4 ms·

>The liberal understanding of this is not entirely wrong Yes, it is. >The evidence is that if you look at the big pro-life groups, they are not just anti abor

>The liberal understanding of this is not entirely wrong Yes, it is. >The evidence is that if you look at the big pro-life groups, they are not just anti abortion, they are also anti birth control. That is incorrect, and a good example of the bubbles being real. You are just looking at church opposition because that's what the media likes to focus on showing. And it would not make the liberal idea of the conservative view correct even if it were true. Christians who oppose birth control do so because they value the traditions of their culture, not because they hate women. Again, most of them are women. And many of the people who are portrayed as "opposing birth control" actually just oppose having their tax money used to pay for other people's birth control, which is not the same thing. >So it is not entirely irrational for liberals to think the way they do about this. It isn't irrational. Being wrong is not the same as being irrational.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago
Can you me to pro-life groups that are also pro-birth control? I admit I haven't looked recently, but the last time I did I could not find any.
- jki275 8y ago
  Being against birth control is a very specific thing to the Catholic church. Almost no one else subscribes to that belief, including nearly all religious and non-religious groups in north america.
- agsdfgsd 8y ago
  I couldn't name a pro-life group period. I know a lot of churches are pro-life, but they are not pro-life groups any more than they are anti-theft groups.
ArchTypical 8y ago
>The liberal understanding of this is not entirely wrong >Yes, it is. No, it's not ENTIRELY wrong. https://www.quora.com/Does-the-pro-life-movement-consider-contraception-an-acceptable-way-to-reduce-abortions-Would-it-be-acceptable-to-increase-access-to-contraception-to-prevent-the-formation-of-fetuses https://www.quora.com/Does-the-pro-life-movement-consider-co... > It isn't irrational. Being wrong is not the same as being irrational. Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Your argumentative tone is not compelling and you fail to demonstrate your position within some very constrained topics. Perhaps you will reconsider some of these ideas.
- agsdfgsd 8y ago
  >No, it's not ENTIRELY wrong. Your link does not support your belief that it is in some way partially correct. The catholic church is not a pro-life group. They pre-date the very idea of a pro-life group by many centuries. The largest pro-life group that random person lists does not have a position on birth control. So this does not support the notion that pro-life equals anti-birth control. But again, even if pro-life did equal anti-birth control that would not support the belief that pro-life people are pro-life because they hate women. In case you missed in the post you are replying to: "And it would not make the liberal idea of the conservative view correct even if it were true. Christians who oppose birth control do so because they value the traditions of their culture, not because they hate women." Even if every single person who opposes abortion also opposed birth control, that would not make the belief that those people oppose abortion because they hate women correct. Opposing birth control is not hating women any more than opposing abortion is. Consider the opposite incorrect belief: "liberals hate babies, that's why they are pro-abortion". Now would you think "liberals also support birth control, so that proves it is because they hate babies" is good support for that belief? Neither supporting abortion nor supporting birth control can be equated to hating babies, just as neither opposing abortion nor opposing birth control can be equated to hating women. >Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic Yes? The four humors theory of health and medicine was based on reason and logic. It was also wrong. You can have a rational belief based on incomplete or incorrect data. >Your argumentative tone is not compelling Please don't assume a "tone" for someone. It does not further discussion. >Perhaps you will reconsider some of these ideas. I have. And in light of the lack of contradictory evidence, my views did not change this time.
  - ArchTypical 8y ago
    > Your link does not support your belief that it is in some way partially correct. Not my belief. I have evidence, so it's what I know, since previously I did not know. I found your arguments compelling and looked it up. > In case you missed in the post you are replying to: Nope. You decided to ignore a statement you agreed with for another you wanted to attack. The largest pro life groups (as a body made up of pie slices) does evidently (ie have evidence) that supports: > they are not just anti abortion, they are also anti birth control Which is what was being referenced by at least a partial correctness, since it was a following statement. Not sure who you're trying to fool. > Yes? The four humors theory of health and medicine was based on reason and logic. It was also wrong Wrong is a matter of evidence. For the time, it was right as right can be. That's how science works and is in accordance with rationality. Proving a theorem, does not mean that bringing it up as a theorem was/is wrong. Over time, changes in knowledge are part of the process. Good luck with your religious convictions to these issues.

amanaplanacanal 8y ago

Can you me to pro-life groups that are also pro-birth control? I admit I haven't looked recently, but the last time I did I could not find any.

jki275 8y ago
Being against birth control is a very specific thing to the Catholic church. Almost no one else subscribes to that belief, including nearly all religious and non-religious groups in north america.
agsdfgsd 8y ago
I couldn't name a pro-life group period. I know a lot of churches are pro-life, but they are not pro-life groups any more than they are anti-theft groups.

ArchTypical 8y ago

>The liberal understanding of this is not entirely wrong >Yes, it is. No, it's not ENTIRELY wrong. https://www.quora.com/Does-the-pro-life-movement-consider-contraception-an-acceptable-way-to-reduce-abortions-Would-it-be-acceptable-to-increase-access-to-contraception-to-prevent-the-formation-of-fetuses https://www.quora.com/Does-the-pro-life-movement-consider-co... > It isn't irrational. Being wrong is not the same as being irrational. Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic. Your argumentative tone is not compelling and you fail to demonstrate your position within some very constrained topics. Perhaps you will reconsider some of these ideas.

agsdfgsd 8y ago
>No, it's not ENTIRELY wrong. Your link does not support your belief that it is in some way partially correct. The catholic church is not a pro-life group. They pre-date the very idea of a pro-life group by many centuries. The largest pro-life group that random person lists does not have a position on birth control. So this does not support the notion that pro-life equals anti-birth control. But again, even if pro-life did equal anti-birth control that would not support the belief that pro-life people are pro-life because they hate women. In case you missed in the post you are replying to: "And it would not make the liberal idea of the conservative view correct even if it were true. Christians who oppose birth control do so because they value the traditions of their culture, not because they hate women." Even if every single person who opposes abortion also opposed birth control, that would not make the belief that those people oppose abortion because they hate women correct. Opposing birth control is not hating women any more than opposing abortion is. Consider the opposite incorrect belief: "liberals hate babies, that's why they are pro-abortion". Now would you think "liberals also support birth control, so that proves it is because they hate babies" is good support for that belief? Neither supporting abortion nor supporting birth control can be equated to hating babies, just as neither opposing abortion nor opposing birth control can be equated to hating women. >Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic Yes? The four humors theory of health and medicine was based on reason and logic. It was also wrong. You can have a rational belief based on incomplete or incorrect data. >Your argumentative tone is not compelling Please don't assume a "tone" for someone. It does not further discussion. >Perhaps you will reconsider some of these ideas. I have. And in light of the lack of contradictory evidence, my views did not change this time.
- ArchTypical 8y ago
  > Your link does not support your belief that it is in some way partially correct. Not my belief. I have evidence, so it's what I know, since previously I did not know. I found your arguments compelling and looked it up. > In case you missed in the post you are replying to: Nope. You decided to ignore a statement you agreed with for another you wanted to attack. The largest pro life groups (as a body made up of pie slices) does evidently (ie have evidence) that supports: > they are not just anti abortion, they are also anti birth control Which is what was being referenced by at least a partial correctness, since it was a following statement. Not sure who you're trying to fool. > Yes? The four humors theory of health and medicine was based on reason and logic. It was also wrong Wrong is a matter of evidence. For the time, it was right as right can be. That's how science works and is in accordance with rationality. Proving a theorem, does not mean that bringing it up as a theorem was/is wrong. Over time, changes in knowledge are part of the process. Good luck with your religious convictions to these issues.