (it's in the actual ruling).

You see, it is not enough that homosexual "marriage" is allowed. This ruling will be taken by Liberals as a social mandate and such matters as religious liberty and freedom of conscience will take a back seat. As the President said, people of faith must adjust their beliefs to match this policy. It's high time we changed eternal verities.

If you mean that "religious liberty" won't trump anti-discrimination laws, then yes, that's the way it should be. Just as we don't allow racists to cite religious liberty as an excuse to discriminate, we don't do the same with people who don't believe in gay marriage.

Is it really so unreasonable to think that homosexual "marriage" will not only be allowed but actively propagated as The Official State Truth?

What in the world does that even mean? "The Official State Truth"? :idunno:

The Court and the Chief Executive are both in agreement. How much more authority needs to be given to it.

Yes, the courts and executive branch both agree that gay couples have a legal right to get married.

Now it must be taught to children in public schools.

What exactly is being mandated to be taught? That gay people exist? That gay married couples exist? Given that most schools will have students from gay families, why is it so wrong to acknowledge their reality?

Teachers and parents must be forced to comply regardless of their personal convictions. Already there is a dispute over gay propaganda being introduced into the Children's section of a School library.

And by "gay propaganda", do you really mean "literature that acknowledges the fact that gays exist"?

Also, since the Official Truth applies to all Faith organizations public dissent must be silenced, just as the court put a gag order on the owners of that cake shop.

Again you don't have the facts right. The Commissioner prohibited the Kleins from publicly declaring that they discriminate against gays in their business. That's all, nothing more.

The Gay activists see themselves as victims

They are victims of discrimination.

and therefore feel justified in abusing others.

Who are they abusing?

They will not be content with being able to make legal contracts of "marriage" They want us to participate. They want to make us see what they do. They want to hear us say that their practices are right and good. Those who do not cooperate with the State's campaign will be fined, taxed, dismissed or have their property confiscated or be shut down as Catholic orphanages were shut down in Mass. You are naive to think there will be no persecution. It has already begun.

You seem to be almost excited at the prospect that your paranoid martyr fantasies might come true. How odd.

 

[Town Heretic]

I have no idea what you are trying to say above

I suspected you'd struggle, but it was worth a try. It was a rational argument against abortion.

but I think this quote from an earlier post is relevant:

Birth is merely the arbitrary point where legal status and right has been unambiguoulsy conferred by every existing state/compact on the planet.

This is of course FALSE.

I think it's your reading that's the trouble. I'm not saying that every country attaches the right at birth. I'm saying that birth is where legal status and right exists everywhere, that by this point no one argues against that status and right.

Also, it was in part responsive to your earlier claim:

...Per the lexical and scientific definition a human life is created at birth

Not even you appear to agree with that now.

Most Latin American countries are signatories to the American Convention on Human Rights which protects human life FROM CONCEPTION.

Which wouldn't be a scientific determination, supra.

Also, you cannot provide a scientific reference to refute my claim that a human life begins at conception.

Because science doesn't address and can't address the point, which is a valuation and philosophical point. Science isn't in the business of establishing right, but in recognizing fact.

Furthermore, the abortion rights issue in the US resolves currently around FETAL VIABILITY, which will fall as science advances.

Who's arguing the point?

Those of us in the prolife movement who know the issues know that we need to promote what science says

Science can only do so much and that in relation to lowering the point where a fetus is sustainable without the mother.

Furthermore, the abortionists, knowing that fetal viability will fall are spending millions of dollars in Latina America promoting abortion as a justifiable homicide

Then they have to be opposed, rationally and can be.

If you are truly pro-life as you say and a servant of Christ you need to accept the truth and help us fight this horror before it is too late for our country as God will not sit back and do nothing as we slaughter our children at levels only seen during global modern warfare.

I've been speaking out against abortion for most of my life, including the life that preceded my conversion to Christianity. So the allies to be found against it aren't all within the Body.

:e4e:

 

[Sancocho]

I suspected you'd struggle, but it was worth a try. It was a rational argument against abortion.


Birth is merely the arbitrary point where legal status and right has been unambiguoulsy conferred by every existing state/compact on the planet.


I think it's your reading that's the trouble. I'm not saying that every country attaches the right at birth. I'm saying that birth is where legal status and right exists everywhere, that by this point no one argues against that status and right.

Also, it was in part responsive to your earlier claim:

Not even you appear to agree with that now.


Which wouldn't be a scientific determination, supra.


Because science doesn't address and can't address the point, which is a valuation and philosophical point. Science isn't in the business of establishing right, but in recognizing fact.


Who's arguing the point?


Science can only do so much and that in relation to lowering the point where a fetus is sustainable without the mother.


Then they have to be opposed, rationally and can be.


I've been speaking out against abortion for most of my life, including the life that preceded my conversion to Christianity. So the allies to be found against it aren't all within the Body.

:e4e:

Nice two step buddy. Your comments are crystal clear. I find it hard to believe you are actively in the Prolife movement as I follow them everyday. If you are you are shooting us in the foot by confusing issues.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nice two step buddy.

We both know it wasn't anything of the sort which is why you made this ironic declaration instead of attempting to deal with any of the rebuttal.

Your comments are crystal clear.

I thought so, but you said you didn't understand them, so...

I find it hard to believe you are actively in the Prolife movement as I follow them everyday.

No idea what you think you mean by "them", but then I've been here for a long time and like most around here I don't keep reinventing the wheel every time some newbie drops by. Abortion has been a fairly important topic over my time here and the first notice I had here was on that count and from the proprietor of the joint. You can ask him if it helps you to sleep. He even has a thread for questions: Ask Knight. Be my guest.

If you are you are shooting us in the foot by confusing issues.

That sentence is missing a conclusion. If I am shooting you in the foot by confusing issues then what? So you begin and end with the same funny problem.

 

[The Barbarian]

If your baseline is 1980 it is.

The question on the table is "what is happening now?" And as you see, it's been declining for decades. You may not care, but I would guess all those babies not killed before they were born will eventually care.

Every decline, every year is a victory for life and a cause for celebration, even as the remaining deaths are cause for sadness.

Focus on what's left to do, and pray for continued success and the day when abortions are ended entirely.

Trust God for a change. Pray and work to change minds.

BTW, I will REPEAT you are using the tactics of abortionists to promote their cause.

Nonsense, and I'm pretty sure you're rational enough to realize that, at least.

They manipulate data and by consequence public opinion as you apparently unwittingly demonstrate.

Many of them regard the continuing decrease in abortions with alarm. They think it's a bad thing. So do you.

And your argument just sneaked around behind and bit you on the wallet pocket.

 

[Shasta]

Jose Fly;4376590]Maybe not the people actually involved in the case, but a lot of you on the sidelines seem to be cheering for there to be some sort of persecution. It's why so many Christians I see commenting on these cases have to exaggerate and make things up.

Out of all the Christian people I talk to every day no one has yet expressed such a position. Generally they have misgivings. Perhaps we are not exaggerating. In fact I think we are making very accurate extrapolations about where this might go. I do not expect you to be concerned because you hold the State's view in these matters.

This is what I'm talking about. If you're referring to the Oregon case, you don't even have the basic facts right. The couple didn't "target" the bakery; they had had their cakes before, had seen them at a wedding show, and liked their cakes. That's why they went there (it's in the actual ruling).

They did not have to ruin that couple. It was all done to make a political point.

If I went to some Muslim cake shop and they denied me service on the basis that I was an infidel I would not sue them providing it was privately owned. I would go shop elsewhere. No, the case in question was selected targeted and acted upon with a strategy.

If you mean that "religious liberty" won't trump anti-discrimination laws, then yes, that's the way it should be. Just as we don't allow racists to cite religious liberty as an excuse to discriminate, we don't do the same with people who don't believe in gay marriage.

You can take that principle as far as you want or you can apply it temperately in moderation. If you take it too far you will cause unrest in society but fanatical ideologues are obsessed with silencing dissent.

The State must be very careful about telling a person what the scope of his religious exercise is. That is the kind of tyranny people came here to escape.

I don't buy the argument that because blacks were freed from slavery we now have to embrace the homosexual agenda. Those issues are not the same.

What in the world does that even mean? "The Official State Truth"? :idunno:

Let me explain then. Ultimately the law will require that we accept implicitly or explicitly the underlying "truth" or "dogma" that marriage between homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally good, right and proper. It is state truth because it originated from a bare majority of Supreme Court justices and will be enforced by the Executive branch. I and those Christians who hold to the traditional tenets of their faith do not accept it as truth and neither do many others for that matter. For this we risk being punished. Is that clear enough?

Yes, the courts and executive branch both agree that gay couples have a legal right to get married.

What exactly is being mandated to be taught? That gay people exist? That gay married couples exist? Given that most schools will have students from gay families, why is it so wrong to acknowledge their reality?

And by "gay propaganda", do you really mean "literature that acknowledges the fact that gays exist"?

Everyone knows it exists. The media makes sure that people know it as does the internet. Children in Elementary school understand what "gay" means. I was not hidden from it when I was young. Two of my best friends when I was young have since died of AIDS.

Again you don't have the facts right. The Commissioner prohibited the Kleins from publicly declaring that they discriminate against gays in their business. That's all, nothing more.

To be exact, they cannot speak publically about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs. In other words they cannot in any public statements to the effect that this was about their Christian beliefs even though it WAS.

The judge made them pay $135,000 in "emotional damages" to the couple they denied service to. Emotional damage! It was punitive damages designed to coerce others into compliance.

They are victims of discrimination.

Being told to get a cake at another shop does not violate their civil rights.

Who are they abusing?

The people they sue and drive to ruin

You seem to be almost excited at the prospect that your paranoid martyr fantasies might come true. How odd.

You think the mood is one of excitement and anticipation? You are totally wrong.

It is paranoid or is it seeing real possibilities? My State and the company I work for are implementing safeguards to ensure that people will not be penalized for their convictions. I suppose the whole state must be paranoid. In fact, everyone is paranoid except the Executive Branch whom always has our best interests at heart.

You are doing something highly uncertain - trying to tell me what I think about. Have I ever said I wanted to be a martyr?

 

[Sancocho]

The question on the table is "what is happening now?" And as you see, it's been declining for decades. You may not care, but I would guess all those babies not killed before they were born will eventually care.

Every decline, every year is a victory for life and a cause for celebration, even as the remaining deaths are cause for sadness.

Focus on what's left to do, and pray for continued success and the day when abortions are ended entirely.

Trust God for a change. Pray and work to change minds.



Nonsense, and I'm pretty sure you're rational enough to realize that, at least.



Many of them regard the continuing decrease in abortions with alarm. They think it's a bad thing. So do you.

And your argument just sneaked around behind and bit you on the wallet pocket.

No offense bro but you aren't up to date nor familiar with the pro life movement nor with the abortion movement either.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pl...studies-confirm-low-abortions-rates-and-risks

 

[Sancocho]

The question on the table is "what is happening now?" And as you see, it's been declining for decades. You may not care, but I would guess all those babies not killed before they were born will eventually care.

Every decline, every year is a victory for life and a cause for celebration, even as the remaining deaths are cause for sadness.

Focus on what's left to do, and pray for continued success and the day when abortions are ended entirely.

Trust God for a change. Pray and work to change minds.



Nonsense, and I'm pretty sure you're rational enough to realize that, at least.



Many of them regard the continuing decrease in abortions with alarm. They think it's a bad thing. So do you.

And your argument just sneaked around behind and bit you on the wallet pocket.

With all due respect you make a lot of the same arguments the abortionists do. I recommend you check the National Right to Life , Students for Life and the Radiance Foundation webpages.

I see no point in continuing an argument with those who can't find the time to get up to date regarding the prolife movement. Peace.

 

[The Barbarian]

No offense bro but you aren't up to date nor familiar with the pro life movement nor with the abortion movement either.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pla...ates-and-risks

You linked me to an abortionist website, trying to deny that the pro-life movement has had any effect on the declining abortion rate. Of course they want to make that argument. But the fact is, public acceptance of abortion has declined in the United States:

According to Gallup’s polling, people between the ages of 18 to 29 are the most likely to be against abortion in any case, showing that the next wave of voters and activists will be heavily pro-life in their views.

What does this mean for the pro-life movement? It means that the public opinion trend towards the pro-life stance will continue as a generation of young people continue to turn against abortion.

So you've bought the abortionist propaganda but you don't really have a clue as to why abortion is declining in the United States. You're just parroting their arguments, without any attempt to see if what they say is true.

With all due respect you make a lot of the same arguments the abortionists do.

You have no sense of irony at all, do you?