Politician Apparently Unaware of Paschal Mystery

Comments

1. Big Jon Bully says:

   October 24, 2012 at 6:07 pm

   Moderate Democrats are a sham. When the rubber meets the road he would pull a Stupak.

   Reply
   • job says:

     October 24, 2012 at 8:03 pm

     My first thought was Stupak too – but his game was more tragedy. This is just the tragicomedy that comes with paltry learning on a turgid tongue.

     Reply
     • Big Jon Bully says:

       October 25, 2012 at 5:36 am

       Where’s More when we need him?

       Reply
       • Angelico Nguyen, Esq., OP says:

         October 26, 2012 at 7:48 pm

         Body: Chapel Royal of St Peter ad Vincula, London

         Head: St Dunstan’s, Canterbury

         Reply
2. Clare says:

   October 25, 2012 at 10:43 am

   I get what you’re saying….although this is not really going to clear up any of the confusion about just how creepy and callous Christians are.

   Mourdock is the rich church lady who shoots her mouth off about the blessing of poverty. An asshole, but not malicious or dangerous.

   Reply
   • Matthew Lickona says:

     October 25, 2012 at 10:54 am

     I think part of that confusion you mention comes from people not believing that someone really believes the fetus is a human being. You know, to the point where it’s worth making laws to protect its life. And absent that, restrictions on abortion are hard to read as anything but attempts to oppress women.

     But I could be wrong.

     Reply
3. Clare says:

   October 25, 2012 at 11:48 am

   I think you’re right, but I also think that the way people talk about their opposition to abortion helps give people that impression–especially the popular, grassroots pro-life movement.

   That’s one of the reasons I would never entertain questions about rape exceptions.
   Here’s a piece I wrote on it a while ago.

   http://babesinbabylon.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/enough-with-the-happy-talk/

   I swear this isn’t just shameless self-promotion, I’m just too lazy to type everything twice.

   Reply
   • Matthew Lickona says:

     October 25, 2012 at 11:56 am

     I think we must have different experiences of the popular, grassroots pro-life movement.

     Reply
4. Clare says:

   October 25, 2012 at 12:32 pm

   Probably. I grew up in a family for whom the state’s pro-life union was a second religion.

   Reply
   • Clare says:

     October 25, 2012 at 12:37 pm

     I’ll never forget a newsletter arguing that welfare caused abortions, somehow. Also long sermons on the causal link between female immodesty and abortion. But I can easily see how a small urban community of 1st and 2nd generation Irish immigrants might not be the best data pool.

     Reply
     • job says:

       October 26, 2012 at 6:45 am

       This seems pretty convincing:

       http://www.hli.org/files/PLTP_wefare.pdf

       JOB

       Reply
       • Clare says:

         October 26, 2012 at 11:36 am

         http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2008/08/27/can-social-spending-reduce-abortion/

         cute that they phrase it “programs which pay women for each illegitimate child she has.”

         There’s data pointing both ways. There’s also been research suggesting that abortion reduces the crime rate.

         Opposing programs for assisting poor based of certain studies showing correlation with abortion rates seems like the kind of nasty consequentialism that allows so many pro-lifers to be enthusiastic torture supporters. Why I got out of the pro-life movement.

         Reply

Speak Your Mind Cancel reply