Think about it, every person has the "right to choose" in every decision they make, they simply must life with the consequences. Logically, shouldn't it be labeled "right to end life without consequences?"
2007-04-16 16:40:38 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Right= the entitlement to do something
Choose= to make a decision
Right to Choose- the entitlement to make a decision
Going on the pure definition of "right to choose" nothing is described except the right to make a decision. If people have free will, what decisions do they not have the capability to make? I said earlier it should be "right to end life without consequences" I believe that, instead, you should call it what it is as a right to end life without being punished. In the same way, I will not say I am pro-life, because I believe the framing thing is accurate. I will instead say that I do not believe women have the right to end life without being punished. Hows that?
2007-04-16 16:59:04 · update #1
Autum, your description of the baby as a "cell" both shows your ignorance, and your foolishness. A fertilized embryo is not one cell. If you do not know this, you have no right to tell me what an actual living baby is.
2007-04-16 17:01:59 · update #2
Autum, your description of the baby as a "cell" both shows your ignorance, and your foolishness. A fertilized embryo is not one cell. If you do not know this, you have no right to tell me what an actual living baby is.
2007-04-16 17:02:06 · update #3
Because even though it may be the right to choose for the mother that may not be the case for the baby. Basically by choosing your saying you choose to end the child's life.
2007-04-16 16:46:10 · answer #1 · answered by † H20andspirit 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are right that everyone has a right to choose in all decisions of their lives... but this is without going into depth about each choice a person makes. Of course you could say the right to end a life without consequences, but you could go into more detail about each right to choose, too. And who says there aren't ever consequences to ending a life?
2007-04-16 23:44:57 · answer #2 · answered by lysistrata411 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. The right to choose means that the government should not interfere with a woman's decision to have an abortion becasue it is her body and no one else's. Also, having an abortion is not ending life as you call it, becasue it's not an infant but a cell.
2007-04-16 23:52:07 · answer #3 · answered by autumn 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's called framing; 'pro-life' is another example of the same phenomenon. It's just pointing out the most positive aspect of your side of the argument.
2007-04-16 23:44:22 · answer #4 · answered by Doc Occam 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are head on sweetie! Great question...I already posted my say with a question on this topic....look it up....(Are you pro choice or pro life why..is it a basis of the law why?)
2007-04-16 23:46:08 · answer #5 · answered by Kimmie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because with it being legal you have a right to choose whether you want to do it or not.
2007-04-16 23:43:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There will be consequences. They may not be what we as Christians think they should be but there are consequences.
2007-04-16 23:43:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋