Replies

You are wasting electrons and your precious time trying to get this question answered by the AIP crowd and the Keyes-bots. I've been there, I know. The left wing has been whining for decades that conservatives want to impose a Christian theocracy in America. I now believe that at least in the case of a few (less than ten of the whole user base) Freepers, that is true.

I just wish that people would have what's called "The Courage of their Convictions".

It means that if the Logic of your Argument compels you to an extreme, perhaps unpopular conclusion -- then you either re-examine your Argument; or, if you still believe your original Argument to be correct, then you take it all the way to its logical extreme, you declare it, and you stand by it.

Let's take the subject of Abortion, as an example:

I'm in favor of the States outlawing Abortion as Murder.
Now, in defense of that position, I've been asked, "Does that mean that you think that women seeking abortions should be prosecuted as Murderers"?
I've responded by saying that if one examines the Pre-Roe State Laws against abortion, in almost all instances the States achieved their goal of criminalizing abortion by prosecuting the Abortionist, not the woman; and given that many women are coerced into abortions by uncaring "boyfriends" or what have you, I'd first like to simply see those Laws re-instated...
...But that if, for the sake of Legal Equity, the choice was between prosecuting the women procuring the abortions as well as the Abortionists who actually perform them, versus allowing this abominable practice to continue without any legal punishment at all -- then given that choice, YES, I would favor prosecuting the woman as well as the hired Hit-Man.

Now that's not a "popular" position for me to take.
Indeed, as I just pointed out, it may not even be a "necessary" position for me to take, given that historically the States were able to prohibit abortion quite effectively by just going after the Abortionists themselves.
But I understand that my position, if taken to its logical extreme, would necessitate prosecuting the woman also -- if that's what it takes to effectively prohibit abortion. And, since that's the ultimate conclusion to which the Logic of my Argument compels me, I'm willing to take that position and stand by it, if that what it takes.

Likewise, if EV believes that any States which fail to outlaw abortion, should be subject to Military Invasion by the Federal Government -- then he should just say, "States which fail to outlaw abortion should be subject to Military Invasion by the Federal Government". Stake out your position, and stand by it, if that's what you believe.

It's just a matter of having The Courage of your Convictions, that's all.

As I said, I've been there with this group, in a number of threads over the past year.

As best as I can figure out, what they want to do is have federal marshals or the FBI, acting on a Presidential executive order, simply padlock every abortion clinic in the country....and then let the courts sort it out.

And if the courts rule otherwise, just take the Andrew Jackson option.

Now, if the American people vote for a President who wishes to do that, then so be it. But if as President I plan to take that action, I am honor bound to make it crystal clear in my campaign.

I can NOT waffle or prevaricate while keeping my true intentions hidden from all but a favored few.

That's where I have always had my problems with EV and his cronies, and I see you going down the exact same dead end road.