99c2a8e3
XPost: alt.abortion, alt.support.abortion, talk.abortion
From: balie@rogers.com
In article ,
"Light Templar" wrote:
> While Ron Nicholson was contemplating his or her navel in
> news:balie-9D08DA.23125809062004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com,
> he or she gave us all a good laugh with the following...
>
> > In article ,
> > "Light Templar" wrote:
> >
> >> While *ProteanThread* was contemplating his or her navel in
> >> news:06a34c91b3aadc36d4764ff5944fa2a8@news.teranews.com,
> >> he or she gave us all a good laugh with the
> >> following...
> >>
> >>> ok, quesiton:
> >>>
> >>> if the general media (either right and or left) uses the terms:
> >>>
> >>> Pro Choice for those supporting abortion
> >>> Anti Abortion for those against abortion
> >>>
> >>> Then why don't they ever use the following terms for the "other"
> >>> side of the issue (just to be fair):
> >>>
> >>> Pro Life for those against abortion
> >>> Anti Choice for those against abortion
> >>>
> >>> or
> >>>
> >>> Pro Abortion for those supporting abortion
> >>> Anti Life for those against abortion
> >>>
> >>> it seems only fair doesn't it? On the other hand, if you were to
> >>> break down the phrase "Planned Parenthood" into synonyms, strangely
> >>> enough the phrase "Selective Breeding" comes to mind. (can you
> >>> think of one for right to life that can be found in a thesaurus?)
> >>> Is the media telling the truth when they say more and more
> >>> Americans are pro choice but how can one really judge that or
> >>> believe that when they "selective" choose the words to describe the
> >>> debate (meaning the media has already made up our minds for us)?
> >>
> >> You do realize that things are not so cut-and-dried as all of that.
> >> A person can be against abortion, and still be pro-choice. For
> >> example I don't believe that people should chose to have an
> >> abortion, if someone asked me, I would advise against having one.
> >> However, I don't believe that the government should be dictating
> >> what a person can, or can not do with their bodies, and I
> >> particularly do not believe that the government should be dictating
> >> what medical choices a person may or may not make, as long as the
> >> medical choice in question is reasonably safe. (Having your brain
> >> removed before you die is not a viable medical choice) So, that
> >> makes me anti-abortion, anti-government interference.
> >
> > What you are describing is a case of semantics. My experience of
> > prolife is that they prefer to use the terms pro-abortion and
> > pro-choice and for those terms to mean different things.
> >
> > Prochoice is _not_ used interchangeably for a generalized stance
> > against government intrusion or regulation. Since the word has been
> > accepted into dictionaries in the early 70s, it has consistently been
> > applied to the subject of abortion _only_.
> >
>
> Which I think is a mistake.
Dictionary entries that are in error can be reported to the appropriate
companies and online services.
> > Interestingly, this must pose a difficult position for some pro-life
> > folk. By allowing for the freedom from government intrusion, they must
> > also accept millions of abortions.
> >
> > I wonder what that must be like.
>
> It's easy when you are intelligent enough to seperate emotion from
> rationality.
How true is this? If the support of abortion is the protest of
government intrusion into one's body then, sure you wouldn't want to
complain about the use of drugs. After all, what right does the
government have in telling someone what to do with their body?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
