Why It’s Hard to Dialogue With Secularists and Leftists

[Fantine]

I think that she has trouble with her interrogation techniques because:

- almost every liberal I know would like to see an end to abortion. That's one reason why they believe in Obama's birth control mandate for insurance providers. That's one reason why they think the most militant pro-lifers are hypocritical in not joining them in supporting a tool in the fight against abortion.

- almost every liberal I know sees a world replete with social ills--and they prioritize them differently. They are not willing to elect the politicians (who in turn will approve the judges) who will turn our national landscape into a human rights nightmare, dismantling social programs and erasing civil liberties it took centuries of blood, sweat, and tears to enact just in order to end abortion.

 

[AMDG]

I think that she has trouble with her interrogation techniques because:

- almost every liberal I know would like to see an end to abortion. That's one reason why they believe in Obama's birth control mandate for insurance providers. That's one reason why they think the most militant pro-lifers are hypocritical in not joining them in supporting a tool in the fight against abortion.

So you believe that artificial birth control prevents abortion? You know that is not what the Church teaches.

From Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae around 1968, condemning artificial birth control we find that the *reason* given for the use of artificial birth control is "not wanting a baby at this time." Science tells us that there are no completely fool proof *artificial* birth control methods. Sooo that means that it is conceivable (forgive the pun) for a woman using artificial birth control for the purpose of "not wanting a baby at this time" can become pregnant while using the artificial birth control. So she still doesn't want the baby and abortion is legal (and, so many tell her that abortion is "safe" even though it isn't so the woman is forced to think that abortion is the only way to insure that she "doesn't have a baby". The law says its okay, therefore it must be, (or so prospective mother thinks since for decades our laws were based on Judeo-Christian ethics). Of course, it isn't "okay" and she will pay a terrible price for that in years to come if she isn't made infertile or killed on the table.

Its pretty obvious--Abortion is just the logical conclusion to "not wanting a baby" when the artificial birth control (used to "not want a baby) fails.

 

[Chany]

I don't have any real difficulty establishing a dialogue with leftists or secularists or athiests or Catholics or Muslims or Jews or Jawas (toohenee!). I have a hard time with cowards who do not wish to be challenged and prefer to hide in a cocoon of agreeable compatriots, but these folks live all over the political and religious spectrum.

Or those who simply repeat whatever mantras their particular group says without thinking about what their ideals are saying and the deeper implications of said ideals.

 

[Fantine]

So you believe that artificial birth control prevents abortion? You know that is not what the Church teaches.

It is perfectly fine for the Church to make a pronouncement about the morality of birth control, but there is absolutely no basis in fact to support the view that the use of birth control promotes abortions.

In western European countries, the abortion rate is very low--and in most countries abortions are banned after 12 weeks.

And it seems as if western European countries are fine with that--because in the rare instances where a woman wants an abortion there, it is paid for by insurance and the women don't have to drive 500 miles to other states, run through gauntlets of pickets and free sonogram vans, etc.

But since they have access to medical care, they aren't getting pregnant in the first place unless they feel ready, willing, and able to lovingly raise their child.

Pope Paul's assertion that birth control causes abortions (if indeed it was his assertion and not just some urban legend) is his opinion, nothing more. And since it is a completely unsubstantiated opinion, it should be looked at as such.

His moral pronouncement should be thoughtfully and carefully considered.

 

[Sumwear]

But since they have access to medical care, they aren't getting pregnant in the first place unless they feel ready, willing, and able to lovingly raise their child.

yep. that's why all those european countries are now banking on immigrants to raise up those fertility rates.

 

[Fantine]

yep. that's why all those european countries are now banking on immigrants to raise up those fertility rates.

Is giving economic opportunity to poor, hardworking, motivated people from the third world such a bad thing?

 

[Chany]

people

This post is about Ms. Miller's article. I question the entire basis of her article, because she is not trying to engage people in dialogue. She is trying to interrogate them.

Dialogue takes two parties willing to engage in conversation in a respectful and mutual self-disclosure.

The reason why people don't put up with Ms. Miller's interrogations is self-evident.

Because she asks questions that force the other side of a debate to answer yes or no and lose either way?

That's not an interrogation, that's a common debate method. She forces the opposition to acknowledge the deeper meanings of their philosophy. Either the person must give up on the ideal they are fighting for and agree with her, or they must give up another ideal that they do not want to give up because of the deeper implications of doing so.

 

[LoAmmi]

Because she asks questions that force the other side of a debate to answer yes or no and lose either way?

That's not an interrogation, that's a common debate method. She forces the opposition to acknowledge the deeper meanings of their philosophy. Either the person must give up on the ideal they are fighting for and agree with her, or they must give up another ideal that they do not want to give up because of the deeper implications of doing so.

I agree. It's a good debate method when facing people who either don't think their views all the way through, don't have the convictions in order to follow their views all the way through, or show someone they have some limits to their view they haven't expressed. The trick for the person she's debating against is not to lose.

 

[AMDG]

It is perfectly fine for the Church to make a pronouncement about the morality of birth control, but there is absolutely no basis in fact to support the view that the use of birth control promotes abortions.

Snipped to portion being addressed.

Except for the fact that unless there was the thought "I don't want a baby now", there wouldn't be abortion. So when there is artificial birth control that gives the "promise" of indeed granting that wish...and when it fails, well, the next step to "I don't want this baby now" is to terminate the pregnany. The Abortion giant, Planned Parenthood. has already admitted giving young women lower dose artificial birth control pills so that the young woman will become pregnant and Planned Parenthood will get more money for granting the "I don't want this baby now" wish. Didn't you see the documentary, Blood Money?

 

[JGG]

#1
8-24-13



Continued- Why It’s Hard to Dialogue With Secularists and Leftists‏ : Catholic Stand

Is she having a dialogue with a leftist/secularist, or is she having a conversation with herself as she wants a leftist/secularist to respond?

It's very difficult to have a dialogue with anyone who you are not actually having a dialogue with. It is very hard to have a dialogue with people who assume they know your part of the dialogue before you speak.

 

[Fantine]

Because she asks questions that force the other side of a debate to answer yes or no and lose either way?

That's not an interrogation, that's a common debate method. She forces the opposition to acknowledge the deeper meanings of their philosophy. Either the person must give up on the ideal they are fighting for and agree with her, or they must give up another ideal that they do not want to give up because of the deeper implications of doing so.

She called it "dialogue," not "debate." And it's no "dialogue."

Debate involves presentations by the affirmative and negative positions, and rebuttals by both.

And they never question one another directly. I judged high school debates when one of my sons was in high school.

 

[Chany]

She called it "dialogue," not "debate." And it's no "dialogue."

Debate involves presentations by the affirmative and negative positions, and rebuttals by both.

And they never question one another directly. I judged high school debates when one of my sons was in high school.

Which is why the term "debate" wasn't used, as there is no official organization.

The person made a claim. She asked questions about the claim and used them to see if the person actually thought about their position or was simply going off what they feel.

 

[MKJ]

Some people need a kick in the head with their thinking, and a philosophical discussion should, of course, be philosophical.

But, in general, putting people in a position where they see you are trying to make them lose no matter what they saw just ticks them off. The come to the conclusion that you are trying to score points, not talk together.

Socrates inspired Plato, but he was not so successful at getting the Athenians to understand what he was trying to say to them.

 

[Fantine]

Which is why the term "debate" wasn't used, as there is no official organization.

The person made a claim. She asked questions about the claim and used them to see if the person actually thought about their position or was simply going off what they feel.

I think that most opinions are formed through a combination of factors--intellect, emotion, intuition, taking into consideration cultural, environmental, and religious influences.

Perhaps one reason why Ms. Miller is so upset by those who feel differently than she is because, having eight children, she senses criticism and disparagement of her lifestyle from the people she is questioning.

And that would be 'their bad.' As long as she is not trying to foist her lifestyle choices on other people, and as long as she can adequately care for her eight children, it's her decision.

 

[AMDG]

Perhaps one reason why Ms. Miller is so upset by those who feel differently than she is because, having eight children, she senses criticism and disparagement of her lifestyle from the people she is questioning.

If she is the same Leila Miller I knew, she is not upset about criticism of her Catholic lifestyle. No, she is a strong and proud Catholic who is quite aware of Catholic teaching and embraces the fact that Catholics are countercultural and wishes to share this truth. In fact, she used to be one of the liberal Catholic crew, before "she saw the light" and chose her present lifestyle (also that of having a "mission" of telling Catholic truth on the internet.) You'll find her story in Prodigal Daughters--"We Were Robbed!"

 

[Fantine]

It may be subconscious but I'm sure she feels it.

I was a SAHM for many years, and even though I was an officer of many organizations and even founded an organization that is still helping children today I felt looked down on by career women.

Now I'm finally a career women and most of them are retired.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Go ahead, quiz us.

Janice

OK, I'll ask just a few questions on the subject of abortion.


1. A married mother of five other children, has gone into labor at 18 weeks and the doctors have determined that if the pregnancy is not terminated, both she and the fetus will die.

The doctors advise the mother to terminate the pregnancy, should she? Yes or No

3. Do you believe abortion is murder ? Yes or No


4. You are elected to Congress and you oppose abortion completely.
Will your first act be to write legislation to make all abortions illegal ? Yes or No

5. In your law, will be the penalty for those who violate it be the same as those who commit 1s Degree murder ? Yes or No

6. Answer the following;

If not treated the same as murder, will those who violate the law face
A. Fine and imprisonment of Mother and Doctor who performed the abortion ?
B. Fine and imprisonment for just the doctor?
C. None of the above. Please explain.

Jim

 

[AMDG]

OK, I'll ask just a few questions on the subject of abortion.








Some of your questions are merely excuses Liberals use for the termination of the pregnancy. Some I *CANNOT* answer with "yes" or "no". (Actually your questions were "stacked" so as to be pro-termination of pregnancy and anti-woman *and* I have this thing about not giving incomplete answers, but I'll try to answer your pro-abortion questions.

1. A married mother of five other children, has gone into labor at 18 weeks and the doctors have determined that if the pregnancy is not terminated, both she and the fetus will die.

N/A because with todays medical advances *both* mother and babe can be saved. If you are speaking of a pregnancy that must be terminated because it is in the Fallopian tube, that is covered under double-effect. The *intention* is to save and not kill. May I suggest a re-reading of Catholic teaching on this?



I assume this is #2

The doctors advise the mother to terminate the pregnancy, should she? Yes or No

No. If she can't protect her baby, she should at least think of protecting herself.

3. Do you believe abortion is murder ? Yes or No

yes--I am Catholic and Catholics are against abortion since it is murder of a separate human being.

4. You are elected to Congress and you oppose abortion completely.
Will your first act be to write legislation to make all abortions illegal ? Yes or No

Would not be elected to Congress since I am Catholic (that means that I am against abortion or I would simply be non-Catholic) and Liberal areas hate (and barely tolerate) Catholics.

5. In your law, will be the penalty for those who violate it be the same as those who commit 1s Degree murder ? Yes or No

Why wouldn't it be?--the abortionist Gosnell was convicted of murder because he, in fact, did murder.

And I believe before the Supreme Court gave us this unjust law of abortion on demand, a doctor found guilty of preforming an abortion, was guilty of murder.

Even now, in some states when a woman is injured causing the death of the child she is carrying, the person who caused the death is charged with a crime.

6. Answer the following;

If not treated the same as murder, will those who violate the law face
A. Fine and imprisonment of Mother and Doctor who performed the abortion ?
B. Fine and imprisonment for just the doctor?
C. None of the above. Please explain.

"B" The woman is a victim. The one who kills (btw it's not just doctors--but nurses and sometimes just any employee) is the one that should be held accountable.

 

[Fantine]

It's hard for religious conservatives to dialogue with leftists and secularists because they don't understand the definition of the word "dialogue--" they think it means "interrogation" or "interrogatory debate."

When they learn the definition of dialogue and try to practice it, it may not be as difficult as they currently imagine.

 

[GenetoJean]

I am perfectly comfortable discussing any topic and wont go quiet after a question. However, I am pro-life so dont follow the typical liberal mindset on that one. Oh, and we cant debate homosexuality. I have even told people, "oh, I see, you are right" or something like it. I also sometimes dont have a defense for some of my views and will admit as such when they are brought up.

As far as why it is difficult, I think that is true about some people, both liberal and conservative. They have to go negative and claim people believe things that they dont really believe.