Leap of faith? You quote me - then misquote me immediately after and criticize the misquote. That seems pretty clear to me.

The sense I get is that you don’t actually read what I’ve written.

So it goes. As for ending this, yes. I really don’t want to waste my time arguing with tangent after tangent tossed at me. I prefer to stick to the subject at hand.

But since you bring up method of debate - the thread is about about labels and politicians. Yet you bring in faith based organizations - Then there is the abortion drop (the one without the link) posit yet for no real reason. What is this point.

But that’s fine - it is a blog you get to comment and I get to respond. You made your point about labels.

So we are done here. Truth is we are doing around in circles and getting no where.

Or is there something esle you want to say about pro life politicians, abortions and all the rest?

But then, the fact that you changed one of my statements so that it means something different suggests your method of “debate”.

If you are going to try to argue with something I say, at least argue with something I actually said.

As to my point - look at points 1 and 2 I made earlier.

Pro-Life Democrats and the party has to begin to pay more attention to that part of the population.

Use labels, don’t use labels - my personal favorite here is “…that part of the party.” Which label is that?

please explain what “that part of the party” wants?

Oversimplifying here - Abortion is a serious personal issue and in my opinion a decision not to be taken lightly. However, do I want the government deciding what the choices a woman can do with her body or when exactly life begins based on some secular belief - no I do not.

So lots of people can be “against” abortion -this covers stereotypical pro-life and pro-choice people- the real question is what to do about it?

Abortions are declining. OK - why? any reasons? Better birth control? less sex? Or is the point that labels such as those being railed against here don’t matter?

“Days before the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Guttmacher Institute has released a national study of abortion. Its findings are something to be celebrated by pro-abortion-rights and antiabortion folks alike: The U.S. abortion rate is the lowest it has been in more than three decades. In 2005, the most recent year included in the study, 1.2 million abortions were performed; that’s an 8 percent drop from 2000. Abortion rates are also falling at a faster speed, say researchers.”

I believe there was a Republican President in 2005 - and a Democratic one in 2000 - with an 8 percent drop in the number of abortions in between.

“Democrats in Congress”

“pay more attention”

“out of simple respect”

Sorry for the typos. It was early. Dog got sick in the night and got me up!

Labels are important. Words are important. They help to form the way we think - part of the point of “1984.” Any politician, demagogue, advertiser knows that. Look how they manipulate words to create a favorable vision of whatever it is they are promoting.

Plus, it’s an issue of respect. If someone who favors legal abortion wants to be called pro-choice, I call them that. Respect. In the same way someonee who opposes abortion on moral or ethical grounds wants to be called pro-life, they should be called that.

To make it simple: If you want to be called “Fred” and I know that but consistently call you “Turd,” I’m not being respectful of you or your wishes.

And my point here were the original points I made:

1. The two most recent victories by Democratrs in Congress were by Pro-Life Democrats and the party has to begin to pay more attntion to that part of the population.

2. Call people by the names they want to be called our of simple respect.

So lets stick to those points and not go off on tangents.

What exactly is your point here? What is meant by “abortion neutral”? Some fancy term for over turning roe v wade?