Quote:
Originally Posted by
SDW2001 
Quote:
Originally Posted by
muppetry
Fair enough - I agree there is plenty of nutbaggery on both sides. But the separation is actually rather less than the GOP would like, since Ryan and Akin were co-sponsors of a bill (No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act) that, while not quite in the league of Akin's recent remarks, was very troubling, both in its intent and its reference to "forcible rape". I'm sure that you can see why this makes a lot of people nervous of the connection, and somewhat disbelieving of the currents attempts to distance the GOP from those sentiments. Especially with a significant segment of the party vociferously defending Akin.
The separation is enormous. The position on abortion is not the issue. There are many people who disagree with "no exceptions," but given Roe v. Wade, it's a moot argument anyway. As for a significant segment of the party "defending Akin," whom would that be? I heard NO Republican do so. Every major GOP member and even the conservative media pushed him hard to drop out. The nominee told him to drop out. There's not much more than can do, can they?
I agree that the mainstream party has not supported him and my point was not a criticism of the GOP, but many conservative religious groups and the Missouri Tea Party have expressed support. My observation was that the lack of universal condemnation on the far right alarms many moderates whom the GOP needs to attract to win the next election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by
muppetry
OK - we clearly have very different ideas of both citations and proof, and I'm curious whether or not you know that you are grossly misrepresenting the infanticide issue by simply repeating the more extreme right-wing slant on this. Even the most cursory check into the history of the both the lllinois and draft Congressional born-alive bills (to which I assume you refer) debunks that assertion. Obama did both abstain and vote against the Illinois bill, not because he disagreed with that particular provision (or because, as was stupidly portrayed by some, he wanted doctors to kill live babies), but because it was already covered in other legislation and because parts of it contradicted existing law. It does provide a nice opportunity to attack, but does not that misuse of matters of historical record make you even slightly uncomfortable?
There are plenty of reasonable areas for Republicans to attack the current Democratic record; resorting to this kind of nonsense might appeal to the party base, but they are not going to win over many independents by insulting their intelligence.
You really should read this.
I had read it. It supports my argument, so I'm not clear what your point is. On the infanticide issue, this is what it has to say:
Quote: From
Obama and Infanticide: A Matter of Definition
The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?
In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won’t try to settle that one.
What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus’ life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."
The assertion that Obama is pro-infanticide is, in any case, so asinine and unbelievable that even if one were able to construe something he had said as meaning that, to make that argument just comes over as desperate sophistry, when, as I said, there are plenty of legitimate grounds on which to differ. It's a bit like continuing to assert that Apple is trying to patent rectangles.
