On 5/17/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 05:00 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: > >> >>Why are the Republican who think we are going to far not heard from when > >> >>there are debates about abortion in just about every Democratic meeting > >> I > >> >>attended? > >> > >> I'm going to take a wild guess and somehow connect it to the fact that the > >> Democrats lost the last Presidential election and exit polls attributed it > >> in large part to the issue of "moral values." > > > > > >This was a poorly worded question as shown by both candidates splitting the > >vote of the "moral values" voters. > > For the record, I didn't say that the reason for Democrats having these > discussions was right - just identifying the elements of Conventional > Wisdom that cause Democrats to have these discussions, and not Republicans....
The discussions I was referring to occurred long before the last election. > > > >>>Losing always provokes more soul-searching than winning. > >>> > >> >>I suspect is because it was part of that media drumbeat that pro-life > >> >>people > >> >>can't be heard in the Democratic party. > >> > >> I would hope that even you would agree that the failure to let PA Governor > >> Bob Casey speak at the Democratic National Convention played some role in > >> the Democratic Party deserving that storyline. > > > >You snipped out the real reason he wasn't allowed to speak which had nothing > >to do with abortion. On TV and national media he had waged a campaign to > >stop Clinton from getting the nomination saying he wasn't fit to be > >president. Unless their is a public repudiation of those interviews no party > >is going to allow that kind of speaker on the platform. > > Again, not saying its right or wrong - but again identifying the CW. If right-wing news is your definition of CW... > > >And the fact that: > >> a) Harry Reid is somehow considered to be a "pro-life" Senator in the > >> Democratic Party (compare his deviation from the Democratic mean vs. > >> "pro-choice" Republican Senators' deviation from the mean.) > >> b) Harry Reid is about the only "pro-life" speaker at a Democratic > >> Convention in a long, long time > I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that since the GOP has adopted a position it is far easier to disagree with and you get elected officials considered moderates with wider disagreement this means that Democrats are the one with the problem? > But I did notice that you didn't have a sharp rebuttal for the above..... > > >> At 03:26 PM 5/16/2005 -0500, Gary Denton wrote: > >> >>The procedure that was banned was used in only 0.004% of > >> >>abortions is the United States. Yes my 0's are in the right place > >> >according > >> >>to the AMA. > >> > >> Haven't you just made Dan's point? Liberal Democrats wouldn't even > >> restrict 0.004% of abortions???!!!!???!!!!??? > >> > > > >That this procedure was only necessary and often used to save lives was also > >snipped. > > The bill passed by Congress contained an exception that the procedure may > be used to save the life of the mother. In particular, it provides an > exception for a partial-birth abortion "necessary to save the life of a > mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, > or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused > by or arising from the pregnancy itself." > > http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:5:./temp/~c1085WUrim:: Why do you provide cites that don't exist? However, I could find similar copies of the bill. This exception suffers from several flaws. It is limited to situations where the woman's life is endangered by a "physical disorder, illness or injury." This language excludes some life-threatening situations by enumerating others. However, the government may not choose among life-threatening circumstances and still preserve women's lives as the Casey decision requires. This was a political bill. Based on many other bills ruled unconstitutional it was known that this bill also would be declared unconstitutional which it was very shortly by three judges in three states. > > >Why do you want to get involved in medical decisions that endanger pregnant > >women? > > As noted above, the law provided that government does *not* get involved in > such decisions. But a conservative pro-life judge held extensive hearings on just that matter and ruled it did. What is your basis for disagreeing with that decision? > > But, why do you not want to get involved in protecting the inalienable > rights of children from violations by their parents? Because this is a matter between a woman and her doctor? The Catholic Church has it that every sperm is sacred. Should a government threaten you with prosecution if it determines you may be wasting sperm in unsanctioned ways? - Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
