That said, the position of people like Newt echoes that of overt pro-aborts, who always say, "Laws against abortion won't stop all abortions so why have those laws?"
A law against something - with corresponding legal penalties for doing that thing - stop more instances of that thing than would be stopped if the law was not in place at all.
That is the core cause-and effect premise, and it applies to protecting pre-born babies from their conception forward instead of taking a cheap way out and reserving protection for any later / post-conception stage.
Having laws that protect pre-born babies starting from conception forward will save a lot of them.
Regarding the implementation of that protection, there are many ways to get that rolling.
Key amongst them is banning the sale, distribution, and possession of chemical compounds which abort a newly-conceived pre-born baby at any point from that baby's conception forward.
N00b, your effort to mischaracterize my post to you is duly noted. The vagueness arises in your lack of specifics on how to protect the little ones from conception onward. But I suspect you are also a hit and run agitprop who will disappear after the elections. Calls to ‘purity or nothing’ are a set-up to suppress momentum and isolate conservatives from practical actions, which of course result in the progressive dead-souls carrying the day, just as I suspect you plan. When we’re a year beyond your sign-up date of 11/24/2011, we’ll discuss your creds again.