[ArchTypical]

>The liberal understanding of this is not entirely wrong >Yes, it is.

No, it's not ENTIRELY wrong.

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-pro-life-movement-consider-co...

> It isn't irrational. Being wrong is not the same as being irrational.

Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

Your argumentative tone is not compelling and you fail to demonstrate your position within some very constrained topics. Perhaps you will reconsider some of these ideas.

[agsdfgsd]

>No, it's not ENTIRELY wrong.

Your link does not support your belief that it is in some way partially correct. The catholic church is not a pro-life group. They pre-date the very idea of a pro-life group by many centuries. The largest pro-life group that random person lists does not have a position on birth control. So this does not support the notion that pro-life equals anti-birth control. But again, even if pro-life did equal anti-birth control that would not support the belief that pro-life people are pro-life because they hate women.

In case you missed in the post you are replying to: "And it would not make the liberal idea of the conservative view correct even if it were true. Christians who oppose birth control do so because they value the traditions of their culture, not because they hate women." Even if every single person who opposes abortion also opposed birth control, that would not make the belief that those people oppose abortion because they hate women correct. Opposing birth control is not hating women any more than opposing abortion is. Consider the opposite incorrect belief: "liberals hate babies, that's why they are pro-abortion". Now would you think "liberals also support birth control, so that proves it is because they hate babies" is good support for that belief? Neither supporting abortion nor supporting birth control can be equated to hating babies, just as neither opposing abortion nor opposing birth control can be equated to hating women.

>Rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic

Yes? The four humors theory of health and medicine was based on reason and logic. It was also wrong. You can have a rational belief based on incomplete or incorrect data.

>Your argumentative tone is not compelling

Please don't assume a "tone" for someone. It does not further discussion.

>Perhaps you will reconsider some of these ideas.

I have. And in light of the lack of contradictory evidence, my views did not change this time.

[ArchTypical]

> Your link does not support your belief that it is in some way partially correct.

Not my belief. I have evidence, so it's what I know, since previously I did not know. I found your arguments compelling and looked it up.

> In case you missed in the post you are replying to:

Nope. You decided to ignore a statement you agreed with for another you wanted to attack.

The largest pro life groups (as a body made up of pie slices) does evidently (ie have evidence) that supports:

> they are not just anti abortion, they are also anti birth control

Which is what was being referenced by at least a partial correctness, since it was a following statement. Not sure who you're trying to fool.

> Yes? The four humors theory of health and medicine was based on reason and logic. It was also wrong

Wrong is a matter of evidence. For the time, it was right as right can be. That's how science works and is in accordance with rationality. Proving a theorem, does not mean that bringing it up as a theorem was/is wrong. Over time, changes in knowledge are part of the process.

Good luck with your religious convictions to these issues.

[agsdfgsd]

>I have evidence

Then why not present it? Until you establish it is fact, then yes it is your belief.

>You decided to ignore a statement you agreed with for another you wanted to attack.

I have no idea what you mean.

>The largest pro life groups (as a body made up of pie slices) does evidently (ie have evidence) that supports

The link you provided says otherwise. It very clearly shows the largest pro-life group has no position on birth control.

>Which is what was being referenced by at least a partial correctness

That does not make logical sense. The statement "conservatives support abortion because they hate women and want to control their bodies" is not proven to be partially correct even if you believe that all conservatives oppose birth control. Opposing birth control is not hating women.

>For the time, it was right as right can be

No it was not. Incorrect isn't correct if you simply don't know any better.

>Good luck with your religious convictions to these issues.

I find it interesting that you ignore what I say, try to attribute what I say to malice, claim your belief is objective fact, and still suggest that I am the one with religious conviction here. "Conservatives hate women because I say they do" is not fact, no matter how many times you repeat it.