Posted on 08/02/2003 10:39:40 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
Inspirational post. Flagging a select few I know would not want to miss this magnificent gem at the end of the thread.
Find me some other form of PBA that is currently in practice. If it's likely that abortionists will start performing PBAs some other way to get around this legislation, as you attest, you ought to be able to find something concrete to defend your position.As is currently and generally practiced, that's true (aside from "life of the mother" exceptions, which I don't buy anyway.)
Otherwise you are creating theories out of thin air. I didn't take you for that type.
It's not of thin air that we understand that when things are outlawed, folks who are affected will try and find ways around the new law. My questions on this thread have been attempts to discern how determined abortionists might go about circumventing this PBA legislation.
If we accept that this legislation is an incremental step, then there are legitimate questions that need to be asked in order to determine where it might fall short, and thus, where the next incremental step might be taken.
Yeah, that's the beauty of staying on topic.
But by all means, go ahead and weed through my thousands of posts, and let's see how close to 99% bashing you really get. I'm just guessing, but I'd say it's closer to 60% bashing, maybe 70%.
You see, those are the threads that interest me. Pom Poms are for others, and I generally bypass the cheerleading threads.
But then they are relentless. I've never seen a malcontent at DU. They take every crumb and rejoice.
Missed this earlier, but I appreciate the setting forth of a standard by which you feel that FR falls short of DU:
"I've never seen a malcontent at DU."
So goes the lament that the circle of groupthink is incomplete at Free Republic.
Amen sister tiggywinkle. I've been reading this thread without glasses for 2 hours now. Time to rest my eyes. Bumping your post. Love to you and little tiggywinkle.
There are a lot of viewpoints that have been expressed here, but it can be summarized best by saying that there is no reason why, when ending a pregnancy early for the health of the mother, that the baby/fetus shouldn't be given every opportunity to live. Killing the baby for the sake of convenience is horrendous.
Further, while the PBA legislation is not as strong as many would like it to be, it was designed to pass the Supreme Court criteria for their interpretation of Constitutionality. Anything stronger would likely die in the Supreme Court and thereby serve no useful purpose. Should there be stronger legislation? Absolutely, but let's take what we can get and then ask for more. The job isn't over with this bill.
It is also important to reiterate the importance of changing the hearts and minds of the general population. I read the posts of Common Tator as often as possible, and have learned many things. He has said that if 70% of the population is for something, that both parties will rush to get in front of the parade and try to lead it. Such is the political reality of getting something accomplished. Educating the public to the stages of development in the womb is the best means of stopping abortion. When the public is convinced, then the laws will follow, not the other way around.
I have also read a most illuminating post by Southack from a couple of weeks ago. With the very slim majority in both the House and Senate, it has been necessary for President Bush, in order to garner enough votes on legislation, to molly-coddle the RINOs and DINOs in order to create a majority of votes to pass his legislation. The only way that he has been able to do that is by agreeing to sign questionable bills and spending our tax money on pork to mollify the most liberal of the votes needed. How conservative a bill is is directly proportional to the weakest vote needed to pass it, and how much pork had to be paid to get that vote.
This situation clearly speaks to the aspirations of Jim Robinson's determined efforts to add to the majority of both houses, by voting the 'rats out. Only when it is possible to easily have enough votes to pass the President's agenda is it going to be possible to tell the RINOs that no extraordinary deals will be cut to get their votes. The greater the majority on Republicans in the House and Senate, the more conservative the legislative result.
Hey, WW, thanks again for the ping, it is good to see you around again.
Further, while the PBA legislation is not as strong as many would like it to be, it was designed to pass the Supreme Court criteria for their interpretation of Constitutionality. Anything stronger would likely die in the Supreme Court and thereby serve no useful purpose. Should there be stronger legislation? Absolutely, but let's take what we can get and then ask for more. The job isn't over with this bill.
It is also important to reiterate the importance of changing the hearts and minds of the general population.
Great summary, thanks for posting.
There will come times, and it appears this is one of them, that incrementalism is the preferred approach, or the best we've got for the time being. Incrementalism works best when we keep our eyes on the next step.
However, there will come other times when the best approach will be to take the fight for the unborn into the teeth of their enemies. Those fights will be best fought when our arguments are steeled from within.
I agree .. educating the public is very important. It amazes me the number of folks that I have talk to about PBA had no idea what it was all about. Once I explained to them, their opinions did a complete turn around
Incrementalism works best when we keep our eyes on the next step.
I agree with your conclusion. PBA is a good first step, let's get this one in the bag by supporting it and move on to the next. Wars aren't usually won with one battle, let's take the victory and prepare for the next.
Not every move on a chessboard is checkmate, it is all the little moves beforehand that makes checkmate possible.
That's correct and thank you for your posts
Your attempt to engage Merc in debate by flaming her is notable. You're smart and well read, therefore there's no reason for gutter tactics. Yet you do anyway. Which makes me think that you're more of a schoolyard bully and less of a thinker. Am I wrong?
And no, I'm not a Bengals fan. Just someone that can read a loophole that is a mile wide and clearly pandering to a gossamer electorate that, as of yet, hasn't proven to be the base of the party that is seeking reelection.
You may not like it (in the Horowitz school of Trotskyite "winning is everything" seminar politics V 2.0) but principles mean something. With a slim margin of a lead in Congress the left has proven that they can push their legislation through despite a Republican President. While on the other hand, a slim majority of Republicans have proven to push leftist legislation despite themselves.
I ask you: where's the beef? If not now, when? Think about it.
Parsing obviously tampered legislation is not leadership. Leadership is bold steps with the concern of the unborn foremost in concern.
I haven't seen it yet and I'm not confident that it will appear. And having talked to many conservatives in the flesh they are considering a candidate that will address this issue based on leadership.
Ignore them at the peril of the ever shifting mushy middle.
Should read:
Ignore them at the cost of gaining the ever shifting mushy middle.
I'm going to bed.
Didn't you click on the link I posted to you? How can you not, in good conscience, acknowledge the things President Bush has done? That's what I don't understand. What president has done more than he has, and why do some people think the glass is always not just half-empty, but bone dry?
Did you bother reading what she's been saying about me over at LP?
Of course not.
I am not "engaging" Merc...I am responding to her in kind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.