And that is where you are wrong. The "norm" when it comes to liberal constituents is not at all "quiet". NOW would qualify as part of that "norm" and they are hardly quiet.
Shag - the 'norm' is the couple or woman that wouldn''t consider abortion for themselves, but doesn't want the government to dictate this particular issue to others.
They are your neighbors, your friends, maybe members of your family. They are your classmates, your fellow employees, the girl you dated 2 years ago. Those are the 'norm' when it comes to abortion rights.
Just as that same list could be the norm for people against abortions.
We have NOW, the right has NRL, I would put them at about equal footing. So, would you cal NRL 'norm' for the anti abortion side?
No, you probably are the norm, on the 'against it' side, but I doubt if you go out and go to organized protests, make signs and chant. I could be wrong, but it seems like you are too busy to do that. Also, I don't to that, or give money to NOW... I think both of us are more the 'norm' than either of those groups. If you went by that standard then the membership of NOW and NRL would be astronomical.
And I believe that NRL
is an organization that intentionally perpetuates those radical, dishonest and decietful terms and talking points. That is just as silly of a statement as the one you made Shag... I don't believe that at all.
And, Shag, this is another case where the 'right' gets into trouble. By hanging a 'radical' label on the entire left, you just end up looking foolish to 'middle America'. So, go ahead, continue to label all 'liberal constituents' as aligning with NOW. It just makes your side look out-of-touch.
And you give yourself away as one of those radicals when you label people as "anti-choice" on this; as you did in post number 67 when you labeled the "firebombers" as having a "radical anti choice" agenda.
Why - because I don't know their views on the death penalty. So, if they were for the death penalty, but against abortion, that doesn't make them 'pro life'. However, on this issue, they are 'anti choice' in regards to the mother's options. It is a label that fits correctly.
I don't 'buy' into the terminology - and I don't buy into the 'pro-life' label, that probably in many cases isn't correct.
I don't know your views on the death penalty Shag - but, if you were for the death penalty I would have a hard time justifying that you were 'pro-life'.
And I am not a radical on this issue. Not even close.
And, you sort of avoided the rape issue once Foss called you on it... You don't need to line up with Foss's extreme views. It is OK to say that the woman doesn't have to serve a lifetime sentence because she got raped.