Well no, that is a gross and dishonest reading of what he said.
First, abortion. 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." Brown specifically says he wants to reduce the number of abortions that take place. Unlike the Democrats, who just use that as cover, he then goes on to specifically lay out policies that he supports which would, in fact, DO JUST THAT - reduce the number of abortions that take place - parental notification laws, end PBA, consent laws, supporting adoption as an alternative.
Each and every one of these will reduce abortions, and in fact have already been proven to do so. In this sense, Scott Brown is more pro-life than every idiot out there whose sole goal in live is to pass an HLA to the Constitution, even though we all know it will never in a million years pass.
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. And isn't that REALLY what being pro-life is about - saving little babies' lives? 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?
Second, gay marriage - He specifically said that he thinks marriage is between a man and a woman. 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?
A Constitutional federal republic is incompatible with a single-issue voter, because a multitude of differing single issue voters will never agree.
For them, the only solution is a benevolent dictator who outlaws abortion by decree.
“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.