[supercat]

The only way we answer their question successfully, is to have already won the moral battle. If we can't win that, then the war is lost.

Suppose you're trying to convince someone who hates rich people that he shouldn't rob them. Which is apt to be the more effective argument:

1. Robbing people is morally wrong.
2. Thanks to the new CCW law, if he tries to rob someone he may get shot.

While argument #1 may be the morally superior argument, it will likely fall on deaf ears. Argument #2 would be more likely to get the person's attention.

[r9etb]

While argument #1 may be the morally superior argument, it will likely fall on deaf ears. Argument #2 would be more likely to get the person's attention.

Yes -- but that's not the case with abortion, which is the closest thing to the issue we're discussing. In a sane world, abortionists would be poor, on the run, and frequently imprisoned for murder. As it is, they're very well paid, protected by laws and guards, and have a very powerful cheering section in the media, powerful politicians, and the Democrat party in general. Why? Because we've lost the moral battle over abortion.