The only link between the two is raging stupidity.
I am truly sorry that your ethics suppose that only bad people think false things or do bad things. They most certainly can (and, seeing as most pro-lifers have pro-choice friends, and vice versa) and do see you as decent. And actually, I suspect that in your heart of hearts, you don’t really think that they’re evil or not decent for what they think.
And hawksgirl, I’m not getting further involved in this conversation, but I suspect mswas mistook “eugenics” for “euthanasia”. A Singerite in need of a dictionary, as it were. 
With all due respect, you’re presenting a false dilemma and a fallacious premise.
First of all, even though I don’t oppose birth control, I acknowledge that it’s possible to oppose abortion AND birth control at the same time. There is no inconsistency there. One might question the wisdom of this particular approach, but the approach itself is not inherently inconsistent.
Second, the vast majority of pro-lifers do NOT oppose birth control. Some of them (Catholics, for example), might oppose certain types of contraception, but even they do not claim that birth control itself is inherently immoral.
Again, that’s an overly broad claim. Certain groups might think that way (many Catholics, for example), but it’s by no means an accurate claim.
I hadn’t heard that viewpoint before you brought it up in this thread, that argument has a strong smell of “argument el desperado” all over it.
You and I can see it that way, but again, to beat a dead horse, the idea is not to punish those that have sex, but to prevent them from having sex in the first place. Thus creating a very strong desire to rush in to marriage young, and then fuck like minks in the glow of god’s basking love.
I am in danger of channeling Sally Field here, “You understand me! You really understand me!”
My understanding is that the controlling factor is that there must always be the possibility of a conception. If they rhythm method for some reason became 100% effective, it would probably be banned. Perhaps condom makers should make special Catholic rubbers, where one in a hundred thousand would have holes punched in it. Maybe then they’d become legit.
I don’t know anyone who believes that having to go through an abortion is preferrable to using condoms.
I drove through an abortion protest today in Baltimore County. My kids had to look at their awful placards as we were stuck at the traffic light. As I’ve said elsewhere, seeing those don’t make me think abortion is bad, it makes me think that the protestors are assholes. Assholes with the right to demonstrate, but assholes nonetheless.
Catholic pro-lifer here. I personally believe that religious beliefs (my own included) have no place in the realm of law, except to the extent that they protect against an intrusion upon another individual’s rights. Hence, regardless of what I might personally believe, I don’t think it’s appropriate to legislate or prohibit pre-marital sex, birth control (that is not an abortifacient), same-sex unions, etc. That’s up to consenting adults, whatever I might believe. I don’t believe morality can be imposed where it doesn’t protect someone else’s rights.
Abortion is in a different province.
I point this out not because I think it’s axiomatic for others, but to illustrate the silliness being propagated in this thread. There’s all kinds of pro-lifers. And here’s another thing to consider: A pro-life argument stands on its own merits, whether or not the pro-lifer holds other inconsistent beliefs. To suggest otherwise is a logical fallacy.
And I see nothing disrespectful about equating the Holocaust with abortions, in the sense I believe it was described. As has been pointed out by many in this thread (pro-choicers included), why does this seem over the top, given pro-life beliefs?
Nice piece of selective quoting there. You left off the first sentence of the paragraph, in which I say…
I specifically limited it to those people who view abortion as murder. And if one thinks of abortion as murder, it would seem not to far a step to assume that one thinks of people who have abortions, perform abortions, or support easy and safe access to abortion as being less than “decent.” Especially when one is attempting to equate abortion and the holocaust.
I also don’t see someone as decent who views a doctor who performs abortions as equivalent to an SS Guard at an extermination camp. Even deep down in my heart of hearts.
Perhaps it’s “not to far a step”, but it certainly is a step, and one that you should not assume that the protestors were making. If they had wanted to call abortion doctors Nazis, I have to imagine that they would have done so. I think their point is that a million abortions a year is a massive tragedy, not that America is being overrun by evil nucleas-Nazis. You probably don’t view an SS Guard as decent because they willfully participated in mass murder. Pro-lifers know perfectly well that pro-choicers don’t view abortion as murder (or at least, one must assume that they do; it’s not exactly news); thus, there is no moral equivalency to being an SS Guard.
So no, I wasn’t ignoring half your paragraph.