rumitoid

Cognitive dissonance is not a true mental disorder but more a common fault in thinking most are susceptible to. Defined, it is "a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values." We tend to what psychologist describe as "pigeon-hole," put various beliefs in their own section without an overall or in-depth review of our basic values and principles. This can cause a sensed inconsistency that we feel tension over and the need to resolve or unconsciously seek to ignore or repress. Yet a lack of attention, or stalwart devotion, often allows us to hold opposing views without tension or ambiguity. This is "deep state" for an individual. He or she operating against him- or herself. And by "deep state" I mean that they lack the awareness or means to uncover the dissonance. Endless causes for this shortcoming, yet predominantly patriotism and religion are chief. This is rarely a conscious attempt to keep oneself in the dark. The experienced dissonance is so profound, something like sustained shock after a sudden death, denial, it is impossible to confront or deal with. This is true for those that are pro-choice and pro-life.

Below is an article most will not like for several reasons: it makes them think; it challenges their command of the thinking process; it's long; it may make them look foolish; it undermines lifelong beliefs and the words of trusted friends; it is too intellectual; and it is too wise. For your well-being and mental-health, question your reaction.

From: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-chapman-a******n-murder-williamson-homicide-0429-20180427-story.html

At the heart of the pro-life movement is a basic premise: A******n is murder. An Idaho state senator, however, got unusual attention in February when he voiced that sentiment to a group of students lobbying for birth control measures.

Conservative writer Kevin Williamson was recently hired by The Atlantic — and promptly fired over old tweets in which he referred to the procedure as “homicide” that should be treated “like any other homicide.” He added that those who support capital punishment (which he doesn’t) should favor the death penalty for women who get a******ns.
The view that terminating a pregnancy amounts to baby-k*****g is standard among anti-a******n activists, but it has currency beyond them. Karlyn Bowman, a polling expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, writes, “When pollsters ask Americans whether a******n is an act of murder or the taking of a human life, pluralities or majorities say that it is.”

But this is a rhetorical device or a moral conceit, not a well-thought-out conviction. The vast majority of people who endorse it really don’t mean it. Even they exhibit a deep sense that a fetus has an appreciably lower status than an actual person.

Williamson’s controversy is proof. What doomed him was a comment suggesting that women who get a******ns should be hanged — though he later wrote, “I was making a point about the sloppy rhetoric of the a******n debate, not a public-policy recommendation.”
If a******n is morally indistinguishable from k*****g a newborn, though, why shouldn’t those who procure a******ns be severely punished? It’s the clear logical implication of the pro-life argument.

Donald Trump inadvertently deviated from the pro-life playbook in 2016 when he said women who get a******ns should face “some sort of punishment,” only to recant. Mike Pence insisted that he and Trump “would never support legislation against women who make the heartbreaking choice to end a pregnancy.”
Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, said then, “No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen a******n. We invite a woman who has gone down this route to consider paths to healing, not punishment.”

“Healing” is not what people normally think is appropriate for cold-blooded k**lers, and murder is rarely portrayed as a “heartbreaking choice.” Those who speak this way are effectively conceding that a******n is fundamentally different from homicide.

Trump is one of them. He regularly calls for tough measures to curb Chicago’s homicides, which totaled 650 last year. Nationally, however, there are some 650,000 a******ns annually. If they amount to murder, then the nonfetuses who die are a small share of the homicide total.
But hardly anyone truly regards having an a******n as equal in evil to k*****g an adult or a child. Hardly anyone thinks a woman who has an a******n belongs in a cell next to a guy who strangles his child.

About 1 of every 4 American women will have an a******n by age 45, according to the Guttmacher Institute. If you regard a******n as murder and think your sister, daughter, aunt, niece, cousin or friend should go to prison for decades — or be executed — if she ever terminated a pregnancy, you’re being consistent. If you regard a******n as murder and think they deserve a gentle path to healing, you’re not.

But few opponents of a******n grasp what it would mean to seriously regard the embryo as a full human starting at conception. As Northwestern University bioethicist Katie Watson notes in her recent book “Scarlet A: The Ethics, Law and Politics of Ordinary A******n,” half of fertilized eggs fail to implant, and up to 20 percent of pregnancies end in miscarriage.

“If fertilized eggs are morally equivalent to born people,” she asks, “why aren’t we dev****g tremendous research dollars to stopping miscarriages?” The silence on “natural” losses in pregnancy speaks volumes.

If a******n is not murder, it is impossible to justify banning it, early in pregnancy or later. Women have the right to control their own bodies — have knee surgery or not, donate blood or not, go sky diving or not. The freedom to end a pregnancy is part of that physical autonomy.

You may be able to justify forcing a woman to carry a fetus in her womb for nine months and then endure the pain and physical trauma of delivering a baby — if you genuinely believe a******n is murder. But I’m pretty sure you don’t.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

How many babies, will be just another statistical homicide this year..

The noted a******n apologist Watson..makes the argument that miscarriage is a normal for a percentage, so a******n is just another normality.That beotch is insane..her idea that babies die anyway.. so a******n is just routine..
Is Watson so dishonest that she can say that we don't already try to help women who are prone to miscarry to carry the baby full term?
Who works the door knob for this stupid beotch so that she get out of her house?

If someone k**led her, my argument for dismissal of charges would be, Hey people die every day..what makes her special?

rumitoid

Maybe Watson is the fruitcake she sounds like, what about the article at the center of this thread?

Gatsby

rumi, agian you twist what ever you need, to get you where you want to go.

Your allegation: Donald Trump inadvertently deviated from the pro-life playbook in 2016 when he said
women who get a******ns should face “some sort of punishment,” only to recant.

The question put to then candidate Trump was this. If a******n were made illegal, should a woman who gets an a******n be punished?
Trump considered the question for a couple of seconds and responded, yes.

The qualifier, "if a******n were made illegal" was dropped from all subsequent coverage.

The headline immediately became: Trump says women who have a******ns should face prison.

Now re-read the rest of your own post.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Anti-a******nists, it seems to me, are quite comfortable in the taking of another life in a wide variety of circumstances where the justification supports their belief system: War, an unarmed individual that the police perceive as a threat, capital punishment, the eradication of terrorists. This list can be quite long.

I think a******n is a flash-point for many reasons, not the least of which is that it is presumed to be an easy fix for promiscuous women. Of course that is rooted in the idea that it is evil for women to have sex solely for pleasure (no such cultural constraint seem to be applied to men) and that an a******n is the shirking of a responsibility. That, my friends, is misogyny.

My position has always been quite clear. I do not consider myself pro-a******n, but I am definitely pro-choice.

rumitoid

Please read my post.

rumitoid

I understand that point about the qualifier to Trump, yet if you actually and openly read the article in this thread, your point would be a non-issue.

PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco

Perhaps the context included a conversation about the legality of a******n, but it certainly was not specifically linked to Trump's statement in the conversation.
I think it also interesting that Trump, when asked if there should be any punishment for the man who impregnated the woman having an a******n, he said "no".

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-s-hazy-stance-on-a******n-punishment-655457859717

rumitoid

What you said has fueled much of the supposed "pro-life movement." But other lives seem not so important to many of them. Those lost to grinding poverty. Those lost to war. Those lost to drone strikes. Those lost to capital punishment, and please no arguments (not from you, of course, PaulPisces,) that God approves in the OT so it is okay when you still eat shell fish and wear different fabrics. (Inside rebuke.)