(no subject)

[stonebender]

I had a little brain fart. I think I got McCain confused with Romney to be honest. You are more right than I am, but after a quick search I did come up with this:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/08/mccain-backs-aw.html

which seems to suggest that McCain in 2000 was a little less anti-choice than he is now.

Comments

[leback.livejournal.com]

No, I didn't. I said I think you're overlooking the difference between seeking to express one or the other of the views I described in the law. I think that because the points you made give no indication that you're addressing the latter type of expression, only the former. And while I realize that you *don't* believe society has a legitimate interest in protecting pre-viable fetuses, I'm still responding to the part where you called "crazy" a position rooted in the belief that it does. Unless all you mean is that that belief is itself crazy (which I think would be far beneath you), I don't see the applicability of your arguments about what a free society can and can't do via its criminal law. Thus, I guessed that you misunderstood the type of expressive function to which I was referring.

Anyhow, you sound like you're beginning to be upset by this discussion, so I'd like to bow out before I offend you further. I do get email comment notifications, so I'll still see any response you might choose to make, but unless you require further clarification, I don't think it's wise for me to continue responding.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

No, I didn't. I said I think you're overlooking the difference between seeking to express one or the other of the views I described in the law. I think that because the points you made give no indication that you're addressing the latter type of expression, only the former. And while I realize that you *don't* believe society has a legitimate interest in protecting pre-viable fetuses, I'm still responding to the part where you called "crazy" a position rooted in the belief that it does.

Yes, that clarifies things.

I had conceded that, if my understanding of the law was incorrect, the original statement was "reasonable" - i.e., "not crazy", but still, IMHO, wrong due to other circumstances.