"No-choice", "pro-choice", etc.(Claire)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

DAVE G.
 Claire, Per your own definition of "choice" as a euphemism for
"abortion", You are...Anti-choice. In your mind, when used in this
context, the word choice IS synonomus with abortion. Ergo, your are
anti-choice = anti-abortion. If YOU had an unwanted pregnancy, I would
never suggest you get an abortion. What you do with your body and the
unborn fetus is YOUR business. It would be your CHOICE. I'm sorry
Claire, I just don't see your connection with choice=abortion. It only
seems that way because you insist on it being so. I could make a better
argument for Catholic= countless murders, greed, rape and
 pillage, but I won't.

CLAIRE
What do you think the "choice issue" or the "right to choose" refers to?
I am not the one who invented the use of the word "choice" as a
euphemism for abortion. It is not that way "because Claire says so", but
because those who wanted to make legalized abortion more acceptable said
so.


PHIPPS
Hey there Claire.  I know lots of people are jumping into this abortion
fracas, but I really feel the need to share my viewpoint as well ~ maybe
this will make no sense to you at all, but what can it hurt?

You appear to put forth the position (if I may paraphrase you) that
'choice' is a codeword which equals 'abortion'.  Thus being pro-choice
is equivalent to being pro-abortion.  I guess that logic is pretty
straightforward, but I frame the question a little differently.  

In my view, those who want to criminalize the intentional termination of
a pregnancy are saying,  "We as a society have a compelling need [or set
of values] that supercedes your need to be able to decide for yourself
what is going to happen to your body".  Interestingly, those people in
China who you say are forcing abortions on unwilling women are
essentially saying *exactly* the same thing.  If the JW's (or whoever
they are) managed to load the congress and get laws passed that forbade
blood transfusions, they would be doing the same thing.  When the
japanese took young korean girls prisoner and made them sex slaves,
raped by dozens of soldiers per night... well, you guessed it: they were
saying the same thing.

So, if you are willing to say to someone "My values are important enough
to me that I'm willing to take away your ownership of your own body,"
then it's really peripheral that you happen to think your own values are
somehow "better" than the values of the commies who are afraid of
overpopulation starving their people, or the japanese whose God-Emperor
had commanded them to go win a war... you see it really is *the same
thing*.

That's how I see it anyhow.  By the way, like someone else here said,
I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice.

Take it easy,
john phipps
p.s. ~ unless I'm mistaken, you never did answer my question from many
months ago: "If the garden of Eden didn't really happen, then why did
jesus have to die to 'redeem' mankind from the 'fall'?"  Or the other
one, "If we evolved from apes, when did we get souls to save?"  I know
you're busy with the abortion thingy, but give it a thought.
jp

• Previous message: Pain in fetuses - NOT
• Next message: What is murder (claire)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]