Abortion Restrictions By State

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I don't see this as a lie, like you see it. Having a dual purpose doesn't necessarily make the official purpose a lie.

 

See, I'm fine with this position, if that's the case. However, as Ice has pointed out, there it seems there was a bit of a dirty political game played here.  If true, I don't see why Catholics would be okay with this. 

[KnightofChrist]

See, I'm fine with this position, if that's the case. However, as Ice has pointed out, there it seems there was a bit of a dirty political game played here.  If true, I don't see why Catholics would be okay with this.

I don't believe their using this law as a political game. You'll have to talk to those who do and are ok with it, about that, I cannot read minds or hearts. Maybe it's similar to those who would lie to Nazis about hiding Jews in their house, or choosing the lesser of two evils. I don't know.

I don't see the official stated purpose as a lie even if it has a secondary purpose of preventing more babies from being murdered in mass. Edited July 15, 2013 by KnightofChrist

[Socrates]

You're arguing the same way I would in my high school theology classes whenever I'd get bored. This isn't a real argument. Do you actually believe they meant whatever you're implying?

 

 

See, I'm fine with this position, if that's the case. However, as Ice has pointed out, there it seems there was a bit of a dirty political game played here.  If true, I don't see why Catholics would be okay with this. 

 

Do I actually believe who meant what?

 

Please show me what specifically in this bill is a lie that Catholics cannot support in good conscience.  

 

As I've said repeatedly, one can legitimately have multiple reasons or motivations for for an action, and protecting the health and safety of women and the lives of unborn children are not mutually exclusive goals.  Also, one is not morally obligated to proclaim to everyone all of one's motivations for performing a certain action, so long as it does not actually involve lying (and you have not demonstrated that an actual lie is involved).

 

Lying also involves the intent to deceive, and I don't think any actual attempt at deception is going on.  Everyone knows that pro-lifers intend to save as many unborn lives as they can (and conversely, that "pro-choicers" want abortion to be as unrestricted as possible), and no one is denying this.

 

Also, I fail to see how the "game" in this case is any "dirtier" than that involved in passing any piece of controversial legislation.

 

 

(And, while this is not an argument, I find this new-found moral scrupulosity on the part of the advocates of legal baby-killing amusing and ironic.  Some of those who are supposedly outraged over the alleged "dishonesty" of this bill are also consistent and adamant defenders of the Roe v. Wade ruling that got us into this whole mess.  It is obvious from a study of that case that the justices who made this decision were motivated by a desire to have near-universal legal abortion, not by any actual honest concern that the Constitution was being violated.  They used grotesque and tortured twisting of logic, and far-fetched extrapolations stretched to the breaking point, to make their "interpretation" of the Constitution support their desired predetermined outcome of a "right" to abortion.  Not to mention that the plaintiff in that case lied about being raped, on the advice of her lawyers.)

[Socrates]

It's not outright lying. Although Hasan likes to insinuate the average pro-lifer as a group of men who don't care about women only insofar as they would like to control them, their bodies and their sexuality (which I READILY admit that a number of pro-life men probably fit the bill, and that even larger swaths are simply insensitive in the sense they have never given more than 2 seconds of fleeting thought on the unjust obstacles that women face), most pro-lifers I've met do have concern for the women who face abortion, such concerns include: post abortive depression and other psychological complications, medical complications, and spiritual moral complications.

 

Not to mention that at least half of those active in the pro-life movement are women.  Trying to attack or dismiss pro-lifers as a group as misogynists not caring about women or being clueless about the concerns of women is absurd, when huge numbers of them are women.

It's also stupid (and I'd say sexist) to blithely dismiss the female half of pro-lifers as all idiots or traitors to their sex.

 

Also, I'm sure you can find hypocrites and @$$holes in any group of persons, but you can't use them to stereotype or dismiss the entire cause.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Socrates

[Ice_nine]

Thanks for the post! I still find it wrong to accept this way of playing politics. Even if it's the way our system works, that doesn't make it right. Half lies and white lies are still lies. It doesn't really make sense to me for a group to claim to stand for a higher moral cause and be zen with using immoral means of getting there. 

 

Again, I don't really see it as lying. Saying I want tighter medical restrictions (knowing full well it will reduce abortions) is not a lie. The motives as to why I want this are not being fully disclosed I guess. I've not read the bill, I don't know how the reasoning is officially explained but irreguardless (lololololol) I still don't see it as lying if the only reasons cited are medical reasons. I genuinely do believe that cranking open a woman's cervix and sucking out a fetus shouldn't be treated like a dental cleaning. That is absurd. As to my reasons why, do I have to reveal ALL of them up front? Especially when we all know what's going on?

 

 

Not to mention that at least half of those active in the pro-life movement are women.  Trying to attack or dismiss pro-lifers as a group as misogynists not caring about women or being clueless about the concerns of women is absurd, when huge numbers of them are women.

It's also stupid (and I'd say sexist) to blithely dismiss the female half of pro-lifers as all idiots or traitors to their sex.

 

All of them yes, but it's quite possible for women to be misogynist or at the very least have feelings of inferiority and inadequacy that they project onto the entire gender.

[4588686]

 

 

 

All of them yes, but it's quite possible for women to be misogynist or at the very least have feelings of inferiority and inadequacy that they project onto the entire gender.

 

 

I am a woman, a wife, a mother, and a proud misogynist.