'You said there was no real voice in the process but there is.'
Actually, he said:
In the sense that she can propose legislation, sure. I noted this earlier - the voice exists, but it doesn't mean much
What's happening here is as the debate extends the argument is changing focus. First it was about attacks on birth control. Your assertion connected prima facie this issue to an attack on birth control. Further arguments were on the power of the whip in terms of getting legislation proposed and passed.
As this wasn't an attack on birth control then further arguments over whether there was an effort by the whip to attack it is fallacious.
If you criticize someone for criminal behavior and demand imprisonment and we later find out they're innocent, the argument can't be over whether or not they deserve to go to jail or that if the supposed crime is deserving of jail time.
no subject
Actually, he said:
In the sense that she can propose legislation, sure. I noted this earlier - the voice exists, but it doesn't mean much
What's happening here is as the debate extends the argument is changing focus. First it was about attacks on birth control. Your assertion connected prima facie this issue to an attack on birth control. Further arguments were on the power of the whip in terms of getting legislation proposed and passed.
As this wasn't an attack on birth control then further arguments over whether there was an effort by the whip to attack it is fallacious.
If you criticize someone for criminal behavior and demand imprisonment and we later find out they're innocent, the argument can't be over whether or not they deserve to go to jail or that if the supposed crime is deserving of jail time.