The "Frog Boiling" Strategy of the "pro-life" movement...

Same thing.

Pretty much every TRAP law is based on lies.

 

What are some TRAP laws I said I supported, in the past?

 

What difference does that make, you support using lies to achieve a goal that you would not achieve through using the truth and yet you claim to "believe in honesty as a general moral principle to be followed" that is 100% hypocrisy

hypocrisy - The practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hypocrisy

you claim to have the higher standard of believing in honesty when in reality you support lying to achieve a goal.

 

Because how else can lawmakers achieve the goal of reducing abortion rates without passing TRAP laws? Passing those laws does reduce abortion rates.

 

They could support proven methods of reducing abortion rates, i.e. comprehensive sex ed, easy access to affordable birth control, and financial support for pregnancy and child rearing.

 

How much responsibility do you think the woman should bear?

 

What difference does it make what I think? The woman bears all the responsibility, that's why it's her choice whether to continue gestation.

 

Why should they? Abortion is legal.


The FACT remains, if you have to lie to further your agenda, you are a liar which makes everything you do or say suspect.


If you have truth on your side you don't NEED to lie.

 

As I said you think that the ends justifies the means and as such you are a hypocrite for claiming to "believe in honesty as a general moral principle to be followed"

- - - Updated - - -

As much or as little as she wishes, just like you.

 

Lobbyists and lawmakers arent directly lying-theyre just being a bit sneaky about their agenda. Thats different from commiting a direct lie.

 

See how you can "adjust" your "morals" to fit the occasion? Not a good basis for lawmaking......

 

i thought laws werent based off morals.

 

No, you have consistently said morals should apply to laws. Did you forget what you said or are you CONVENIENTLY lying?

 

Yes, Sam....You believe in honesty....except when you don't.

We got it.

 

Which brings us back to the original topic.

Anders will support a 20 week ban.....but always remember, that his END GOAL....

is a misogynistic totalitarian police state controlling women, even as the Taliban did and do.


To violate Godwin's Law, imagine a Nazi in 1934 who supports the "minor inconvenience" of making illegal for Jews to hold political office....

but his END GOAL?......is Auschwitz.

 

Maybe you could explain to us the "levels" of lying and what stage of lying is wrong. Is "sneaky" OK for legislators? This is quite confusing to us who have always thought of the levels as 1. lying, 2. white lies, 3. not telling the whole truth, and 4. truth. How can we be informed voters if we are not hearing truth from our legislators?

 

I guarentee you, young Sam could read "1984"....and Orwell talking about "doublethink"...and never once consider that it applies to him or how he has been taught to think about honesty and truth.

 

as I said the end justifies the means for you, and yes they are directly lying.

 

Actually what you described in the OP is not dishonesty. Its lobbyists getting what they want by passing legislation little by little, because if they said their original goals at first, people wouldnt accept it.

- - - Updated - - -

Explain how they are directly lying.

 

Sam, you basically admitted that while you "support honesty"...if you feel it's needed?...you support dishonesty.

And again, I'm sure you see NO contradiction or hypocrisy in that. You've been taught to be shameless in your hypocrisies and dishonesties....I hope by the Media you watch and listen to (and not by your parents).

 

Just re-read what you have written and tell me it is not full of double-speak and hypocrisy.

How about Texas Senate Bill 5, or Mandatory ultrasounds, or Waiting periods, or Fetal heartbeat bills, or Physician scripts, or Reporting laws all of which have absolutely nothing to do with "women's health" even though that was the excuse used in all of them.

 

You tell me.

YOU said they were lying


...and that lying was acceptable according to your fluid "morals".


Tell me....are they lying because to tell the truth would be INCONVENIENT ????

 

Waiting Periods and fetal heartbeat are not dishonest in the least. Reporting laws are dishonest, but without that, they wouldnt work.

 

You just leaped off what was being discussed to avoid facing the fact that you have advocated lying......


Tell me, why they would need to lie....is the truth too INCONVENIENT?

Don't you and they like"" INCONVENIENT""???


Do you only tell the truth when it's CONVENIENT?

Do you own "convenient" so that no one else can use it?

 

Yes they are.

Waiting periods do nothing but extend the time frame for a woman and increase her costs, there is little to no evidence to say that they reduce abortions, which is what they were proposed to do.

Fetal heartbeat laws are based on the assumption that once the heart beat can be detected there is a person, for which there is no factual evidence to support.

and regardless of this you still advocate lying in order to further your own personal wants, while still trying to claim that you believe in honesty .. pure hypocrisy.