My point still stands that if Harvey had told the legislature that Gianna would be speaking about abortion (being an abortion survivor and all), the legislature would have flat-out denied him the opportunity.
And you have to admit, his anti-abortion viewpoint wouldn't have been enforced as well without the aid of Gianna, a survivor of abortion.
You evidently admire reason and deliberation, despite your breath. So please do it slowly and carefully for me. What was the trick, what was dirty about it?
And as you answer, I guess I'd like to see the consideration that the liberals, when they gain a significant strength in a deliberative assembly, tend to work the parliamentary rules as strongly as they can, with no regard to equity, to make their point, and to stifle the opposition. And when the rules don't work for them, when wondering what the meaning is "is" is begins to fail, they'll cheat in a heartbeat. And lives are at stake here.
In the face of such tactics, should a Christian say that his principles prevent him from protecting the innocent and helpless and consequently he will let the liberals dominate the conversation? Did Jesus, Amos, or Jeremiah take that approach? Did St. Peter when he preached in opposition to the plain decree of the Sanhedrin? Did Luther, or Wycliffe?
Clearly I don't think so, and I don't think getting rolled by liberals is always a moral duty.