Matthew S. Bowman column: Abortion rights supporters guilty of bait and switch

There are 8 comments on the Sep 13, 2012, Green Bay Press-Gazette story titled Matthew S. Bowman column: Abortion rights supporters guilty of bait and switch. In it, Green Bay Press-Gazette reports that:

Frances Kissling, founder of the misnamed "Catholics for Choice," will appear opposite me on Monday at the University of Wisconsin Marathon County in Wausau to argue in favor of a government mandate that forces employers to violate their religious beliefs just because they operate in America.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Green Bay Press-Gazette.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1 Sep 13, 2012
Catholics for Choice is not misnamed; they are catholics who belief in women having their own choice over their own pregnancies. They are still catholics until the joke...I mean, pope excommunicates them, which I personally hope he does. That will absolutely cripple the RCC in this country.

I'm fascinated that private people are now companies; evidently the legal status of incorporation is no longer functional. In that case, these private individuals should be legally responsible should any lawsuit or financial problems arise. Companies do not have religions. Emnployees are not subject to their bosses' superstitions.
zef

Los Angeles, CA

#2 Sep 13, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Catholics for Choice is not misnamed; they are catholics who belief in women having their own choice over their own pregnancies. They are still catholics until the joke...I mean, pope excommunicates them, which I personally hope he does. That will absolutely cripple the RCC in this country.
I'm fascinated that private people are now companies; evidently the legal status of incorporation is no longer functional. In that case, these private individuals should be legally responsible should any lawsuit or financial problems arise. Companies do not have religions. Emnployees are not subject to their bosses' superstitions.
.
Choosing, or choice is a mental process that cannot be controlled by external forces. To say one is pro-choice or anti-choice, or has the right to choose etc. makes absolutely no sense. For how can one be for, or against, or have the right to something that is impossible to control? Simply put, one cannot. The English term 'mental process' means (psychology) the performance of some composite cognitive activity; an operation that affects mental contents. A theory of ironic processes of mental control is proposed to account for the intentional and counterintentional effects that result from efforts at self-control of mental states. The theory holds that an attempt to control the mind introduces two processes:(1) an operating process that promotes the intended change by searching for mental contents consistent with the intended state and (2) a monitoring process that tests whether the operating process is needed by searching for mental contents inconsistent with the intended state. The operating process requires greater cognitive capacity and normally has more pronounced cognitive effects than the monitoring process, and the two working together thus promote whatever degree of mental control is enjoyed. Under conditions that reduce capacity, however, the monitoring process may supersede the operating process and thus enhance the person's sensitivity to mental contents that are the ironic opposite of those that are intended. The phenomenon has been identified through thought suppression studies in experimental psychology. Social psychologist Daniel Wegner and his colleagues first studied thought suppression in a laboratory setting in 1987 by instructing participants to avoid all thoughts of a white bear. The typical finding in such experiments is that suppressing thoughts of a white bear causes the frequent return of such thoughts, sometimes even yielding a tendency to obsess about the very thought that is being suppressed. The implications for these findings have since been applied in clinical settings where thought suppression is quite common (e.g., trying not to think of one's problems or other anxiety-producing or depressing thoughts).
http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/psycarticles-reg/i...

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#3 Sep 14, 2012
choice
n:
1.
an act or instance of choosing; selection: Her choice of a computer was made after months of research. His parents were not happy with his choice of friends.
2.
the right, power, or opportunity to choose; option: The child had no choice about going to school.
3.
the person or thing chosen or eligible to be chosen: This book is my choice. He is one of many choices for the award.
4.
an alternative: There is another choice.
5.
an abundance or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of candidates.
zef wrote:
<quoted text>.
Choosing, or choice is a mental process that cannot be controlled by external forces. To say one is pro-choice or anti-choice, or has the right to choose etc. makes absolutely no sense. For how can one be for, or against, or have the right to something that is impossible to control? Simply put, one cannot. The English term 'mental process' means (psychology) the performance of some composite cognitive activity; an operation that affects mental contents. A theory of ironic processes of mental control is proposed to account for the intentional and counterintentional effects that result from efforts at self-control of mental states. The theory holds that an attempt to control the mind introduces two processes:(1) an operating process that promotes the intended change by searching for mental contents consistent with the intended state and (2) a monitoring process that tests whether the operating process is needed by searching for mental contents inconsistent with the intended state. The operating process requires greater cognitive capacity and normally has more pronounced cognitive effects than the monitoring process, and the two working together thus promote whatever degree of mental control is enjoyed. Under conditions that reduce capacity, however, the monitoring process may supersede the operating process and thus enhance the person's sensitivity to mental contents that are the ironic opposite of those that are intended. The phenomenon has been identified through thought suppression studies in experimental psychology. Social psychologist Daniel Wegner and his colleagues first studied thought suppression in a laboratory setting in 1987 by instructing participants to avoid all thoughts of a white bear. The typical finding in such experiments is that suppressing thoughts of a white bear causes the frequent return of such thoughts, sometimes even yielding a tendency to obsess about the very thought that is being suppressed. The implications for these findings have since been applied in clinical settings where thought suppression is quite common (e.g., trying not to think of one's problems or other anxiety-producing or depressing thoughts).
http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/psycarticles-reg/i...
PATRIOT

San Antonio, TX

#4 Sep 17, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
Catholics for Choice is not misnamed; they are catholics who belief in women having their own choice over their own pregnancies. They are still catholics until the joke...I mean, pope excommunicates them, which I personally hope he does. That will absolutely cripple the RCC in this country.
I'm fascinated that private people are now companies; evidently the legal status of incorporation is no longer functional. In that case, these private individuals should be legally responsible should any lawsuit or financial problems arise. Companies do not have religions. Emnployees are not subject to their bosses' superstitions.
I have already filed an application with the Pope to have you excommunicated for wanting to have gay sex with a Catholic priest. Means no heaven for you Petey.(Couldn't happen to a more sinful little worm).

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#5 Sep 17, 2012
1) That's a pretty fu**ing STUPID threat to make to an atheist. But then, you;re a pretty fu**ing stupid person.

2)You can't apply to have someone else excommunicated.

3) If everyone who had sex with a priest was excommunicated, there would be a lot less catholics. BTW--I HAVE had sex with a priest.
PATRIOT wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already filed an application with the Pope to have you excommunicated for wanting to have gay sex with a Catholic priest. Means no heaven for you Petey.(Couldn't happen to a more sinful little worm).
PATRIOT

San Antonio, TX

#7 Sep 20, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
1) That's a pretty fu**ing STUPID threat to make to an atheist. But then, you;re a pretty fu**ing stupid person.
2)You can't apply to have someone else excommunicated.
3) If everyone who had sex with a priest was excommunicated, there would be a lot less catholics. BTW--I HAVE had sex with a priest.
<quoted text>
I can do what ever the hell I please. And having sex with a priest must have really placed you in a state of grace. When you and that priest are watching each others weenie frying, your grace will be dribbling all down the front of your leotards, lacey gracey.

I should wait until you are doing other things before I post this. It's so boring watching you misjudging my post before others can get their chance. Oh well!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#8 Sep 20, 2012
A layman cannot request an excommunication for anyone but themselves.

As I said, I'm an atheist. Your state of grace means nothing to me.

I don't misjudge your posts; you can't convey rationl arguments to save your...soul.
PATRIOT wrote:
<quoted text>
I can do what ever the hell I please. And having sex with a priest must have really placed you in a state of grace. When you and that priest are watching each others weenie frying, your grace will be dribbling all down the front of your leotards, lacey gracey.
I should wait until you are doing other things before I post this. It's so boring watching you misjudging my post before others can get their chance. Oh well!
a voter

Saint Augustine, FL

#9 Sep 21, 2012
cpeter1313 wrote:
A layman cannot request an excommunication for anyone but themselves.
As I said, I'm an atheist. Your state of grace means nothing to me.
I don't misjudge your posts; you can't convey rationl arguments to save your...soul.
<quoted text>
Isn't it too ironic though, all the threatening and hatred in God's name when the bible specifically warns against that?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr EasyEed 309,670
News Activist: "Abortion Threatens Black America's F... (Sep '12) 3 hr zef 5,652
News New abortion controversy hits Congress 8 hr RP McMurphy 14
News Atheists' problem with the Bible (Sep '09) 14 hr thetruth 7,406
Fri Ren 2
News Pediatricians Warn of Abortion-Breast Cancer Link Thu dpriver 2
safe abortion 0780343859wts hap in Queens twn, ... Apr 22 mama hawa 1
More from around the web