The Pro-Life Movement's Problem With Morality

The Washington Dispatch ^ | June 6, 2003 | Cathryn Crawford

[Cathryn Crawford]

Being called a hypocrite by you bothers me very little.

[ShadowAce]

That's acceptable.

[Lazamataz]

I don't care about poor children being murdered.

I knew it.

[Clint N. Suhks]

If RU486 does NOT cause cancer, that particular point logic is moot but logic remains constant.

You're funny.

[MHGinTN]

Because tpaine is a smartaleck and tries to be caustic while playing the role of an 'expert on the Constitution'.

[Colofornian]

You don't have to be particularly religious to be repelled by murder.

Indeed, which is why pro-lifers need to stop thinking they can win primarily with a war of words and use images instead (images of aborted babies). It doesn't take special revelation for folks to believe in God. Natural revelation does the trick, fine, thank you.

It does take special amoral revelatory rhetoric to convince moral relavists. Natural revelation of murdered victims works fairly well.

[Qwerty]

"Sorry my little moral relativist but right and wrong are always right or wrong, they never change. And guess what, murder is always wrong."

Perhaps from a God's perspective, but humanity's perspective and understanding of right and wrong are not constant.

Besides, abortion is NOT murder. Murder is always illegal killing, and abortion is currently legal.

[Cathryn Crawford]

YOU are the one who said you "wouldn't bother" trying to convince people who disagree about the abortion. YOU said that.

That doesn't show just a real big amount of caring, dear.

[Clint N. Suhks]

We acn tell.

[Clint N. Suhks]

I knew it. Did somebody fart?

[Colofornian]

The vast majority of Americans operate based upon emotions. I think we'd do better to stir up the emotions of those whose minds we wish to change.

True. Which is also yet another reason why pro-lifers should keep trying to utilize primarily a war of words and instead should appeal to the heart thru graphic images of aborted babies.

Those images aren't covered by the press--mainstream or Christian. Those images aren't covered in textbooks or classrooms of any campus.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Who is we?

[netmilsmom]

oooops.

[billbears]

The answer to your question of why is - to save lives.

Ahhh, compromise for any excuse, eh? I'm not for screaming in people's faces, however I'm also not for making someone who is about to commit murder on a child feel warm and fuzzy so they can come over to 'our' side one at a time

[patton]

I think my date blew herself up;)

[beckett]

You said it better than I did in Post #40.

The "it's a sin/you'll go to hell" argument is, in my experience, a phrase put into the mouths of pro-lifers by their detractors, mostly just to make them appear simple, dismissable.

Indeed.

[Clint N. Suhks]

YOU are the one who said you "wouldn't bother" trying to convince people who disagree about the abortion. YOU said that.

I said I didn't bother using "logic" especially YOUR "logic", do you have reading comprehnsion problems?

[Sparta]

You aren't the only person trying to convince me to do that, Sparta. Since I just acquired my voting rights, I'll stick with my Republican registration for a little while longer. ;-)

Seriously, I'm currently a registered Republican, but I don't know how long I'm going to be one. I'm considering going independent. I'll make my final decision about party registration when I decide who I'm going to vote for next year for President.

[Qwerty]

". I think we'd do better to stir up the emotions of those whose minds we wish to change."

If it helps, I think it would be good to play to emotion... but always, I think you should be able to justify your position logically if you intend to make it law.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Perhaps you are right. His unwillingness to "bother" with the persuasion of others who do not agree with him is a stike against him, though.