You can believe both are wrong, sure. There is absolutely no contradiction there.
But once you begin to act on what turn out to be diverging goals priorities get assigned.
I've pointed out that pro-life organizations are not pursuing the goal of preventing abortions very effectively. You have said that they are unwilling to be effective because they refuse to abandon their opposition to premarital sex.
If that's true then their stated goals are a lie. I'll grant that they probably honestly don't like abortions very much, I don't think anyone does, but according to you premarital sex is even more abhorrent to them. So if some babies have to get aborted to terrorize kids into not having sex, so be it.
If that's what it takes that's what it takes? Acceptable losses?
I don't see how that's any better than their real motivation being misogyny.
Eh, it's just a matter of whether you think it is right to do something that you find morally wrong in order to prevent further morally wrong things down the line. It reminds me of the trolley problem, which is generally considered a moral gray area: Trolley problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So yeah, you can argue with them about the morality of abstinence-only education. But it seems that you have conceded your original argument that they are "at large" misogynists, so I suppose my work is done.
Upvote
0