Having tried to engage in a reasonable discussion and finding myself insulted, angry, and alienated in the process, I must say I wholeheartedly agree at this point.
Dear Trinity_Tx,
"It is your 'strategy' of dogmatism and rudely offending everyone who you even think veers even slightly away from your position that hasn't even been able to get rid of partial birth abortion."
That looks like a taunt to me. Operative words: "hasn't even been able" to get rid of such an outrage. You are pointing out the extreme impotence of these folks, blaming the folks with whom you disagree. That's taunting in my book.
You interpret my words as insults, I interpret this as a taunt.
"'Trinity_Tx's egregious insults offered to the whole of the pro-life movement'"
"They do not, and I have made that repeatedly clear."
No - you've insulted the pro-life movement by saying that it, or some component of the movement is responsible for the failure to ban partial birth abortion.
When it isn't true.
You've insulted the pro-life movement, pretty much in general, as a whole, when you said this:
"If pro-lifers worked to elect politicians who respected the constitution, rather than blowing them off because they didn't toe the whole moment of conception, no compromise line, that wouldn't be a problem."
At least in your previous quote, one could interpret the "you" of the sentence as referring only to your correspondent, and not the entire movement.
With this quote, there doesn't appear to be any qualifiers. You state, "If pro-lifers" without qualification. That's a pretty general insult.
No one who demands a candidate favor overturning Roe is failing to elect politicians who respect the Constitution.
"It's no wonder you don't see the problem - you are part of it."
Well, you're entitled to your opinion.
I think the problems lay elsewhere among some who call themselves pro-life.
sitetest