“Well no, that is a gross and dishonest reading of what he said.”
You, sir, lie. As I shall now demonstrate.
“Scott Brown’s position, when you get right down to it, is more pro-life than that held by all these yahoos who want to pass a never-going-to-happen “Human Life Amendment.”
Buncombe. You want us to think that approving of baby-killing under some circumstances is “more pro-life” than disapproving of baby-killing under all circumstances.
What seems to be escaping your notice is that being pro-life is a matter of one’s convictions, and that willingness to compromise those convictions on a matter of such import demonstrates that the person in question does not really hold those convictions.
“Brown specifically says he wants to reduce the number of abortions…parental notification laws, end PBA, consent laws, supporting adoption as an alternative.”
Those things are good, but they are not adequate. They tacitly admit that baby-killing under some circumstances is acceptable.
“even though we all know it will never in a million years pass.”
So, your recommendation is pre-emptive surrender? Your judgment is inadequate to the task of forecasting the future of a constitutional amendment.
“Scott Brown, as soft as his position is (and yes, I think it’s soft and doesn’t go nearly far enough) has saved more little babies lives than all the yapping about a HLA put together.”
Logical fallacy. You are comparing an actual policy with a proposed policy. Of course a proposed policy has had less effect than an actual policy. It hasn’t been put into effect yet. However, an amendment would—over decades—save far more lives than all the parental notification laws that could be passed.
“And isn’t that REALLY what being pro-life is about - saving little babies’ lives?”
Anyone who has read this far should see that you are asking us to admit that being pro-life is really about saving fewer lives than could be saved.
No. Being pro-life is about working to save as many babies as possible, while at the same time striving to end abortion altogether—which entails electing representatives who share those goals. Both of those goals, not just one.
“Or are you content with the pro-life movement being merely for show so that a few bigwigs at the top can rake in donations?”
Another false dichotomy. Here, you try to sell the proposition that our only options are to compromise with evil, or to be content that the pro-life movement should be “merely for show.”
Another alternative is to continue working toward an end to abortion by supporting candidates who share that goal.
“Second, gay marriage”
When we use the word “gay,” we concede the battle of language without firing a shot. We concede that same-sex attraction disorder is an acceptable phenomenon that can rationally be described in other than clinical or pejorative terms.
It’s not.
“He specifically said that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman.”
Which is how RINOs weasel out of supporting legislation to implement the policy in question.
“He also supports that little regarded concept called “federalism” - you know, the 10th amendment and all that jazz? Or do you only support the Constitution when it’s to your particular benefit to do so?”
Another dishonest argument. These false dichotomies are really tiresome.
Here you’re trying to sell the proposition that the only two alternatives are to approve of sodomite “marriage,” or to violate the Constitution.
Everyone knows—which means you never should have advanced this little canard—that states’ rights are not unlimited. States do not have the power, for instance, to set the voting age higher than 18, or to deny or abridge the right of citizens of the United States to vote (for the reasons specified in the Constitution).
A citizen has a perfect right to support the adoption of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting sodomite “marriage,” with no taint of philosophical or moral turpitude accruing therefrom.
A person really should make sure he has cause before he calls another’s statements “dishonest.” As we see, you didn’t.
This ought to be amusing....
Buncombe. You want us to think that approving of baby-killing under some circumstances is “more pro-life” than disapproving of baby-killing under all circumstances.
Tell me this - how many little babies' lives have been saved in the never-ending, never-to-be-successful quest to amend the Constitution with a human life amendment?
I'll save you the trouble of scratching your skull while you ponder that question. The answer is ZERO. Nada. Nil. None. Not one single little baby's life has been saved by pushing for an HLA that will never pass the 2/3 state approval + 2/3 of both houses of Congress needed to amend the Constitution.
Now, on the other hand, we know for a fact that parental notification laws - which Scott Brown supports - reduce the number of abortions that take place. We know that requiring parental consent - which Scott Brown supports - reduces the number of abortions. We know that outlawing PBA - which Scott Brown supports - would reduce to zero the number of the most gruesome types of abortions that take place. We know that making it easier to adopt - which Scott Brown supports - reduces the number of abortions. All of this is in line with Scott Brown's stated desire to "reduce the number of abortions."
In other words, Scott Brown's way works, yours does not - and this is EMPIRICALLY proven to be true. Scott Brown's way saves the lives of little babies, yours does not. In that sense, Scott Brown is actually more pro-life than YOU are.
What seems to be escaping your notice is that being pro-life is a matter of one’s convictions, and that willingness to compromise those convictions on a matter of such import demonstrates that the person in question does not really hold those convictions.
Funny, and I thought being pro-life was about, you know, saving little babies' lives, not getting to strut around grandstanding and thumping your chest about how pure and special your convictions are, even when those convictions lead you to support policies that don't and won't even save the life of a single little baby's life.
In short, if your "pro-life conviction" is to bluster and bloviate in favour of a pipe dream while ignoring all the means currently available to actually reduce the number of abortions, then your "conviction" isn't worth a pile of dog turds.
Those things are good, but they are not adequate. They tacitly admit that baby-killing under some circumstances is acceptable.
No they don't. They tacitly admit that, in the current political climate and with the current obtuse SCOTUS we have, it's better to put into place laws that will save the lives of at least some little babies rather than doing nothing.
So, your recommendation is pre-emptive surrender? Your judgment is inadequate to the task of forecasting the future of a constitutional amendment.
Okay, tell us then, exactly which 34 of the 50 states you think are going to pass that amendment through their legislatures, and which 67 Senators and which 291 Congressmen you think will vote for it, since you're obviously a prognosticator extraordinaire?
Logical fallacy. You are comparing an actual policy with a proposed policy. Of course a proposed policy has had less effect than an actual policy. It hasn’t been put into effect yet. However, an amendment would—over decades—save far more lives than all the parental notification laws that could be passed.
Refer to the question above. I prefer to save little babies' lives NOW rather than putting it off until some point in the indeterminate future where we MAY be able to scrounge up enough votes to pass an HLA.
Anyone who has read this far should see that you are asking us to admit that being pro-life is really about saving fewer lives than could be saved.
Well, anyone reading this so far who has paid the least bit of attention for the last 30 years knows that lives have already been saved by regulatory laws. NONE have been saved in the magical, donation-generating quest for a HLA.
No. Being pro-life is about working to save as many babies as possible, while at the same time striving to end abortion altogether—which entails electing representatives who share those goals. Both of those goals, not just one.
Being pro-life is about saving babies' lives. I'm all for ending abortion once and for all. The only problem is that the quest to do so through an amendment to the Constitution is quixotic. Before we mess with that, we need to change the hearts and minds of enough people to get this country to the point where the Constitutional process might be feasible. Until then, the effort does nothing but waste time and sap resources.
In short, by pursuing a HLA to the detriment of these other laws, etc. You are essentially doing something that is hindering the saving of little babies.
Another false dichotomy. Here, you try to sell the proposition that our only options are to compromise with evil, or to be content that the pro-life movement should be “merely for show.”
No, the problem is that, if we take your route, the pro-life movement WILL just be for show - since it won't accomplish anything of any actual benefit to babies in danger of abortion.
Another alternative is to continue working toward an end to abortion by supporting candidates who share that goal.
That's good, because Scott Brown himself has said he wants to see the number of abortions reduced. That works towards that goal - and certainly more so than Martha Coakley would.
When we use the word “gay,” we concede the battle of language without firing a shot. We concede that same-sex attraction disorder is an acceptable phenomenon that can rationally be described in other than clinical or pejorative terms.
It’s not.
Fine, I'll call them dirty pervert faggots. Happier now?
Which is how RINOs weasel out of supporting legislation to implement the policy in question.
Okay, wait a second. A guy says that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman - and this is evidence that he's a RINO who supports gay marriage? What sort of bizarro alternate logical universe are YOU inhabiting?
Another dishonest argument. These false dichotomies are really tiresome.
Sorry, but just because you don't understand an argument doesn't make it a false dichotomy.
Here you’re trying to sell the proposition that the only two alternatives are to approve of sodomite “marriage,” or to violate the Constitution.
No....explain to us again why you think federalism is an automatic approval of dirty perverted faggot marriage?
And just to see where you're at - you DO believe that we ought to abide by the Constitution, as a general principle, don't you?
Everyone knows—which means you never should have advanced this little canard—that states’ rights are not unlimited. States do not have the power, for instance, to set the voting age higher than 18, or to deny or abridge the right of citizens of the United States to vote (for the reasons specified in the Constitution).
True....but since the Constitution doesn't define marriage, the Constitution doesn't even mention marriage, that automatically puts marriage under the purview of the states, per the 10th amendment. You may not like this, but that's just the way it is.
A citizen has a perfect right to support the adoption of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting sodomite “marriage,” with no taint of philosophical or moral turpitude accruing therefrom.
Which brings me to my last point - if you don't like it, then amend the Constitution to reflect the fact that dirty perverted faggot marriage is unacceptable. In fact, I would agree with you on this, and would support such an amendment - but it has to be AMENDED to work. As it currently stands, marriage of any sort, true or pretended, is the purview of the states. As such, the only really rational Constitutional stance is for the issue to be relegated to the states and to work to oppose dirty perverted faggot marriage in your state. That's basically Scott Brown's position - the constitutional one. If you want a national law against dirty perverted faggot marriage to be constitutional, then work to amend the Constitution. That's one I think we'd have a reasonably good shot at getting passed.
A person really should make sure he has cause before he calls another’s statements “dishonest.” As we see, you didn’t.
Of course I had cause. You basically are taking what others said and twisting it all out of alignment to try to make it seem as if they are saying something completely different, so you can then pretend like you're some heroic citizen soldier, riding to the rescue of the Republic. Not working, bud.