| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:16 am Post subject: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
 |
|
Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Mark Sebree
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:16 am Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 18, 5:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
| Quote: | Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
|
That does not even make sense since the anti-choice position does not
offer the woman any viable choice with respect to her pregnancy. You
seem to have no problem with ruining her life and seeing her dead from
a botched abortion or forced into poverty.
Besides, no person is killed in an abortion.
Pro-choice is the position that only the woman that is pregnant has
the right to determine whether she wants to continue her pregnancy or
get an abortion, and supports her being able to make that decision
freely and without coercion, and then by able to act on that decision
and be able to obtain competent and legal medical services from a
licensed physician to see that decision through.
Mark Sebree
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:16 am Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 18, 5:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
| Quote: | Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
Jai Maharajhttp://tinyurl.com/24fq83http://www.mantra.com/jaihttp://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
|
But your pro-Islamic McCain wants to kill more people. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:16 am Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 18, 5:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
| Quote: | Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
|
Ah, another pearl of wisdom from one of usenet's most prolific kooks.
| Quote: | Jai Maharajhttp://tinyurl.com/24fq83http://www.mantra.com/jaihttp://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
|
Om Shanti THIS, bitch. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:16 am Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 18, 5:29 pm, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 18, 5:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
That does not even make sense since the anti-choice position does not
offer the woman any viable choice with respect to her pregnancy. You
seem to have no problem with ruining her life and seeing her dead from
a botched abortion or forced into poverty.
Besides, no person is killed in an abortion.
Pro-choice is the position that only the woman that is pregnant has
the right to determine whether she wants to continue her pregnancy or
get an abortion, and supports her being able to make that decision
freely and without coercion, and then by able to act on that decision
and be able to obtain competent and legal medical services from a
licensed physician to see that decision through.
Mark Sebree
|
It's pointless to argue with the pompous bloviator that is Jai. He
won't respond. He posts retch-inducing "spiritual" gibberish just to
see his drivel on the screen and doesn't respond to arguments against
his POV. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
host
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:27 am Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:b65fa73a-e8aa-401f-b861-414549f072a3@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 18, 5:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
| Quote: | Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
|
That does not even make sense since the anti-choice position does not
offer the woman any viable choice with respect to her pregnancy. You
seem to have no problem with ruining her life and seeing her dead from
a botched abortion or forced into poverty.
Besides, no person is killed in an abortion.
Pro-choice is the position that only the woman that is pregnant has
the right to determine whether she wants to continue her pregnancy or
get an abortion, and supports her being able to make that decision
freely and without coercion, and then by able to act on that decision
and be able to obtain competent and legal medical services from a
licensed physician to see that decision through.
Mark Sebree
Pro or against has nothing to do with abortion, it has to do with: Do you
want the government to have absolute control of the decisions you are
allowed to make concerning your own body?
That is the bottom line.
Next they will tell you you're not allowed to get tattoos...
the Host. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Claude Hopper
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
| Quote: | Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
|
Pro life is NO CHOICE.
--
Claude Hopper ? 3  7/8 |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bob Officer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:16:42 GMT, in alt.abortion, usenet@mantra.com
and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
| Quote: | Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
Jai Maharaj
|
Jay Stevens, the want to be hindu, is actually an ex-inmate of the
Hawai'i Prison System
Do you have any other false claims to make Jay?
--
John D. aka Stupid Wentzky in <XisNj.23413$Q52.18031@bignews9.bellsouth.net>
stated WRT the sex offenders register in South Carolina
"Some idiot in the pinko commie tax leech business group, at the expense of
the people, tried to get me to register on that unconsstitutional bullshit
list"
and in Message <ZsuNj.2183$tG6.112@bignews1.bellsouth.net>
Stupid wrote:
"By telling that fool that i was NOT reuqired to register.
It is written in plain english," |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Aknee Wombuster
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
California Says RELIGIOUS-FREAKY Doctors Can't Deny Gays By Hiding
Behind Jesus!
..
A great blow to religious ASSHOLES and others who'd put "faith" ahead
of human beings.
Now we need a ruling that forces medical personnel to either dispense
birth control or get out of the health business.
It's coming ...
-----------------------------------
"Calif. Court Puts Gays' Care Over Doctors' Faith"
By Ashley Surdin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 19, 2008; A03
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 18 -- Doctors may not refuse medical treatment to
gay men or lesbians for religious reasons, the California Supreme
Court unanimously ruled Monday.
The court ruled that physicians' constitutional right to the free
exercise of religion does not exempt businesses that serve the public
from following state law that prohibit discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation.
That holds true, Justice Joyce L. Kennard wrote in the 18-page
decision, "even if compliance poses an incidental conflict with the
defendants' religious beliefs."
If a doctor wants to refuse a service because of religious beliefs,
the court found, he or she must refuse all patients, or provide a
doctor who can provide the service to everyone.
The decision, three months after the same court struck down a ban on
same-sex marriage, stems from a lawsuit filed by Guadalupe "Lupita"
Ben=EDtez, who said her doctors and their employer, a San Diego-based
fertility clinic, refused her a standard fertility treatment because
of her sexual orientation. The doctors, who are Christian, said that
they denied the treatment because Ben=EDtez was unmarried, and that
they
were allowed to do so under the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom
of religion.
Ben=EDtez sought the treatment in 1999 after two years of trying to
conceive using an at-home insemination kit. When she informed her
doctor, Christine Brody, of her orientation, Brody replied that she
could not perform intrauterine insemination, should it later be
required.
What violated Brody's beliefs is disputed. Ben=EDtez asserts that
Brody
said it was her sexual orientation; Brody says she cited Ben=EDtez's
marital status.
Ben=EDtez began treatment with the understanding that another doctor
in
the same medical group would be available to do the procedure. But
eventually she was referred by a second doctor, Douglas Fenton, to
another medical group.
An attorney for Brody and Fenton says the referral was prompted by a
mix-up in Ben=EDtez's chart. Had it not been for the miscommunication,
staff doctors could have performed Ben=EDtez's procedure, the lawyer
said.
Jennifer C. Pizer, a lawyer with the gay rights group Lambda Legal who
is representing Ben=EDtez, said that while the law protects doctors
who
refuse certain treatments on religious grounds, it does not allow them
to do so on a discriminatory or selective basis.
A trial court sided with Ben=EDtez in 2004, ruling that doctors in a
for-
profit medical group must comply with California's anti-discrimination
laws. An appeals court overturned that decision one year later,
finding that the previous ruling had denied the doctors' religious
rights. Monday's decision voided that ruling.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR200808180=
2080.html |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jerry Kraus
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:27 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 18, 4:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
| Quote: | Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
Jai Maharajhttp://tinyurl.com/24fq83http://www.mantra.com/jaihttp://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
|
Look, you can play all the rhetorical games you want. There are two
positions:
1. Pro-abortion
2. Anti-abortion.
I can understand your desire to confuse the issue, but that's all
you're doing, I'm afraid. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mark Sebree
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:51 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 19, 10:27 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 18, 4:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
Jai Maharajhttp://tinyurl.com/24fq83http://www.mantra.com/jaihttp://www..mantra.c...
Om Shanti
Look, you can play all the rhetorical games you want. There are two
positions:
1. Pro-abortion
2. Anti-abortion.
I can understand your desire to confuse the issue, but that's all
you're doing, I'm afraid.
|
Actually, that is not true. The two sides of the issue are pro-choice
and anti-choice. Nobody is claiming that women should be forced to
get abortions against their wills.
Apparently, you are also trying to confuse the issue.
Mark Sebree |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jerry Kraus
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:59 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 19, 10:51 am, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 10:27 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 18, 4:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
Jai Maharajhttp://tinyurl.com/24fq83http://www.mantra.com/jaihttp://www.mantra.c...
Om Shanti
Look, you can play all the rhetorical games you want. There are two
positions:
1. Pro-abortion
2. Anti-abortion.
I can understand your desire to confuse the issue, but that's all
you're doing, I'm afraid.
Actually, that is not true. The two sides of the issue are pro-choice
and anti-choice. Nobody is claiming that women should be forced to
get abortions against their wills.
Apparently, you are also trying to confuse the issue.
Mark Sebree- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
Actually, you're playing exactly the same rhetorical games as your
opponents, trying to couch your views in words that sound better.
Both sides are confusing this issue, which is why there is so much
confusion.
1. Pro-abortion -- abortion has its uses.
2. Anti-abortion -- abortion is evil.
That's it. Live with it. Work it out. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mark Sebree
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:14 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 19, 11:59 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 10:51 am, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:27 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 18, 4:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
Jai Maharajhttp://tinyurl.com/24fq83http://www.mantra.com/jaihttp://www.mantra.c...
Om Shanti
Look, you can play all the rhetorical games you want. There are two
positions:
1. Pro-abortion
2. Anti-abortion.
I can understand your desire to confuse the issue, but that's all
you're doing, I'm afraid.
Actually, that is not true. The two sides of the issue are pro-choice
and anti-choice. Nobody is claiming that women should be forced to
get abortions against their wills.
Apparently, you are also trying to confuse the issue.
Mark Sebree
Actually, you're playing exactly the same rhetorical games as your
opponents, trying to couch your views in words that sound better.
|
That is why the "pro-life" advocates are more accurately described as
being anti-choice. They are also known as "pro-lie" because of all
the lies they tell.
Using accurate labels helps reduce the confusion.
| Quote: | Both sides are confusing this issue, which is why there is so much
confusion.
|
And you are adding to the confusion.
| Quote: |
1. Pro-abortion -- abortion has its uses.
|
Which does not explain what the ACTUAL position of the pro-choice
advocates is. According to your statement, virtually EVERYONE is "pro-
abortion" since nobody wants to see a woman killed by a pregnancy that
goes wrong, such as an etopic (tubal) pregnancy, which almost always
kills the woman..
| Quote: | 2. Anti-abortion -- abortion is evil.
|
And which also does not fully explain what the position anti-choice
advocates is, especially since many "anti-abortion" advocates will
concede to a woman having an abortion in specific circumstances, like
an etopic pregnancy, or in cases of rape and incest.
Your claim does not fit the actual positions.
| Quote: |
That's it. Live with it. Work it out.
|
However, both claims of yours are not accurate, and thus not
appropriate.
The PRO-CHOICE position states that the decision about whether or not
a woman who is pregnant continues her pregnancy or gets an abortion
rests with the woman. She should not be coerced into either decision
nor hindered in any way from acting on that decision, and both options
should be readily available, safe, and legal. That is why the
position is called pro-choice, because the advocates are supportive of
the woman having a choice.
The anti-choice position is essentially the opposite of that. Once
the woman is pregnant, unless there is an overriding medical reason,
the woman MUST complete the pregnancy whether she wants to do so or
not. She has no choice in the matter, and the consequences of the
pregnancy to the woman do not matter in any way. Anti-choice
advocates are against the woman having any choice in the matter, and
frankly do not seem to care what happens to the woman after she give
birth. They only seem to see her as an incubator.
You are the one that needs to live with the truth and to work it out.
I already am doing so.
Mark Sebree |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Jerry Kraus
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:51 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 19, 11:14 am, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 11:59 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:51 am, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:27 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 18, 4:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr..
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
Jai Maharajhttp://tinyurl.com/24fq83http://www.mantra.com/jaihttp://www.mantra.c...
Om Shanti
Look, you can play all the rhetorical games you want. There are two
positions:
1. Pro-abortion
2. Anti-abortion.
I can understand your desire to confuse the issue, but that's all
you're doing, I'm afraid.
Actually, that is not true. The two sides of the issue are pro-choice
and anti-choice. Nobody is claiming that women should be forced to
get abortions against their wills.
Apparently, you are also trying to confuse the issue.
Mark Sebree
Actually, you're playing exactly the same rhetorical games as your
opponents, trying to couch your views in words that sound better.
That is why the "pro-life" advocates are more accurately described as
being anti-choice. They are also known as "pro-lie" because of all
the lies they tell.
Using accurate labels helps reduce the confusion.
Both sides are confusing this issue, which is why there is so much
confusion.
And you are adding to the confusion.
1. Pro-abortion -- abortion has its uses.
Which does not explain what the ACTUAL position of the pro-choice
advocates is. According to your statement, virtually EVERYONE is "pro-
abortion" since nobody wants to see a woman killed by a pregnancy that
goes wrong, such as an etopic (tubal) pregnancy, which almost always
kills the woman..
2. Anti-abortion -- abortion is evil.
And which also does not fully explain what the position anti-choice
advocates is, especially since many "anti-abortion" advocates will
concede to a woman having an abortion in specific circumstances, like
an etopic pregnancy, or in cases of rape and incest.
Your claim does not fit the actual positions.
That's it. Live with it. Work it out.
However, both claims of yours are not accurate, and thus not
appropriate.
The PRO-CHOICE position states that the decision about whether or not
a woman who is pregnant continues her pregnancy or gets an abortion
rests with the woman. She should not be coerced into either decision
nor hindered in any way from acting on that decision, and both options
should be readily available, safe, and legal. That is why the
position is called pro-choice, because the advocates are supportive of
the woman having a choice.
The anti-choice position is essentially the opposite of that. Once
the woman is pregnant, unless there is an overriding medical reason,
the woman MUST complete the pregnancy whether she wants to do so or
not. She has no choice in the matter, and the consequences of the
pregnancy to the woman do not matter in any way. Anti-choice
advocates are against the woman having any choice in the matter, and
frankly do not seem to care what happens to the woman after she give
birth. They only seem to see her as an incubator.
You are the one that needs to live with the truth and to work it out.
I already am doing so.
Mark Sebree- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
|
No, my friend, you are living in a dangerous rhetorical fantasyland in
which your opponents oppose all freedom, and you advocate a utopia in
which people can do what they wish. You are, I am afraid, like many
of your opponents, a liar and a fool. The issue is abortion, not
choice. One can argue that fetuses and embryos should have "choice",
as far as that goes. One can argue that the man who conceived the
child should have "choice", as far as that goes.
1. Pro-abortion -- abortion has its uses.
2. Anti-abortion -- abortion is evil.
Sorry, that's it. It's not about choice, it's about abortion. Pro or
Con. Details remain to be worked out. But, abortion is the issue,
not choice. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mark Sebree
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: Re: PRO-LIFE IS PRO-CHOICE TO LIVE, NOT BE KILLED |
|
|
On Aug 19, 12:51 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 19, 11:14 am, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
On Aug 19, 11:59 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:51 am, Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:27 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 18, 4:16 pm, use...@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Pro-life is pro-choice to live, not be killed.
Jai Maharajhttp://tinyurl.com/24fq83http://www.mantra.com/jaihttp://www.mantra.c...
Om Shanti
Look, you can play all the rhetorical games you want. There are two
positions:
1. Pro-abortion
2. Anti-abortion.
I can understand your desire to confuse the issue, but that's all
you're doing, I'm afraid.
Actually, that is not true. The two sides of the issue are pro-choice
and anti-choice. Nobody is claiming that women should be forced to
get abortions against their wills.
Apparently, you are also trying to confuse the issue.
Mark Sebree
Actually, you're playing exactly the same rhetorical games as your
opponents, trying to couch your views in words that sound better.
That is why the "pro-life" advocates are more accurately described as
being anti-choice. They are also known as "pro-lie" because of all
the lies they tell.
Using accurate labels helps reduce the confusion.
Both sides are confusing this issue, which is why there is so much
confusion.
And you are adding to the confusion.
1. Pro-abortion -- abortion has its uses.
Which does not explain what the ACTUAL position of the pro-choice
advocates is. According to your statement, virtually EVERYONE is "pro-
abortion" since nobody wants to see a woman killed by a pregnancy that
goes wrong, such as an etopic (tubal) pregnancy, which almost always
kills the woman..
2. Anti-abortion -- abortion is evil.
And which also does not fully explain what the position anti-choice
advocates is, especially since many "anti-abortion" advocates will
concede to a woman having an abortion in specific circumstances, like
an etopic pregnancy, or in cases of rape and incest.
Your claim does not fit the actual positions.
That's it. Live with it. Work it out.
However, both claims of yours are not accurate, and thus not
appropriate.
The PRO-CHOICE position states that the decision about whether or not
a woman who is pregnant continues her pregnancy or gets an abortion
rests with the woman. She should not be coerced into either decision
nor hindered in any way from acting on that decision, and both options
should be readily available, safe, and legal. That is why the
position is called pro-choice, because the advocates are supportive of
the woman having a choice.
The anti-choice position is essentially the opposite of that. Once
the woman is pregnant, unless there is an overriding medical reason,
the woman MUST complete the pregnancy whether she wants to do so or
not. She has no choice in the matter, and the consequences of the
pregnancy to the woman do not matter in any way. Anti-choice
advocates are against the woman having any choice in the matter, and
frankly do not seem to care what happens to the woman after she give
birth. They only seem to see her as an incubator.
You are the one that needs to live with the truth and to work it out.
I already am doing so.
Mark Sebree
No, my friend, you are living in a dangerous rhetorical fantasyland in
which your opponents oppose all freedom, and you advocate a utopia in
which people can do what they wish.
|
Wrong on all counts. I do not live in a fantasy land, dangerous or
otherwise. I live in the real world. I understand that may opponents
do not necessarily oppose all freedom, although some of them seem to,
but I do know that my opponents do oppose THIS freedom. And I do not
advocate a utopia in which people can do what they wish, because I
understand that such a "utopia" could not function, and would quickly
turn into a distopia where the strong prey on the weak. And how you
got the opinion that I advocate such a fictional utopia from what I
have written is beyond me, since nothing I wrote indicates that.
| Quote: | You are, I am afraid, like many
of your opponents, a liar and a fool.
|
Sorry, but I am neither, since I am not the fool that you are, and I
am telling the truth that you cannot accept. I have actually
researched the top, and I understand why the anti-choice position is
foolish and cannot work in the long run.
| Quote: | The issue is abortion, not choice.
|
No, the issue is choice, and there or not the woman can choice whether
or not she will remain pregnant. Abortion is going to remain because
it does save women's lives in cases where a pregnancy has gone wrong,
like a tubal pregnancy. Even most anti-choice advocates understand
this. What they want to do is eliminate the woman's right to choose
to get an abortion because she is experiencing an unwanted pregnancy.
| Quote: | One can argue that fetuses and embryos should have "choice",
as far as that goes.
|
However, that is like arguing about whether a mugger should have a
choice about whether his victim can fight back. It makes no sense.
What's more, nobody has the right to use another person's body without
the used person's ongoing consent.
| Quote: | One can argue that the man who conceived the
child should have "choice", as far as that goes.
|
Which does not make sense since he is not the one that is pregnant,
and women are not beholden to men, nor are they required to consult
with them about life and medical decisions.
| Quote: |
1. Pro-abortion -- abortion has its uses.
|
Which is pretty much everyone, and this is an inaccurate definition
for the actual issue. All medical procedures "have their uses", and
abortion is a medical procedure.
| Quote: | 2. Anti-abortion -- abortion is evil.
|
Which does not address the issue, since people can be pro-choice and
against abortion. By the way you are classifying the issue, people of
this position have to problem with women being killed by their
pregnancies when such deaths are easily preventable. Just like these
people would have no problem forcing the woman to bear the child when
she is raped and/or commits incest.
Sorry, but most anti-choice advocates understand that abortion must
remain available for these kinds of cases. That makes them, according
to your inaccurate definitions, "pro-abortion".
| Quote: |
Sorry, that's it. It's not about choice, it's about abortion.
|
It is about who gets to decide what a woman gets to do with her body.
Therefore, it is about choice.
Unless you can come up with another medical procedure to replace
abortions, abortion is NOT going to go away.
For or against. For the woman having a choice about her pregnancy, or
against her having a choice.
| Quote: | Details remain to be worked out.
|
For you. Most of us already understand the issues.
| Quote: | But, abortion is the issue, not choice.
|
Actually, it is about choice, since abortion will remain since it does
save women's lives. It is about whether or not the women can choice
to have a legal abortion or continue their pregnancy, or whether they
will be forced to continue their pregnancy whether they want to or
not.
Your attempts to "simplify the issue" only show the problems with your
"analysis" of the issue. Try reading what I wrote in my last post for
comprehension this time.
Mark Sebree |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
