Nice of both of you to argue between yourselves about how you're both right and I'm wrong.
The fact is that BR is offering a loaded question. This isn't an issue of mere debate and discussion tactics (on my part, though it surely is on his.)
There are actually multiple issues at play here and BR, as usual is mixing them, muddling them and throwing in his own bigotry and air of superiority to try and "win" the "debate."
His claims amount to false dichotomies mixed with loaded questions.
Let's try to break this down:
1. Can you be pro-life and still be opposed to giving people free birth control? Yes.
2. Can you favor giving people free birth control be opposed doing it through the state? Yes.
3. Can you be pro-life and not anti-sex? Yes.
Further questions might be (since BR has chosen to cloud his "debate" with editorial):
1. Can you be opposed to government involvement in this issue and not be an "anti-government nutter?" Yes.
2. Can you be anti-government not be a "nutter?" Yes.
3. Can you be opposed to giving people free birth control (either privately or through the state) and not be an "anti-sex nutter?" Yes.
BR basically muddled the issue from the very beginning with his assumptions and religious bigotry. He started with the claim that the only options are:
A. Pro-life and support giving away free birth-control (through the state), or...
B. Anti-sex religious nutbag.
Later he added another option:
C. Anti-government nutter.
This isn't the starting point of a reasoned discussion.
Bottom line? BR isn't interested in a reasoned, rational and level-headed discussion. He just wants to poke the hornet's nest and then reserve the right to appear like he's got the high ground when he gets stung.
Edited by MJ1970 - 10/14/12 at 1:30pm