“No, you can’t deny women their basic rights and pretend it’s about your ‘religious freedom’. If you don’t like birth control, don’t use it. Religious freedom doesn’t mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs.”
Thank you for the lesson, Mr. President, but that is not the issue. Did you see the ever so hidden red herrings? The fish supposedly were used to trick dogs in training. It masked the scent and led them astray. Good thing we are not dogs.
“… you can’t deny women their basic rights…”
Though not technically a red herring, it is a logical fallacy. This fallacy is called “Question-Begging.” He assumes that women’s rights are being denied. I would like to know which one is being rejected. If he means that contraception is a basic right, then he needs to also show how this is so. I wouldn’t normally care to dissect a quote like this, but the repercussion is large. If his statement is true, then I am at worst a terrorist if I know what I am doing or at least a stupid person as I have been called for not agreeing with a person. By the way, one way to end a conversation with me is use ad hominen attacks.
“If you don’t like birth control, don’t use it.”
I like birth control and by this I mean by following nature. Having conjugal relations with my wife is marital blessing. This blessing shares a two-fold end: unitive and procreative. God has endowed man and woman with His image and part of that is the incredible gift of the intellect and reason. So whether I want 20 kids or for “reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable”, I am still favoring birth control. Birth control is not the issue.
As a Catholic, I don’t want birth uncontrol, but birth control according natural law as designed for the human person. Natural Family Planning is the only method approved by the Church to control births when necessary. It respects our natural design of our bodies and allows the human person to use reason and intellect to read biological signs. These signs can also inform a couple that something may be wrong internally. Whereas NFP is nature’s design to regulate births, it is exactly not one thing: contraception. Contraception is birth uncontrol. Maybe it can regulate a birth, afterall some pills act as abortafacients, but it does not allow the person any control. It actually takes control out of the hands of a person because you give the fertile power away to a dose of hormone. The control part is exactly what a person loses.
“Religious freedom doesn’t mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs.”
Did you see that? Another red herring was snagged and misleads away from the true argument. Ok, so maybe it is a straw man, regardless I need to make a wicker basket out of it.
I have yet to find a better definition of religious freedom than the Church’s.
“’Nobody may be forced to act against his convictions, nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits.’” This right is based on the very nature of the human person, whose dignity enables him freely to assent to the divine truth which transcends the temporal order. For this reason it “’continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it.’” CCC2106
We simply cannot force anyone to follow our teachings. It must be an assent of the will, an act of love. But the President’s redefinition of freedom makes us trespassers of religious freedom. Since when does not wanting to pay for contraceptives force anything on another person? We are not saying “You cannot use it because I am forcing you by following your every move and if I see a contraceptive then I will take it from you.” That is force. Rather, we are saying, “Look, this goes against our 2,000 year old teaching and we don’t want to pay for it.” It is not saying another person cannot pay for it for themselves. We aren’t forcing anyone to live by our beliefs. Our position actually respects the other person’s choice even though I disagree with their use of the product.
The more I read or hear the arguments, I begin to wonder if these are honest mistakes or a planned strategy to mislead others to misunderstand. What are your thoughts? What other logical fallacies are you seeing in this debate?
For those that learn by video, here is a pretty good source for logical fallacies.