"No-choice", "pro-choice", etc.
Ian & Pam Dorion dorioni@ipa.net
Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:49:19 -0600 (00890282959, 199803182251.QAA11807@thunder.ipa.net)
> Ian & Pam Dorion wrote:
>
> > > RON
> > > Sure, I believe in forcing my beliefs down your throat. For example
if
> > you
> > > want to
> > > commit infanticide I would want some big cop to stop you, with force
if
> > > necessary.
> > > In fact if I saw you trying to kill a child I would do everything
within
> > my
> > > power to stop you,
> > > thereby forcing my beliefs down your throat. Every time a law is made
it
> > > forces that
> > > belief down someones throat. I didn't say you have to agree with all
of
> > > them, and I
> > > certainly don't either, that's just the way it is in society. The
only
> > way
> > > to avoid this is
> > > to give up the comforts and security of society and go off to the
> > wilderness
> > > and live
> > > by yourself. Good luck!
> > >
> > > JANET
> > > Ron, comparing infanticide with the right to die with dignity is
> > comparing
> > > apples and oranges. As for the rest of it, do you want laws passed
that
> > > would force *you* to comply with someone else's *religious* beliefs?
> > Would
> > > you:
> > >
> > > a. Just accept it, and comply, because that's the way it is in
society.
> > > b. Go off to the wilderness and live by yourself.
> > > c. Fight for change (I'll bet your church would).
> > >
> > >
> > > RON
> > > C. Fight for change. Let's just be honest about it. None of this
"you
> > > can't force your morals on me" stuff. That's what society is all
about.
> > > Otherwise you would have anarchy and barbarism. It's just a matter of
> > > who's morals will be enforced.
> > >
> > >
> > > JANET
> > > It isn't a question of whose MORALS will be enforced, it's a question
of
> > > having
> > > someone's RELIGIOUS beliefs imposed on another person who doesn't
> > subscribe
> > > to them. They are not the same. Surely you can see that? If, for
example,
> > > Jehovah's
> > > Witnesses spent lots of money and succeeded in passing a law
prohibiting
> > > blood
> > > transfusions FOR EVERYONE, would you object to having their
religious
> > > beliefs
> > > imposed on you through the force of law? Well, that's how Ian feels
about
> > > the Catholic
> > > church working to overturn the assisted suicide law. Your church
would
> > > impose its
> > > religious beliefs on him in a heartbeat, and would you object?
> > >
> > > RON
> > > The Thugs in India believed it was their religious duty to waylay
> > > people and sacrifice them by strangulation. Would you want to impose
> > > your moral beliefs on them? Why would you make an exception for
> > > "religious" beliefs anyway? The fact is society is composed of people
> > > with differing beliefs. I wish you all agreed with me in every
respect,
> > > but it's not going to happen. ALL laws must be based on SOMEONE'S
> > > morality. How can you possibly have any laws that are amoral?
> > >
> > IAN
> > Ron, the difference in doctor assisted suicide and your rather stupid
> > comparisons to infanticide and the Thugs of India is that the doctor
> > assisted suicide is a victimless crime. Indeed, when one prohibits
doctor
> > assisted suicide it then becomes a crime with a victim.
> >
> > Now let us look at the case of abortion. The mother does not get a tax
> > exemption for a child *until* the child is born. Therefore, the child
is
> > not and should not be considered a full fledged human being. This is
one
> > reason (do you understand the term *reason*?) why I am pro choice. Of
> > course, I do have some concerns when it comes to late term abortions,
> > including partial birth abortions. However, I am not a doctor. If the
> > woman's life is in danger, certainly she should be allowed the
abortion.
> > Why did she get to late term before she found out her life was in
danger?
> > Perhaps a new health concern. Perhaps a Catholic doctor. Also the fetus
may
> > be severly deformed.
> >
> > However, I am not that difficult to get along with. I am perfectly
willing
> > to change my stance on abortion under the right circumstances. One
might
> > be:
> >
> > Stop the abortion providing the objecting person, organization or chuch
> > posts a bond guaranteeing the support of this child, the mother, father
(as
> > long as he lives with them) and other children a middle class way of
life
> > as their antichoice commertials show of TV.
> >
> > Another might be:
> >
> > We have the government keep track of every females menstrual cycle form
age
> > 10 onward. Every time a period is missed, they get a pregnancy test.
The
> > government guarantees medical care and support for those who can not
afford
> > it. If a woman has any type of abortion, spontaneous or otherwise, it
shall
> > be investigated as any other murder. I'm sure some of the no-choice
ladies
> > like Claire would like to comment on this one.
>
>
> CLAIRE
>
> Dear Ian:
>
> If anyone wants to read what I have said about abortion, I can refer them
to my
> messages in the November errancy archive.
>
> I will say something about the use of the deceptive term "pro-choice" to
> describe someone who is pro- legalized abortion. I consider this to be an
abuse
> of language. "Choice" is now a euphemism for abortion. George Orwell
would be
> impressed.
>
> I am not "anti-choice" or "no-choice". I am anti-abortion. Giving a
child up
> for adoption should be considered a choice.
>
> I don't really agree with the use of the term "pro-life" instead of
> "anti-abortion", but I think that "pro-choice" is worse.
>
> ~Claire
IAN
Well gee whiz Claire, pardon me all to hell. You don't like no-choice, you
don't like pro-choice, you don't like anti-choice, you don't like pro-life
so you come up with this anti-abortion. That's fine with me, Claire. Now
tell me why you are anti-abortion again.
While you are at it, you might just look up all those definitions in your
dictionary. The one I have published by Trident Press doesn't have any of
those terms in it. It does however have:
Abortion n. 1. The expulsion of a fetus prematurely; miscarriage. 2. The
defective result of a premature birth; a monstrosity. 3. A person or thing
that fails to progressor develop normally as one would expect.
Now isn't that the saddest excuse for a dictionary?