"Abortion Doctor" Murdered

linusrichard said:
"Pro choice" and "pro life" are positions on the issue of abortion - specifically, on the legality of abortion. It doesn't make a "pro choicer" a hypocrite if he supports mandatory seat belt laws, just as it doesn't (necessarily) make a "pro lifer" a hypocrite if she supports the death penalty.

ACS, I suspect you already know this, so I'm wondering what is the point of these last few posts?
Click to expand...

See post# 339 I just made.
 
A Christian Sceptic said:
garcia<3 seemed to be applying the stances on issues in addition to abortion - I am trying to clarify what he's saying. He seems to have clarified that was indeed what he meant - do you agree then that pro-choicers are for more choices in all areas of life and pro-lifers are for restricting more choices in all areas of life?
Click to expand...

You're apparently trying to derail. And no, I'm not going to play along.
 
A Christian Sceptic said:
Pro-choicers wouldn't restrict choices in areas outside of abortion than - but yet I bet they do - I doubt there are many who are 100% Pro-choce for all things.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't affect me, then, yes, I am pro-choice. Not using your seatbelt can make you an unnecessary burden to society, so it is not a case of not affecting me.

I'd like to hear suggestions of things done on personal property that don't affect me that I oppose. I don't know of any off the top of my head.
 
A Christian Sceptic said:
Pro-choicers wouldn't restrict choices in areas outside of abortion than - but yet I bet they do - I doubt there are many who are 100% Pro-choce for all things.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Pro-Choice is a label used exclusively in regards to abortion, don't you?

Actually the overgeneralization is about Pro-Choicers being for all or most choices and Pro-Lifers wanting to restrict all or most Choices. I think it's incorrect.
Click to expand...

I'm not overgeneralizing. I'm generalizing based on the message of the pro-life movement. They think abortion is murder, and preach that those who perform these procedures are murderers. They want to restrict the choices/freedoms of individuals. Of course there will be fanatics that will want to "take the law into their own hands since the government won't."

There is evidence to support my opinion as well. There are plenty of violence done at the hands of pro-lifers in the name of anti-abortion. I've yet to read about one case of a pro-choicer violently attacking anti-abortion advocates.
 
Cleon said:
You're apparently trying to derail. And no, I'm not going to play along.
Click to expand...

garcia>3 thaiboxerken can make an extremely overgeneralized statement on Pro-Life and Pro-Choice stances and imply they extend outward to all choices / restrictions and I can't ask her about it? You're the one that responded to a question / statement I put to him,you then appear to agree and defend his stance (or not - I'm not sure) but then refuse to clarify? OK.
 
Last edited:
A Christian Sceptic said:
See post# 339 I just made.
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty clear that garcia<3's post was about garcia<3. She is pro-choice, and in favor of more choices in other areas. There may be a correlation. But there's nothing about the pro-choice position that makes a pro-choice person more libertarian in other areas of life.
 
linusrichard said:
I think it's pretty clear that garcia<3's post was about garcia<3. She is pro-choice, and in favor of more choices in other areas. There may be a correlation. But there's nothing about the pro-choice position that makes a pro-choice person more libertarian in other areas of life.
Click to expand...

It is clear. The names got switched in the posts.
 
thaiboxerken said:
You do realize that Pro-Choice is a label used exclusively in regards to abortion, don't you?



I'm not overgeneralizing. I'm generalizing based on the message of the pro-life movement. They think abortion is murder, and preach that those who perform these procedures are murderers. They want to restrict the choices/freedoms of individuals. Of course there will be fanatics that will want to "take the law into their own hands since the government won't."

There is evidence to support my opinion as well. There are plenty of violence done at the hands of pro-lifers in the name of anti-abortion. I've yet to read about one case of a pro-choicer violently attacking anti-abortion advocates.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying - that's all I was wondering. Sheesh people. :)
 
thaiboxerken said:
Well, pro-choicers are more about giving people choices. Pro-lifers want to restrict choices. It's inevitable that one group would produce violent fanatics and not the other.
Click to expand...

So - now that we are on the same page that the above statement is just about abortion.

Do Pro-Choicers not want any restrictions on abortion?
 
A Christian Sceptic said:
So - now that we are on the same page that the above statement is just about abortion.

Do Pro-Choicers not want any restrictions on abortion?
Click to expand...

Pro-choicers are not a monolith. I think there are plenty of pro-choicers who would be comfortable with bans on late-term abortions. I don't know, though. I would also guess there are pro-choicers who would be comfortable with some restrictions (but not bans) on abortion throughout the pregnancy, as long as they don't make it too hard (the legal term is "unduly burden") to get an abortion. I would guess other pro-choicers would oppose any and all restrictions, regulations, etc., on abortion.

What I think I would say is that pro-choicers, as a group, are opposed to any bans on abortion before viability, and opposed to any restrictions on abortion that are more than minimal in nature, throughout the pregnancy.

HTH.
 
I'm not overgeneralising. I'm generalizing based on the message of the pro-life movement. They think abortion is murder, and preach that those who perform these procedures are murderers. They want to restrict the choices/freedoms of individuals. Of course there will be fanatics that will want to "take the law into their own hands since the government won't."
Click to expand...
Don't see what's so hard about that to understand, to be honest. There are people on this forum who with a straight face have made it very clear that they are willing to take someone's life if they commit the heinous crime of trying to steal their car. If there exist people who support, and are willing to carry out, vigilante death sentences without trial, judge or jury for grand theft auto, is it really that big a leap to imagine individuals willing to kill for what they perceive to be the murder of a child?

Would the people who would rather end young lives than lose their precious SUV also open fire if they saw someone in the process of murdering a child? You bet they would.

Random note to self: why is it that 'generalizing' is spelled with a z, when 'overgeneralising' is spelled with an s?

Thanks for clarifying - that's all I was wondering. Sheesh people. :)
Click to expand...
Are you in here asking questions again? You must desist at once:p!
 
Last edited:
Does anyone feel like that your caught in a bitch-slapping session between the extremes on both sides of a multitude of issues and that those sides are really close to bringing down the entire thing?

And why the heck is this abortion issue even a Federal issue? It seems like it should be a state by state, city by city issue. Then you can move to the place that best suits you. You don't believe abortion should be legal move somewhere where it's not - you think only certain abortions should be allowed - then move there, you think all abortions should be allowed move there. Neither side (and all those in between) likes an opposing view being forced upon them.

I mean - it seems pretty clear that whether abortion is legal or illegal - people still have abortions and people still don't have abortions. OK - you have me there - they have more now when it's more accessible, but still ... (I've seen some statistics that show that it may not be a huge margin of difference. In other worlds, sadly, an awful lot of babies were still aborted when it was illegal. This whole legal/illegal issue seems a moot point at times.)

At least then the focus can be on stopping psychos before they snap instead of pointing figures and throwing rocks at the sidelines and getting distracted from the others who are about to snap over whatever cause they want to use to justify their behavior.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom