Charles, May I suggest you reread that Biblical account where two women claiming the same baby appealed to Solomon to decide the matter, and he wittily chose to cut him/her in half to determine who the real mother was?
'Twas the real mom who said, "No, I don't need a place @ the baby's table if it means only half a baby."
Some of those pro-life groups you referenced in your post #263 ("Notice also, that now, in 2012, a lot of prominent, reliable, pro-life people are endorsing Romney") are ones who can't stand being left on the outside and having no place at the endorsement or influence table...they'd rather be @ table with "half a baby" than "no baby" -- even if the baby was kept alive by keeping him away from that table!
After all, if some of those ex-"pro-life" groups don't have any baby to show for their continued existence (even if only half of one), they're out of business. (Got to keep the pro-life movement alive, even if the immobilized babies for the large part aren't kept alive)
Bottom line: Your "some chance" gamble (and since when are men in your position advocating gambling with the lives of pre-born?) is the "we'll-take-half-a-baby syndrome" too many Pro-lifers are committing to. You'll take half-a-baby or none, eh?
Great post.