Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On Tue, 17 May 2005 10:40:44 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote > No, the pink unicorns are because you think Gautam, if you want to know what I think, I'd be grateful if you would choose to ask me, rather than telling me -- even though I often do the same thing that I'm complaining about. I'm trying to do better. I think the root of this is thinking that I'm smart in all ways, rather than a few. Also, I tend to live in a state of constant alertness, which includes trying to anticipate what's going to happen next, which serves me well in some ways, but not so much in dialog, where it leads me to assume I understand more than I do. I'm smart in some ways, but I'm quite dense in others, such as when I jump to conclusions about what other people are saying or thinking. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:23:42 -0400, JDG wrote > Now, hobgoblins, that's the conservatives' cue to > tell me I'm living in a > fantasy land if I think that abortion can be made > rare. Pink unicorns and all > that. > > Nick No, the pink unicorns are because you think domestic politics, where the rule of law is a real thing, are the same thing as international politics, which are consulted in anarchy. The pink unicorns are there, but they're associated with the other part of the comparison. Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Make Yahoo! your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:23:42 -0400, JDG wrote > We have discussed numerous restrictions on war (even the most red-blooded > conservative doesn't believe that the US should choose a war without > restriction).On the other hand, we still don't have any examples > of the liberal Democrats supporting restrictions on abortion - and I > even made the question multiple choice! To use the language I used about war... there are plenty of liberals who have a moral presumption against abortion. There are plenty of liberals who know that it is a terrible and sad thing. There are plenty who are doing a great deal to make abortion rare. I believe those things. They are part of having a consistent ethic of life. I support all sorts of restrictions against abortion, just as I support all sorts of restrictions against the use of military power. Both issue have had profound impacts on my family. Now, hobgoblins, that's the conservatives' cue to tell me I'm living in a fantasy land if I think that abortion can be made rare. Pink unicorns and all that. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On Mon, 16 May 2005 22:19:58 -0400, JDG wrote > Is it fair for me to say that you are trying to stake out a *very* nuanced > position here? No. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
On May 16, 2005, at 7:23 PM, JDG wrote: We have discussed numerous restrictions on war (even the most red-blooded conservative doesn't believe that the US should choose a war without restriction).On the other hand, we still don't have any examples of the liberal Democrats supporting restrictions on abortion - and I even made the question multiple choice! This could be because the label "liberal" fits, hmm? ;) -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 07:14 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, you 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. I'd also point out that if we want to extend the analogy, that if something is considered to be undesiribale, but should still be available as a legal resort, then one generally supports restrictions on it. We have discussed numerous restrictions on war (even the most red-blooded conservative doesn't believe that the US should choose a war without restriction).On the other hand, we still don't have any examples of the liberal Democrats supporting restrictions on abortion - and I even made the question multiple choice! JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Abortion and Liberal Democrats Re: The AmericanPoliticalLandscape Today
At 07:09 PM 5/16/2005 -0700, Nick 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. Well, Nick, here's my problem. Dan 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. And you responded very, very, forcefully with: >Extremist strawman hogwash. That is neither the party position, nor much of >anybody in it. Yet. you have now conceded that liberal Democrats "defend all abortions from any legalized restriction" - while at the same time holding "that this is dramatically different from 'defending abortion.'" Is it fair for me to say that you are trying to stake out a *very* nuanced position here? I would also point out that the statement you agreed with used the phrase "defend all abortions", which is the same phrasing Dan M. used in his original remark, and which you may perceive as being different from "defneding abortion" which you objected to in your most recent clarification. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
