mormonsandscience

Interesting observation. I had not thought about the potential contradiction between "pro-choice" and "pro-wildlife." I guess that issue would become especially pronounced if bumper stickers for both issues were found on the SAME car.

Not that there isn't plenty of cog dis to go around, mind you. =:)

I see the same cognitive dissonance when we talk about gay marriage and protecting the traditional family. So many people will spout off a litany of reasons why gay marriage is a threat to the family structure but conveniently leave out adultery, divorce, out-of-wedlock births, bad parenting, and co-habitation amongst straight people. It is such a strange exercise to see them make excuses for not criminalizing or legislating these much more serious threats to the family and instead focusing laser-like on same sex marriage.

Are those people using the defense mechanism approach you mention above or are they merely using a minority group as a scapegoat? I wonder how they deal with the internal conflict.

Could scapegoating also be considered a reaction to trying to deal with cognitive dissonance?

Also, I think the blanket statement of abortion is wrong is not considerate of all options. My wife and I have discussed that in a case whether we had to choose to have an abortion or she would die, we have made the decision that we would choose to have the abortion that we could then have more children later. I am sure that some people will disagree but we felt it was necessary to have a plan in case of an emergency. There are of course other scenarios that could warrant it as well. I personally believe that whenever we exclude ANY and ALL possibilities of something, we need to re-evaluate our stance and perhaps become more centralist or moderate allowing that there are exceptions to the norm.

"I think the death penalty is more about vengence, and I am okay with that in certain circumstances."

Vengeance is mine, thus sayest Dave. =:)

There is also the angle of the death penalty being deterrent to other would be criminals. While the data is mixed on this point, my position is that we as humans are not in a position to pass this kind of judgement on others.

As for abortion, I agree there are times where it is necessary. I also don't believe using embryonic stem cells is tantamount to abortion. My friend's wife became pregnant in her mid '40s. The fetus was diagnosed with a severe genetic disorder. Her doctors said if the fetus survived during the gestation period and she carried the fetus full term, it would most certainly die within a few hours after birth. My friend and his wife are Catholic and so probably did not use birth control (which is another issue entirely) and so did not choose to abort the fetus. Against all odds, their son was born and is now 6 months old. Other than a few physical defects and some developmental problems, the little guy has a good chance at surviving. Of course the doctors are scratching their heads.

Absolutely, I agree when abortion is used as a form of birth control, that is problematic. There are other options available. I think you have to evaluate the intent of the individual, most of which abortion for birth control purposes involve pride. They are considering the shame or inconvenience of being pregnant not the baby's life. In those instances, my opinion is they need to consider more than just themselves.

Anyway, I was mostly wanting to point out that the rhetoric of anti-abortionists typically do not involve any choice on the parent's part. It is an all or nothing for them and life just isn't that simple.

I seriously doubt anyone uses Planned Parenthood for abortion services for any other reason than "oops". The only other reason for an elective abortion is because of a genetic defect, and if they knew that, it'd be assumed that they had medical insurance and private care already established. In that case, they would most likely be going through their private doctor. Not going to a place in a strip mall that caters mostly to the uninsured and teenagers.

Also, there are no cases where abortion is medically necessary "to ave the mom's life". A c-section can be preformed in 2 minutes flat in an emergency, and even if the baby had to be delivered that way prematurely, with little to no chance of life, you still could go that route and not have them do an abortion procedure, which is inhumane and cruel to the ("fetus") baby. At least if he is born, they can make his little time on Earth comfortable with drugs and the warm touch of mom and dad...not the sharp edge of a knife.

Let's not forget that girls from religious schools have a higher abortion rate than those from public schools.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31048153/

"In that case, they would most likely be going through their private doctor."

Do regular OB/GYNs do abortions? I thought really the only doctors who do are in PP or other abortion clinics. But it isn't something I've shopped around for, obviously.

I recently have been experiencing a different type of cognitive dissonance because of some of the classes I am taking. The professors try to shove down my throat social justice. I think the way that they do it is what bothers me, after all growing up in the church we are taught love one another, etc. but what they are teaching isn't about love it's about dominance and power. It feels all wrong. The gospel teaches us that equality can be reached through charity, they teach equality must be forced and legislated. It almost feels satanic in its coercive tactics. The ideas of equality and equity are valid but their methods seem skewed. I didn't mean to hijack your comment thread but I just wanted to relate this to something going on in my life.