Dear DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet,
If you don't like my tone, again, my apologies. However, my attitude is more of amazement than condescension. I am amazed at the fantasy version of history presented by the poster. If this version were a bit more tethered to reality, perhaps my tone would be different.
As well, if the poster's misplaced anger aimed at an entire movement of good and decent people were a bit more muted, perhaps my tone might be different as well.
I know folks in the movement. They don't deserve this dreck.
My comments were the result of the poster generalizing the comments found by some posters herein to the entire pro-life movement, and then blaming the pro-life movement for a history that didn't actually occur.
The poster specifically blames lack of progress on the pro-life movement for: 1. being unwilling to compromise; 2. being unwilling to support candidates who respect the Constitution; and 3. I guess just being all-around rude, or something like that, and causing folks not to back their cause.
Well, I took the time to demonstrate that the pro-life movement has been willing to compromise, to acheive small gains and wins, at every turn.
And that we have been the most consistent supporters of candidates who respect the Constitution, especially of Republican presidential candidates since 1980, when the issue first came to prominence in a national election.
And that actually, majorities DO support our cause, but that it has been frustrated by a determined minority in league with individuals who sit on the Supreme Court who are so out of touch with anything approaching actual Constitutional jurisprudence that it has become a scandal.
It isn't the attitude or tone of pro-lifers that defeats us. It is the lies of the pro-abortionists. Like when they tell folks that Roe is primarily about making sure that women who are raped or whose lives are in danger from pregnancy can have access to safe and legal abortion. When the truth is that over 95% of abortions are for convenience.
Like when the pro-abortionists claim that thousands died each year from back-alley abortions before Roe, when the number was more like dozens. Per year. Nationwide.
Like when women were told by the pro-abortionists (and some insist to this day - in spite of the evidence that we all now see with ultrasound) that the unborn baby is just a clump of undifferentiated cells, a clot of blood.
It isn't the fault of the pro-life folks that the pro-abortion folks lie like rugs.
The poster is confusing his or her frustration with some posters here with the actions of the pro-life movement in general, and is confused in his or her recounting of history.
As well, I think another problem in this thread is that the perceived threat by pro-lifers to withhold support from a pro-abortion Republican presidential candidate is being misread by some as being a historical failure to support Republican presidential candidates in the recent past. It's an understandable error, but an error nonetheless.
Bottom line - the pro-life movement hasn't had any reason not to support the Republican presidential candidates in the recent past - they've all supported a pro-life Republican platform. Furthermore, at the level below the presidency, we've supported folks who were pretty dodgy on this issue, including Kay Bailey Hutchison, Elizabeth Dole, and in my own state, Bob Ehrlich, the pro-ABORTION Republican governor of Maryland. Do you think he was elected without the pro-life vote? LOL.
We did these things BECAUSE we are willing to compromise to achieve what we can.
Thus, any political failures in the past for the Republican Party certainly can't be laid at the feet of the pro-life movement. However, let's talk about the sort of folks who voted for President Bush in 1988 and abandoned him in 1992...
I bet they were folks for whom the highest priority was not abortion.
Perhaps if the poster took care to ground his or her comments in actual historical events, he or she would avoid smearing millions of folks in the pro-life movement unfairly and inaccurately.
sitetest
You said:
Your rantings against the entire pro-life movement, because of your frustrations with posters here at FreeRepublic suggests someone raving hysterically at his or her own shadows in the cave, by the firelight.
Get a grip.
Study a little bit of the history of the last 32 years.
Take a break.
Drink less caffeine.
Please try to imagine your own interpretation were someone to speak to you that way, keeping in mind that you said it to someone who used much more polite language when addressing you.
I am amazed at the fantasy version of history presented by the poster. If this version were a bit more tethered to reality, perhaps my tone would be different.
I'm sure you'll agree that you are responsible for your own "tone" - especially given that you were spoken to neutrally, if not respectfully.
As well, if the poster's misplaced anger aimed at an entire movement of good and decent people were a bit more muted, perhaps my tone might be different as well.
I know folks in the movement. They don't deserve this dreck.
Your objection appears to be that Trinity_Tx allows posters on FreeRepublic to function as a snapshot of the pro-life movement. Why is that unreasonable? They are certainly part of it, aren't they?