US Supreme Court rejects SC's effort to cut off public funding for Planned Parenthood

If murder is an entirely different matter, the only logically consistent position is that you should attempt to prevent it even if the best fix was to turn to morally repugnant options like teaching safe sex.

Or that could be seen as hostage-taking. “Do this immoral thing or we’ll kill more children.” Refusing to play ball with that isn’t “inconsistent” and refusing to see it as anything but inconsistent is how you’re acting in bad faith here. You’re demanding that they pay a ransom, and that won’t even get them what they want. Why should they take that deal from pro-choicers, people they have every reason not to trust?

There are positions consistent with the absolute rejection of all of those options as well as abortion, however, and it's not bad faith to assume that's what they are. Or you can, of course, explain to us all how teaching safe sex is exactly as bad as murder.

It’s exactly bad faith to ignore how you’re framing this choice and why they’d refuse to work with someone offering to provide places of safe, legalized infanticide. Reducing the slaughter isn’t enough for them, so they say to hell with your bargain. And aren’t there areas where you’d do the same? Really, now. If you can’t see this refusal as anything but ulterior motive then you’re just bad at putting yourself in others’ shoes. Probably deliberately so. Textbook bad faith.

/r/news Thread Parent Link - postandcourier.com