In which case, one would think that humility and intellectual honesty would prevent you from making sweeping claims regarding the effect a President has on the # of abortions taking place, and concede the point of people who say this effect is marginal, at best, as I did earlier in this thread.
The key point is that a barbaric and horrific practice has been halted.
To what extent was it even actually occurring? And/or to what extent are the people who might have gotten PBAs (if there are any) simply having "regular" abortions now, making the actual effect nil (at least if it's the act of abortion, and not the type, that you care about)? Since you have no data, as you've admitted, the answer is "you don't know". So what's your point?
Suppose I enact a ban on killing people by putting them in a spaceship and ramming it into an approaching comet. A barbaric practice, to be sure. Do I get to boast that I saved lives, and that I "halted" a barbaric practice?
I was countering this nonsensical spin:
It's not like he is going to personally go down and open up an abortion clinic.
And now you have the gall to question MY intellectual honesty? The same folks who have been selling Rudy as a conservative have the nerve to demand intellectual honesty from conservatives when they refuse to practice such themselves - and the conservatives are making FACTUAL CRITICISMS?
That's another stock Clintonista technique - demand from the other side what you are not doing yourself.
Are you really sure you want to even pull this crap?
Google searchs show estimates of 3000-4000 a year. In other words, more children were dismembered each year by this procedure than people who died in the WTC attacks.
Yet you push Rudy because of the WOT but belittle a ban on a procedure that kills more each year than the 9-11 attacks. Pathetic.