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.
Classic foxpaws distortion. You subtly are broadening the scope from what I was originally talking about. I was talking about liberal and conservative constitutents, not society as a whole.
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?
There is a difference between NOW and the NRL that is the difference between liberals and conservatives. Now actively works to dominate the issue and dishonestly frame the debate in ways favorable to them. The try to smear and dishonestly marginalize their opponents and in any waqy avoid honest debate.
Conservatives want to have that debate and are being shut out. You can see this going all the way back to Roe. The court decision effectively shut down debate on this and took the issue off the table. Otherwise, momentum was moving toward a vote on an amendment on this issue. But the left shut that down and instead got their will
imposed on society through dishonest and unconstitutional means.
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.
"Anti-choice" is misleading term that has been
proven to be perpetuated by NOW and certian areas of the MSM. Just ask Tammy Bruce who as head of the LA chapter of NOW sat in on various meetings where NOW members (even at the national level) talked with the media about "strategy" and getting them to use certian terms like "anti-choice" to describe pro-lifers in their reporting.
Stop making up smears to compete with fact.
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.
It only looks "foolish" to any honest person if it is not true. However, what I have said is pretty easily verifiable. I wouldn't believe it (let alone say it) otherwise.
I used to not believe that the left was pathologically dishonest and decietful because I didn't
want to believe it. I thought that the instances I saw were incedental and not part of the left. However, watching the debates here and countless other places has show that to be wrong. The left is habitually dishonest and decietful. Most
all their talking points are based in that and they work to smear and dishonestly marginalize their opposition. Most all the arguments in defense of their position tend to mischaracterize the opposition, and the political strategies they use are often subtle, underhanded and decietful.
Say what you will about conservatives, but they often are not that adept at being "subtle" or "sly". They tend to be bluntly honest, and in doing that is where they recieve the most criticism.
Liberals are
very adept and being two-faced, underhanded and decietful. Just look at the massive "stimulus" bill they just passed that was more about political payoffs, enacting a liberal agenda and cementing party political power then it was about an economic stimulus. Most of the "stimulus" won't be spend until 2010 (an election year) and most of it doesn't go to spending at all aimed at stimulating the economy. But, it establishes a national healthcare bureaucracy in all but name.
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.
More dishonesty and distortion from foxpaws.
Their views on the death penalty are irrelevant to their view on Abortion. There is a distinct difference; one is an innocent life and one is guilty of a crime that warrents the death penalty. The two are not comparable. "Pro" or "anti" anything in this debate are a bit leading, but in some instances they are honest and in some they are decietful.
The right view the issue in term of a right to life, so that is their big concern with it. If that issue weren't there, the right would have no objections. So to characterize them as "pro-life" would be accurate but to characterize them as "anti-choice" is inherently inaccurate and dishonest.
The left views the issue in terms of a right to choose. So to characterize them as "anti-life" would be dishonest as well because their main focus on this issue is a matter of free will and choice.
You are using terminology aimed at smearing and marginalizing the right on this issue.
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.
But you are using leftist smear words.
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'.
Because you (not suprisingly) buy into the mischaracterization and distortion on this put out by the left without first applying any critical thought to it or seeking out a conservative rebuttel to that argument.
One is an innocent life in no uncertian terms. One is a life that has (in most likelyhood) commited a murder and is in no way innocent and deserving of justice.
And I am not a radical on this issue. Not even close.
No, you just repeat radical talking points and don't examine them for credibility first. Then get defensive (in your passive agressive way) when those ignorant talking points are called and you are shown to have your foot in your mouth.
Your passions and emotions clearly dictate your views. Thought is only applied to rationalize those views. That is how a high school student and most college students (and apparently most liberals) think.
