Don’t get me wrong: I’m not particularly impressed with the Monas and Charlies. They aligned themselves with genuinely awful people by convincing themselves that a greater good was at stake, but never bothered to convince (or even try very hard to convince) the public of the rightness of their position. They wanted to deny people what th…
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not particularly impressed with the Monas and Charlies. They aligned themselves with genuinely awful people by convincing themselves that a greater good was at stake, but never bothered to convince (or even try very hard to convince) the public of the rightness of their position. They wanted to deny people what they had: Choice.
Even now, they have curled up in a ball and not confronted the Dan Patricks of the world.—Charlie’s contention that the Texas case raises legitimate questions completely ducks the real issue. Charen’s column of a couple of months ago in which she urged pro-lifers to support day care was clueless and had zero credibility.
Nonetheless, it’s useful to get a detailed picture of the terrain,and some good might come of getting the Mona/Charlie faction to speak. At the very least, I’d like to know where they actually stand on this horror show in Texas.
I believe this week Texas came up and the consensus was that Ken Paxton personally is pretty much in the top rank of deplorables. as ever trod the stage of American politics.
If as a pro-life sympathizer, you have spent your formative years convincing yourself that the cause you are championing is entirely about protecting the innocent, and that abortion except in very very rare instances is actually just selfish people wantonly terminating pregnancies they have been too lazy to prevent through self control -- especially since championing that cause has been essential to your career success -- well, that's a pretty deep epistemological hole to climb out of.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not particularly impressed with the Monas and Charlies. They aligned themselves with genuinely awful people by convincing themselves that a greater good was at stake, but never bothered to convince (or even try very hard to convince) the public of the rightness of their position. They wanted to deny people what they had: Choice.
Even now, they have curled up in a ball and not confronted the Dan Patricks of the world.—Charlie’s contention that the Texas case raises legitimate questions completely ducks the real issue. Charen’s column of a couple of months ago in which she urged pro-lifers to support day care was clueless and had zero credibility.
Nonetheless, it’s useful to get a detailed picture of the terrain,and some good might come of getting the Mona/Charlie faction to speak. At the very least, I’d like to know where they actually stand on this horror show in Texas.
I believe this week Texas came up and the consensus was that Ken Paxton personally is pretty much in the top rank of deplorables. as ever trod the stage of American politics.
If as a pro-life sympathizer, you have spent your formative years convincing yourself that the cause you are championing is entirely about protecting the innocent, and that abortion except in very very rare instances is actually just selfish people wantonly terminating pregnancies they have been too lazy to prevent through self control -- especially since championing that cause has been essential to your career success -- well, that's a pretty deep epistemological hole to climb out of.
Blind spots are everywhere.