Actually, the list itself is pretty decent and sensible when read dispassionately.

Thanks wildflower. The sorites paradox is new to me. It's interesting. It does seem to parallel the issue of when a fertilized egg, then fetus, and so forth, finally crosses a line into being a human that can't morally be terminated.

Actually, many Catholics by upbringing are not highly religious. nor are many Americans. More importantly, if you're going to automatically discount the views of those who are religious to one degree or another, you're kind of setting up a result-oriented filter.

Of course a woman can be misogynistic and patriarchal. The question is, do you really think that's why these woman are anti-abortion? They are Western, educated, voting, free. I think that makes it unlikely they're misogynist. I think they have other reasons for opposing abortion. I think it's unlikely they're…

How about you provide me with one little bit of education:

Grow up. We're on Jezebel, not seeking peer review for a thesis. Wikipedia is a reasonable quick reference.

The anti-abortion position is not “designed to punish women.” That imputes an intent to punish. The motivation is to protect what anti-abortion people view as a human being with no ability to defend itself.

My understanding of viability appears to be spot-on:

It's because she posted it at 2:02 in the morning, it's just now the following morning, I have a job, and I see there's a lot of responses to wade through.

I didn't fall into that fallacy. I don't contend that those women's large numbers mean they must be correct. In fact, whether they're right or not is almost irrelevant for the purpose of my comment to ItsARampageLana.

A take I disagree with, clearly, but a fair summary of that point of view. Cheers.

Elsewhere I posted some links to a Gallup poll and something else that provide some simple statistics. Do you really doubt that there are millions/tens of millions of well-educated, free women in the Western world that oppose abortion? Given the obvious truth of that, I didn't stress much about using the…

Thanks.
You know, you might be surprised how many Catholic priests do not read the bible literally. The rib thing, for example. Heck, the priests taught me not to buy that stuff. They point out, for example, that the two creation stories in the Bible contradict each other - there's just no way a lot of the bible is…

Sure. Your summary of my point is off. You didn't distinguish between my comment's "point" , on the one hand, and my views on abortion, on the other hand. My point is that opposing abortion is not inherently misogynist.

Here's some hints:

I'm not "pushing an agenda." I'm commenting on Jezebel from my perspective. There's a difference. I noticed that perspective is missing here and it raises an interesting issue, so it would be a mutually interesting exchange. Would you say Lindy's piece, and most of these comments, are "pushing an agenda"? If not,…

Look, the original post by Lindy, the original comment, and my comment are all about the abortion issue. It's a meaty issue with an interesting logical conundrum. And it's the subject tonight, here.

Yes, I am aware of that possibility. I'm asking if that what ItsARampageLana (and I guess, you) thinks is the case in the abortion context. It seems unlikely to me.

It's not semantics. It's a fundamental difference in approach. Understanding that would go a long way toward bridging the gap in communication.

I agree with almost all of your comment. Really it's only your third sentence that bugs. Yes, women can be complicit in their own oppression. That's why I pointed out that such a large chunk of anti-abortion women are Western, educated, etc. and thus less likely to be party to oppressing themselves. To me, those…