Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 23:09:46 -0500, Dan Minette wrote In the absence of the ability to enforce such a law fairly, it is merely words on paper, as WWII showed. In my view, that's a reason not to make abortion a crime. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
Behalf Of Gary Denton All of these positions have been supported by Democrats. But this is a straw man argument. Lets try the same type of argument in a slightly different context Why do the conservative Republicans always feel that government belongs in the bedroom regulating behavior? Why do they always feel that the government knows more than a woman and her doctor on sexual matters? Can you point me to positions where these are not consistently supported by conservative Republicans? You could probably also put together a pretty good list when it comes to gun control and conservative Republicans... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
At 05:19 PM 5/17/2005 -0500, Garu wrote: I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of anybody in it. Oh really, NIck Then I am sure that you are more than happy to provide information to disprove Dan's proposition. Republicans have proposed a number of sensible restrictions on abortion over the years. Can you name one such restriction that was supported by liberal Democrats Allow me to provide a list of suggestions: -no public funds should be used to fund abortions -Catholic hospitals should not be required to perform abortions -minors should be required to notify their parents or a judge before getting an abortion -there should be a mandatory waiting period for an abortion -partial-birth/dilation and extraction abortions should be prohibited -abortions after viability should be prohibited -gender-selection abortions should be prohibited All of these positions have been supported by Democrats. Yes, there do exist a handfull of pro-life Democrats, particularly at the State and Local level.The above restrictions, however, have never been supported by a majority of Democrats in either house of Congress. But this is a straw man argument. Lets try the same type of argument in a slightly different context Why do the conservative Republicans always feel that government belongs in the bedroom regulating behavior? Conservative Republicans clearly do not always feel that way. When was the last time conservative Republicans proposed a new regulation for a behavior that primarily occurs in the bedroom? Perhaps we could use the same test you have proposed by examining past party platforms? You have correctly made an analogy. By using the word always, I merely need to find one example in which conservative Republicans have not felt that the government belongs in the bedroom regulating behavior to disprove your thesis.In this case, conservative Republicans do not feel that the government belong in a bedroom regulating masturbation. We're still waiting for that one mere example needed to disprove Dan's thesis. Why do they always feel that the government knows more than a woman and her doctor on sexual matters? Can you point me to positions where these are not consistently supported by conservative Republicans? I can think of no example in which conservative Republicans have proposed a law that states that the government knows more than a doctor and a woman regarding sex.So, not only is it not consistently supported, there is no single example of it being supported. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
At 05:02 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, you wrote: On Mon, 16 May 2005 19:31:19 -0400, JDG wrote At 10:56 AM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: I don't see it that way. Let's take one contraversial subject: abortion. The standard liberal Democratic position is to defend all abortions without question. Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of anybody in it. Oh really, NIck Then I am sure that you are more than happy to provide information to disprove Dan's proposition. Republicans have proposed a number of sensible restrictions on abortion over the years. Can you name one such restriction that was supported by liberal Democrats Certainly if we change the question at hand to Have liberal Democrats supported legal restrictions on abortions, then your points would be relevant. However, we were discussing whether defend all abortions is a standard liberal Democratic position or not. If the standard liberal Democratic position is to oppose every one of those restrictions on abortion, then isn't it true that they are defending all abortions from any legalized restriction? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:23:09 -0400, JDG wrote If the standard liberal Democratic position is to oppose every one of those restrictions on abortion, then isn't it true that they are defending all abortions from any legalized restriction? I suppose it does. But that is dramatically different from defending abortion. One can defend the legality of abortion without endorsing it. The fact that something is wrong and undesirable, even horrible, cannot imply that it must be made illegal. Otherwise, wouldn't we have to make war illegal, for example? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose it does. But that is dramatically different from defending abortion. One can defend the legality of abortion without endorsing it. The fact that something is wrong and undesirable, even horrible, cannot imply that it must be made illegal. Otherwise, wouldn't we have to make war illegal, for example? Nick We already have. Kellogg-Briand, 1928. They won the Nobel Peace Prize for it. It was signed by, among other states, Germany, Japan, and Italy. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 9:09 PM Subject: Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The American PoliticalLandscape Today On Mon, 16 May 2005 20:23:09 -0400, JDG wrote If the standard liberal Democratic position is to oppose every one of those restrictions on abortion, then isn't it true that they are defending all abortions from any legalized restriction? I suppose it does. But that is dramatically different from defending abortion. One can defend the legality of abortion without endorsing it. Which is what I was referring to by saying defend abortions. It is amazing how close our language is on this. . I would have used endorsing abortion for saying it was inherently a good thing. Also, by talking about aborition as reproductive rights one does defend it as a fundamental human rightwhich actually goes beyond simply defending the legality of it. Finally, given the fact that I was specifically referring to polls on the legality of abortion, I still don't see why it was such a stretch to see that this is what I meant. I'm always happy to clarify, but I'm not sure why calling my ideas radical is considered a reasonable way to ask for such a clarification. All I did was look at the data and drew a conclusion from the numbers...while giving others a chance to draw their own conclusion. The fact that something is wrong and undesirable, even horrible, cannot imply that it must be made illegal. It must not also be the least worse option. Killing in self defense is legal for this reason, even for private citizens. Otherwise, wouldn't we have to make war illegal, for example? Well, if there were an international constitution for a Federated Republic of the World that supported rights for all and that was backed by the World Police Force which was backed by the International Guard, then that would be a reasonable thing to do. In the absence of the ability to enforce such a law fairly, it is merely words on paper, as WWII showed. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
