Sad. Sad too that they give no actual reason in their statement for not supporting the measure.
What it says is that they don’t support this one particular action. Why? I agree they are not clear, but I can guess at several acceptable reasons:
No. That was not my intent at all. In fact, nowhere did I imply that. I just think any type of legislation that hampers abortion should be supported, unless there are clear reasons that make the measure immoral. They did not convey that, only that they would not support it.
I fully agree that they did not convey why they oppose the initiative.
Sorry, johnnykins. Imprudent is less of a concern to me than UNJUST or IMMORAL, and that is what abortion is. If you can give me an example of how this measure might be an imprudent measure that is moral, I would still back it, because life is more sacred than prudence. At all cost. That is my opinion.
Well, we disagree. Above, I submitted possible prudential reasons for opposing this measure. I have agreed I do not know exactly what reasons the Bishops had. However, if you are always going to back measures, whether prudent or not, I submit that you have let go of reason. Frankly, I cannot see that helping any cause - especially the anti-abortion cause. I also submit it makes a quick end to discussion.
No, I reason with my faith. Abortion is an evil that must be stopped, even if it requires some sacrifice on our part. Just because my reason is different than yours, doesn’t mean I’ve lost it! If you are willing to make up reasons for not fighting such a thing as abortion, at any cost, by saying that a measure is not prudent, maybe you are the one who has lost his reason
.You have a good point that could be very well true.
Ted re-read what you wrote:No, I reason with my faith. Abortion is an evil that must be stopped, even if it requires some sacrifice on our part. Just because my reason is different than yours, doesn’t mean I’ve lost it! If you are willing to make up reasons for not fighting such a thing as abortion, at any cost, by saying that a measure is not prudent, maybe you are the one who has lost his reason
You certainly seem to be saying you would back an imprudent measure. If we were merely debating whether a particular measure were prudent - that is easily a matter to discuss. However, when you posit that you would back a measure you deemed imprudent, I still suggest that is unreasonable and not a matter that can seriously be discussed. To state you would back imprudence betrays a lack of reason, IMHO.
johnnykins… you re-read what I wrote. I stated:
That means as long as a measure is moral and just, I would back it. I am not concerned about the cost at that point.
So if it were foolish and counterproductive you would back it? Ace move!!
“Cost” is only one possible issue. If the cost were foolish and counterproductive, I presume you would forgo it? But, maybe not.
Well, that’s because you mis-read it. It simply gives an excuse for not fighting injustice in particular ways. A very different issue. You on the other hand appear to support inanity, counter productivity and foolishness - irrationality - in the name of fighting injustice.
NO, rather I would say your broad brush approach is every bit as irrational as it appears.
Unfortunately I’m afraid you are very clear that you actually support irrationality. No doubt you believe that will help the anti-abortion cause. I honestly fear it could destroy it.So if the mode of blurbs back and forth has obscured what you mean - well that, too, is another issue.
If they were foolish and counterproductive, would that then be just? Ace response! You are twisting and turning words to win an argument that nobody asked for! Ace move!
Appearances are misleading because you are wrong. Nice judgment on my character though.
No, not true. You have used that label and taken it to your desired destination.
You might want to consider the meaning of the word “prudence”
And you may want to consider the meaning of the words “moral” and “just”.
So you think it would be right for the USCCB to enter into a massive media campaign against abortion, during a time when Congress is overwhelmingly pro-life and any actual legislative change extremely unlikely, and not only that, but to back such a campaign with everything they have, to the extent of laying off all their staff and selling up Church property, so that there wasn’t a single Catholic church building left in America, and no priests left to say Mass?
When did the USCCB get involved in this thread? Who said anything about a “massive media campaign”? Good grief. You people crack me up. Jump to all sorts of conclusions!!! I am beginning to think there are just too many people here who just need to argue.
Tedster, you clearly put yourself into an argument by claiming that the action, without stated reasons, taken by the Bishops was “Sad” Post #1
Not so - you added commentary. If you don’t want folks to question your comments, don’t make any.
That and that their position was “Sad” See above. Post #1
It’s true I did suggest that you should not equate “opposition to particular remedies with approval of abortion” Your very next post, Post #3, clarified your position on that one issue, but introduced a new - and might I add novel, ill considered and dangerous notion - to wit:
In the next post #4 I questioned that assertion:
In Post #5 you took up the argument
Here you actually state you would act imprudently. Certainly you cannot expect reasonable people to countenance imprudence - by its definition it is foolish to do so. You might want to discuss what is or is not prudent - but YOU chose to do otherwise - and repeatedly affirmed your position.
You started by offering an opinion on an open thread. You took up the argument. You made foolish statements. Certainly a reasonable person expects disagreement when they offer an opinion - as you did. Don’t tell us to take our ball and go home because we contested your opinion and pointed out its flaws.
Wow, a three letter word tells you all you need to know about what I think, who I am, etc. Johnny, you are the KING…
I’ve been in these forums awhile. Every so often, I see the likes of you. I have no problems with questions about my comments, as long as they don’t become personal (being labeled as irrational, foolish, etc.). Just because my ideas don’t coincide with yours? Mighty arrogant, johnny.
Yeah, I took your bait. My bad.
No. Your mistaken notion, not mine.
Yeah, once again, I took your bait. My bad. Enjoy your time in these forums johnny. I hope you find as many arguments as you need to make you feel as intellectual as you need. I am sorry for my part in helping you to this end. I’m taking my ball and going home!
