anti-abortion folks still get abortions

quote:

---

She's trying to say here, look, look! The anti-abortionists are getting abortions! It must be ok then, and they are lying!!

---

The standard line of the anti-abortionists is to equate abortion to murdering a child.Thus if they get or even sanction an abortion in anything other than an extreme case they are either admitting that abortion is not the same as murdering a child - or that they consider murdering children to be roughly on a par with speeding or parking offences - certainly not the horrifying crime most of us would see it as.Which do you consider the more charitable reading ?t

The alternative is that they really do beleive that abortion is a monstrous crime but they don't care when it matters to them.That doesn't seem any more charitable than assuming that they don't really believe that abortion is as bad as they say.Why do you think otherwise ??

Somebody who doesn't want an abortion but allows others to get them need not be a hypocrite. They might be uncertain in their judgement or simply hold that it is a matter of personal choice.The point - again - since you seem to have problems dealing with it is that the anti-abortion movement insists that abortion is a monstrous crime.Why is it less charitable to say that people who belong to that movement and nevertheless get abortions do not really beleive that abortion is child murder, than it is to day that they really do beleive it and go ahead anyway ?Accordign to you it is worse to say that they are supporting propaganda that they do not truly believe than to suggest that they do not think of child urder as a horrible crime or to say that they are prepared to commit horrible crimes themselves. Do you really beleive that ?o

The question is not whether they are both bad, the question is which is worse.So far as I can see it is clearly less bad - when judging the people - to take the view that when it really comes down to it they do not really beleive that abortion is murdering a child.The only reason I can think of for arguing otherwise is that it is more convenient for the anti-abortion movement to reject that possibility.m

quote:

---

You justified people who are for abortion, like you know there motives. I don't think you can do that.

---

No, I didn't. I didn't claim to know anyones motives.Now are you going to address what I actually wrote ?

No , I am NOT asking you "if it is clear whether people who are against abortion, and actually get an abortion, do they think that it is not murder."I am asking you whether it is a harsher judgement of them to say that they do beleive that abortion is child murder - and do it anyway - or if they do not really believe it, when it affects them, yet still go along with the party line.To my mind the first judgement is far harsher, and therefore the charitiable interpreation is to take the second line.

From what I can tell you argued the reverse - that it was less harsh to say that they knowingly murdered a child, knowing that it was a horrible crime than to say that they didn't really beleive that that was what they were doing.And I don't understand why anyone would say that, but you haven't managed to explain your point even now.

You say it's all there.What isn't there is any alternative o the viewspoints I've considered.What isn't there is any reason to consider it to be worse to go along with the claims of the anti-abortion movement while not truly believing them than it is to have an abortion believing it to be a horrible crime.What isn't there is any admission that you were wrong to make that claim.So if it is all there you have no alternative that would be less harsh. Your reason for rejecting the idea that they might not truly beleive the claims was false. And you will not admit it.

So are you saying that it is more wrong to go along with saying something is a horrible crime if you don't believe it, than it is to actually do something believing it to be a horrible crime ?I can't see how that could make sense.Now I haven't argued that this makes any case for allowing abortion, but I would have to say that if people who are strongly against abortion doubt that abortion is really as bad as their movement says then it demonstrates that the case against permitting abortions is not clear-cut.

SO again you seem to be avoiding the isse.Why is going along wiht propaganda you don't truly beleive worse than knowingly commiting a horrible crime ?I can't see it. and you still aren't answering. All I can see is that you seem determined to claim that the more charitable judgemen should be rejecteded on the grounds that it is more charitable to accuse them of worse. Which makes no sense at all..