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.... >>>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. >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 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 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, why do you not want to get involved in protecting the inalienable rights of children from violations by their parents? JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
