> > That is true, but not in her case. She has been clear on > > where her beliefs on this come from. > > Would you be more inclined to tolerate the view (as > opposed to not agreeing with it) if someone believed > it for nonreligious reasons?
I give more credit to "this is my personal, reasoned, ethical stance" over "my Paster told me this is what God wants." If if comes from the authority of religion then I know something about the epistemological system that they will likely use in other issues. Coming from religion often means that discussing it in a reasonable way is not possible because they "know" absolutely from authority. I don't view my position to be absolutely "right" and could change my view with a convincing argument, if I found it better. I'm not sure how I would "tolerate or not tolerate this view. I appose it no matter where it comes from. I try to be tolerant of people's beliefs in my personal life, but don't feel bound by that for politicians, whose views effect so many people. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > Judy: > > > > > Did you hear her say that pro-life and pro-choice > > > people should be able to work together to reduce > > > (as opposed to "deny") abortions by promoting > > > preventive measures? She means birth control and > > > sex education, not banning abortion, obviously > > > (since pro-choice people wouldn't stand for a ban). > > > > Yes, I could have added this to the plus column but didn't > > because I don't know if she is talking about abstinence > > education to reduce abortions or contraception. > > The latter. She's spoken about this before. She's > fine with sex education, including about contraception, > in schools. > > Also, sex education that's limited to abstinence > education is not acceptable to pro-choicers either, > and she knows that. It's not something pro-choice > and pro-life people could ever work together on, > any more than banning abortion is. > > > > That is not the approach of a religious fanatic > > > (and in fact will likely outrage religious fanatics). > > > > > > For that matter, believing that human life with > > > all the rights and privileges thereunto > > > appertaining begins at conception is not a view > > > that people hold only for religious reasons. > > > There are nonreligious people who believe this as > > > well. > > > > That is true, but not in her case. She has been clear on > > where her beliefs on this come from. > > Would you be more inclined to tolerate the view (as > opposed to not agreeing with it) if someone believed > it for nonreligious reasons? > > > FWIW, I know politicians all have to say they want to reduce > > abortions, but I would like to increase them. Right now there > > is a state by state battle going on limiting access to abortion > > clinics, their numbers are shrinking. Babies that are born to > > families who can't care for them are a bigger problem for > > society (the book Freakonomics links it to higher crime.) > > I'd like to reduce the *need* for them, but I agree > that whatever need there is should be fulfilled. > > I'd also point out, though, that families that can't > care for their children aren't limited to those that > wanted an abortion but couldn't get one; and that > not everyone who gets an abortion wanted one. There's > a role, in other words, for better support for families > with children, both in reducing abortion and in reducing > crime. >
