English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If you can peg anything dealing with life on 'Pro-Life', can we peg everything that’s related to choice on 'Pro-Choice'? We could add on racism, prostitutes, pedophilia, clothes! Clothes would go over well! My God, then we'd really be FREE! Isn't that what you want!?

Oh, no, now you can't pick on conservatives with assault weapons because that’s their choice, and yup, you gotta release all those pedophile priests from prison because it's their choice to fondle little billy. Oh SNAP! He just called that black guy N***** on the radio! Too bad you can't fire him, it's his choice to say that.

Everything is a 'choice', that doesn't mean its a good idea! Me saying pedophilia should be a choice for each person to decide for themselves is just as stupid as you saying that abortion(killing innocent human life forms) should be a choice for each person to decide for themselves.

2007-06-02 11:40:51 · 6 answers · asked by TJ815 4 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

MY POINT BEING:

When talking about wars, execution, AND abortion, that is pro-life or anti-life. When talking solely about abortion, one is either pro-abortion or anti-abortion.

It’s easy. We’ll stop calling ourselves ‘pro-life’, if you stop calling yourself ‘pro-choice’. We’ll call it how it really is, ‘anti-abortion’ and ‘pro-abortion'.

2007-06-02 11:41:09 · update #1

By the way, don't bother bringing up "its not necessarily human life form(child)" BS. Unless the woman was getting freaky with the family dog, its a human life form with separate human DNA.

2007-06-02 11:44:29 · update #2

Oh, and don't bother with God comments. Atheist here.

2007-06-02 11:47:08 · update #3

6 answers

I enjoyed reading your post. I also enjoyed reading the other answers to your post, and some of them (as usual) amaze me. I have to ask myself once again how did we get to a point in our moral thinking where people think that a mother should have a choice as to whether or not to kill her baby. (Someone's response to that would/will be now hold on - no one is saying a mother can just kill her baby....Abortion is not murder it is just aborting an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy.) I see this line of thinking in a country that sits back and stares in horror and disgust at incidents of mothers killing their children like Gilberta Estrada who hung her four children , Dee Etta Perez who shot her children, or probably the most well known of the group; Andrea Yates, who drowned her children in a bath tub. We are nation of people that have lost their way and have forgotten how precious human life is. The only difference between a child in the womb and a child outside the womb is well just that.........one is inside the womb one is outside the womb. My wife and I have two children, and I can assure you: our babies exhibited quite a bit of personality before they were ever born. Our eldest did not stop wiggling around in the womb, and even after four years she never stops dancing around the house. Our youngest is so determined to have everything her way and has such a temper today, it is not surprising in retrospect to think that she kicked a Gatorade bottle off of her mother's "tummy". Ask any parent and they could probably tell you a similar story. Just because you cannot see inside and scientists do not know enough to tell you that the bunch of cells in there IS A BABY, it doesn't give you the right to destroy something which -if it is given the same care you would give a fish (feed, protect)- will be a child be ANYONEs definition. Murder is murder is WRONG. You cannot change this fact simply because you do not want to take responsibilty for your actions.

2007-06-02 12:20:43 · answer #1 · answered by collegegrad2099 1 · 1 0

I have no problem with changing "pro-life/pro-choice" to pro- or anti-abortion. Although pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean pro-abortion in every case - it's just the belief that it is the woman's right to choose what to do with her pregnancy.

However as you well know people's opinions on this subject vary wildly and it is a very difficult subject to pin down as far as morals go, mostly because of different religious views. Comparing it to paedophilia is therefore not entirely appropriate as the global moral stance on that topic is pretty concrete. But it's all a matter of opinion of course.

2007-06-02 11:45:25 · answer #2 · answered by Spazzcat 5 · 1 0

Like it or not abortion is accepted by modern society. Paedophilia and racism are not. Therefore abortion will not be punished, and paedophilia and racism will be.

People who are pro choice are not necesarily pro abortion, they just believe that people should be able to get one if they want/need to. I believe abortion is distasteful, and certainly a murky area as far as ethics are concerned - but to get rid of it would certainly be a backward step.

And you're incorrect - you are NOT human if you merely contain human DNA - otherwise your hair and skin could be considered a person - they are OF a human. Where a complicated cell structure ends and a person begins (the change between of a human and a seperate being) is a legal grey area.

2007-06-02 11:44:53 · answer #3 · answered by Mordent 7 · 0 1

For me an abortion might by no ability be a controversy. I only would not have one. i do no longer, besides the shown fact that, have the the best option to declare it relatively is stable for each individual. in case you won't be able to have faith somebody with a decision, how are you able to have faith them with a baby? you won't be able to legislate morality or maternal situation. there have been abortions for some years and that they're going to proceed for many extra. criminal or unlawful, it relatively is going to ensue. As to the conflict, i'm definately antiwar. i won't be able to justify why we are there and that i won't be able to help loss of life for Halliburton earnings line. i think of they could be calling Jesus a traitor and treasonous. i do no longer think of he could be on the fringe of George and the Neocons and that i'm exceptionally specific that he would not desire to be called a Republican. all of us is loss of life on a regular basis for the effective Bush ego. i won't be able to help that. the guy would not have the grace to declare he made a mistake or the middle to declare he lied to the country. existence is a captivating present from God and that's sacred. no longer in basic terms sacred to tiny American infants yet to Iraqi infants besides. Jesus might by no ability approve of the flaws going on today.

2016-11-25 01:59:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Pro-choice does not necessarily mean pro-abortion, it means the right to choice.

2007-06-02 11:43:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

a little winded but a valid point none the less

2007-06-02 11:44:50 · answer #6 · answered by Winter Glory 7 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers