Could have been someone else. Hard to say.
Again with the projection. You should understand logic by now. I'm not arguing that this bill "does not save ENOUGH lives", rather I'm arguing that it saves none based on a flawed determination of life and specifically the manner in which abortion doctors remove such.
It's the ones that it saves that you are forgetting.
Again with the projection, I'm not forgetting anyone, born or unborn. Are you?
You don't spit at the gains, and call them losses.
More projection, you really need to look in to logical fallacies, you're rolling in them. The appropriate question is: Is this a gain and if so how?
Could have been someone else. Hard to say.
I'm not projecting nearly as much as you're predicting.
Your contention is that the mere pressence of laws making something illegal is not sufficient to stop one single individual from perpetrating the act, well, then ALL laws are flawed and worthless.
Your argument is that there is no individual battle in a war that can be called a victory unless in and of itself it can bring about the absolute defeat of the enemy. That you are not doing the right thing in a football field unless you go the distance on every play, and that merely advancing the ball is a intended loss.
You claim that I project, arguing from the position of one who can't be proven wrong, and not because of the strenght of the argument, but rather because there is no record of past performance to hold up as a standard to measure you with. Your entire argument, in simple terms, is "we would have done better".
I played a little football in High School, and I remember that the Coach used to say that there were two types of people involved in a football game: the ones watching the ball move are called spectators, the ones moving it are the players.