Democratic politician angry that letters on his pro-abortion voting record distributed by private group at local Catholic parishes

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mdgspencer

Guest
Not sure what his issue is with the letter. If the letter says he supports abortion and he does support abortion. People should know where he stands on the issues.
 
lwest said:
Not sure what his issue is with the letter. If the letter says he supports abortion and he does support abortion.
Click to expand...
Yep. If that’s his position, he should own it. If, on the other hand, he is ashamed of it being posted, then that should tell him something.
 
I followed a link in the link. The USCCB said it is not allowed, probably. If the parking lot belongs do the parish, it is no allowed. If it is public, it is.
 
If y’all insist on calling people who are pro choice ‘pro abortion’ then you are closing the door to any sensible discussions on how to reduce the number of abortions. As long as you know that.
 
To me that is okay. I have no intention on discussing child murder with those that support it. Any “meaningful” discussion you think you have is a non-starter.
 
Freddy said:
If y’all insist on calling people who are pro choice ‘pro abortion’ then you are closing the door to any sensible discussions on how to reduce the number of abortions. As long as you know that.
Click to expand...
If you’re not anti-abortion, then you’re pro-abortion.

Anybody who can’t be honest with themselves about that probably isn’t going to be able to “dialogue” productively either. I tend to think dialogue is overrated anyway.
MtnDwellar said:
I don’t see how accuracy closes any doors.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t. Using pretty words just enables people to keep lying to themselves about “oh I personally am against it but can’t force my ideas on the world”. <----this was me 20 years ago until I finally got honest with myself.
 
Last edited:
MtnDwellar said:
‘Pro-abortion’ is more accurate than ‘pro-choice’. I don’t see how accuracy closes any doors.
Click to expand...
TBH, the two terms seem equally accurate but I’m tired of the whole “anti-abortion/pro birth” label for pro lifers, and “pro-abortion/whatever” label for pro choicers because it’s not used consistently and it’s often used in bad faith (e.g saying anti abortion but using pro choice in the same breath). It’s one of those things where we should just use the original labels they identify with and debate about the substance of their arguments. Otherwise the whining over the most irrelevant part of the issue won’t end! 🤣
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
🤔 Meaning?
Click to expand...
C’mon seal. It’s pretty obvious. Accuracy doesn’t close doors. But misrepresenting someone’s position does.

I’d like to reduce the number of abortions to zero. Are we on the same page there? You bet! We could discuss why women have them, which age group or socio-economic group has more, whether education had an effect and what policies need to be adopted to get that figure down to a big, fat zero.

And then you say that we need to force women to stop having them by making it illegal. And I say no. That won’t work. We need to find a way to stop women who don’t want to get pregnant getting pregnant in the first place and help those who do, care for their babies. They have to do it voluntarily. It has to be their choice.

Ah, say you. You’re for abortion! At which point I leave. Because there’s nothing constructive we can talk about. You are misrepresenting my position so we can’t even start a dialogue. And the door closes behind me.
 
Last edited:
If you want to reduce the number of abortions to zero, why don’t you just go do it? You don’t need to have a dialogue with us or anyone else. Find like minded people and start saving those babies.

If you are successful in your approaches, then the pro-life world will beat a path to your door.
 
Last edited:
I understand where you’re coming from here, and I can agree there is potential when using certain language, even if that language is accurate, to shut down discussion. From your perspective you think pro-choice is more accurate than pro-abortion because you would prefer no abortions, but I find your position illogical - why do you want there to be no abortions? That implies there is something wrong with abortion, which the “pro-choice” side in general does not concede. So why do you want to reduce abortions to zero?
And can you understand why a pro-life or anti-abortion person would find the phrase “pro-choice” unacceptable to them to use on conscience grounds, considering that, from their perspective, the “choice” is the murder of a human being, and the phrase itself is the invention of those who want to make that form of murder palatable?
So long as we understand where one another is coming from, dialogue will be more fruitful.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
If you want to reduce the number of abortions to zero, why don’t you just go do it? You don’t need to have a dialogue with us or anyone else. Find like minded people and start saving those babies.

If you are successful in your approaches, then the pro-life world will beat a path to your door.
Click to expand...
I’m sure some might. But would you join forces with someone who was pro-abortion? Which actually means that they would be actively for women having them. That it’s an aim. Would you want to discuss anything with someone who wants women to have abortions?

Obviously not. So if I am to be described as such then you wouldn’t be beating a path to my door.
 
sealabeag said:
I understand where you’re coming from here, and I can agree there is potential when using certain language, even if that language is accurate, to shut down discussion. From your perspective you think pro-choice is more accurate than pro-abortion because you would prefer no abortions, but I find your position illogical - why do you want there to be no abortions? That implies there is something wrong with abortion, which the “pro-choice” side in general does not concede. So why do you want to reduce abortions to zero?
And can you understand why a pro-life or anti-abortion person would find the phrase “pro-choice” unacceptable to them to use on conscience grounds, considering that, from their perspective, the “choice” is the murder of a human being, and the phrase itself is the invention of those who want to make that form of murder palatable?
So long as we understand where one another is coming from, dialogue will be more fruitful.
Click to expand...
It will bear no fruit whatsoever. If someone wants to misrepresent me as actually wanting women to have abortions then they are excluding themselves from any discussion with me. I don’t mind taking the time to explain my position but further to that there is nothing practical to talk about.
 
Why not? I asked you a couple of questions but you don’t want to answer them. It seems like you’re choosing to shut down the discussion. I didn’t say you wanted women to have abortions, btw.
 
Freddy said:
If y’all insist on calling people who are pro choice ‘pro abortion’ then you are closing the door to any sensible discussions on how to reduce the number of abortions. As long as you know that.
Click to expand...
How about a more specific “pro-legalized abortion” or pro-abortion choice."

Everyone is pro-choice. We believe in a default freedom to choose. Not everyone agrees this should apply to abortion, slavery, rape, etc.

I also agree that pro-life is miss used when applied only to abortion. Everyone is pro-life in some way.
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
Why not? I asked you a couple of questions but you don’t want to answer them. It seems like you’re choosing to shut down the discussion. I didn’t say you wanted women to have abortions, btw.
Click to expand...
I appreciate that you haven’t. And I apologise if I gave the impression that I thought you had.

But I would prefer women not to have to go through the procedure of having an abortion in the first place. If it was my daughter I would prefer her not to get pregnant in the first place (especially as another child would put her at very grave risk). So a permanent means of contraception would obviously be the sensible solution.

But there goes any support from you and everyone else in this thread. They’re beating a path to my door because I have an easy solution to prevent a great deal of abortions but they come with torches and pitchforks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top