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.
“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?”
In my last note, I showed clearly that this line of argument is fallacious, in that it doesn’t demonstrate what you want it to. How could you have missed that? Or did you? Are we looking at Gramsci in action, here?
The measures you want to argue are “more pro-life” than ending abortion are, of course, laudable, but the ultimate goal must be a permanent end to abortion. It is lunacy to assert, as you do, that accepting some abortions is more pro-life than ending all abortions.
“All of this is in line with Scott Brown’s stated desire to “reduce the number of abortions.”
Which is an explicit endorsement of *some* abortions. And this, you argue, is “more pro-life” than ending all abortions.
“In other words, Scott Brown’s way works, yours does not - and this is EMPIRICALLY proven to be true.”
Utter nonsense, shout as you will. The fact that we have not yet succeeded in either a constitutional amendment, or overturning Roe v Wade and outlawing abortion on the state level, *in*no*way* “empirically” proves that neither of these things will *ever* be accomplished. That’s a completely unjustifiable assumption, without which your entire argument collapses like the house of cards it is.
“Funny, and I thought being pro-life was about, you know, saving little babies’ lives”
I find it hard to believe that you thought that. But then, I like to think well of people.
To satisfy my curiosity, I called my nine-year-old over, and he immediately saw the logical fallacy in your argument. Your argument assumes that saving any number of babies’ lives, however small that number might be, is the equivalent of saving *all* the babies lives that would be saved through either of the permanent measures I mentioned just above.
Saving any number of babies’ lives, however small that number might be, is *not* the equivalent of saving *all* the babies lives that would be saved through a permanent measure.
“not getting to strut around grandstanding and thumping your chest about how pure and special your convictions are”
Back to Gramsci with the personal slurs.
Here’s what Thomas Sowell had to say about that: “It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”
And that is my reply to the rest of your attempts to “win” the argument through slurs, as well.
“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.”
Once again, the fact that we have not yet succeeded in either a constitutional amendment, or overturning Roe v Wade and outlawing abortion on the state level, *in*no*way* “empirically” proves that neither of these things will *ever* be accomplished.
So, those are the three assumptions that all your arguments rest on:
1. That saving any number of babies’ lives, however small that number might be, is the equivalent of saving all the babies lives that would be saved through a permanent measure.
2. That the fact that we have not yet succeeded in either a constitutional amendment, or overturning Roe v Wade and outlawing abortion on the state level, “empirically” proves that neither of these things will ever be accomplished.
3. That insisting that the ultimate goal must be an end to abortion demonstrates that one is opposed to interim measures.
Without those three assumptions your arguments fail, and we have seen in my last note and this, that those three assumptions are false.
“While ignoring all the means currently available to actually reduce the number of abortions, then your “conviction” isn’t worth…”
Nobody ever said those things should be ignored. But you knew that. You just made that up to try and make me look like an “extremist.”
“No they don’t (tacitly admit that baby-killing under some circumstances is acceptable).
They do when someone like Brown says that these measures are *enough,* and that a permanent end to abortion is not desirable.
“…since you’re obviously a prognosticator extraordinaire”
Those tactics are really feeble. As Gramsci recommended, you are taunting and trying to make your opponent look foolish by putting words in his mouth. When I say that you are not able to say with certainty that an event will never occur, that in no way implies that I think I am qualified to say that it will certainly occur. Your demand for specifics in a case like this is ridiculous.
“I prefer to save little babies’ lives NOW rather than putting it off”
Assumption 3 above applies.
“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.”
Assumption 1 above applies.
“NONE have been saved in the magical, donation-generating quest for a HLA.”
Assumption 3 above applies.
“Being pro-life is about saving babies’ lives.”
Assumption 1 above applies.
“I’m all for ending abortion once and for all.”
I wonder.
“The only problem is that the quest to do so through an amendment to the Constitution is quixotic.”
Assumption 2 above applies.
“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.”
Assumption 3 above applies.
“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.”
Assumptions 2 and 3 above apply.
“That’s good, because Scott Brown himself has said he wants to see the number of abortions reduced.”
“Reduced” is not eliminated, and he doesn’t see elimination as the goal.
“That works towards that goal - and certainly more so than Martha Coakley would.”
Brown has said that his position on abortion is the same as Coakley’s.
“Fine, I’ll call them dirty pervert faggots. Happier now?”
Yes, but that’s pretty long. Something like “sodomite” would do.
“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?”
No, his remark to the effect that states should be free to legalize sodomite “marriage” is evidence that he at least fails to oppose it with adequate ardor.
“What sort of bizarro alternate logical universe are YOU inhabiting?”
The one in which we read the whole article.
“Sorry, but just because you don’t understand an argument doesn’t make it a false dichotomy.”
I understood these arguments before the personal computer was invented, and you most certainly did propose another false dichotomy.
“No....explain to us again why you think federalism is an automatic approval of dirty perverted faggot marriage?”
Gramscian tactics again, with that insertion of the word “automatic,” as though I had said or implied it. In this case, federalism is a stalking horse for establishment of sodomite “marriage,” as the activists believe that they can do this more easily by beginning on the state level. In this case, returning the matter to the states is a desperate attempt to derail a constitutional amendment.
“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?”
Another Gramscian slur.
“since the Constitution doesn’t define marriage, the Constitution doesn’t even mention marriage, that automatically puts marriage under the purview of the states”
Really? Well, then, I guess we’d better unfight the War Between the States and repeal the 13th amendment, then.
“You may not like this, but that’s just the way it is.”
Which is why I oppose it on the state level and advocate a constitutional amendment.
“if you don’t like it, then amend the Constitution”
Pretending that this needed to be said is another Gramscian slur.
“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.”
There you go again, preemptively surrendering without firing a shot. You’re not French, are you?
“That’s basically Scott Brown’s position - the constitutional one.”
No, Brown’s position is to oppose a constitutional amendment and keep it on the state level until sodomite “marriage” is established in state law.
“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”
No, I am showing you what premises underlie your arguments and why those premises are false, and what the necessary imand why that means that your arguments are not valid.
Oh, well, keep trying. Maybe after you get over feeling so defensive, you’ll begin to get it.
“so you can then pretend like you’re some heroic citizen soldier, riding to the rescue of the Republic. Not working, bud.”
And, you wrap it up with yet another Gramscian slur.
You know, one thing that alerts me to the possibility that there is something wrong with a policy or position is that its proponents argue like liberals.
Even mostly conservative people argue like liberals when they are arguing an invalid proposition or leftist policy.