Really, I’m pro-choice.

pro-choice-baby.jpg

pro-choice-baby.jpgPro-choice for whom one should legally marry (i.e., no forced marriages).

Pro-choice for legal “sexual orientation change.”

Pro-choice for choosing your religion (or lack of one).

Pro-school choice (whether it is the choice of which public school to attend or the option of home schooling).

Pro-choice of parents to know if their children are receiving birth control at school.

Pro-choice of parents to know if their children are having an abortion, which involves great physical and mental risks to their daughters in addition to destroying their grandchildren.

Pro-choice for medical professionals not to perform abortions or dispense abortion pills.

Pro-choice to own guns.

Pro-choice of the unborn to determine if they can live.

Pro-choice for secret union ballots.

Pro-choice to access conservative radio shows.

Pro-choice to teach the flaws of Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Pro-choice of people to choose how they want health care insured or provided.

Pro-choice on the voters of America to decide social issues instead of having judges ignore the will of the people.

And so on. So yeah, I’m pretty pro-choice.

Oh, wait, you meant “pro-choice to crush and dismember the unborn, who we know from science are most definitely human beings?”

No, I don’t think people should have that choice unless it is to save the life of the mother.

The “Christian” Left is against all those choices, except the one that results in this and this.

I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice.

Advertisements

0 thoughts on “Really, I’m pro-choice.”

  1. “Pro-school choice (whether it is the choice of which public school to attend or the option of home schooling).”

    What about vouchers so that more parents have the choice to send their kids to a private school, and not subsidize public schools for other kids at the same time? I am for vouchers so more parents have that choice.

    Also, “to save the life of the mother”, that argument always gets me. I am with you on that one in the case of having to choose between the unborn and the mother, you have to go with the more viable of the two: the mother. However, the argument that a mother can’t carry a baby to term and deliver (naturally or c-section), but she can go through the invasive procedure of abortion just doesn’t hold water in 99.9999999% of cases. That provision, while necessary, opens the door for fraud so that unscrupulous doctors could still perform abortions by claiming the mother’s life is in danger.

    Like

  2. Neil

    Your first one floored me: “Pro-choice for whom one should marry.” Huh? So are you now saying that gays and lesbians should be able to marry? Legally? I must say I’m shocked.

    I must say this one made me laugh: “Pro-choice of the unborn to determine if they can live.” Umm – that’s quite impossible. The unborn cannot make that choice, we must make that choice for them. I’m sure you know that. So I’m left wondering what you meant by that statement.

    As for the Darwinian theory – most theories, over time, are found to have a few flaws. Besides, don’t you already have the choice to teach it?

    I pretty much agree with the others…

    Lonewolf – you already have the choice to send your children to private schools. Bite the bullet and send them! You don’t need vouchers. I know plenty of parents who forgave big houses, new cars, expensive vacations, etc., so they could send their kids to private schools. It’s all a matter of priorities…

    Like

  3. Mark(2), thanks for your permission. Currently my daughter is home-schooled, but she will be attending private school this coming fall.

    But it is ridiculous that I pay $6,000 for a private school but still have to shell out exorbitant property taxes so less fortunate students in my district can be indoctrinated into liberal thought the way you obviously were.

    If my daughter attended public school the district would receive state money for her “head count”. Why not cut that same check to me since the school won’t be getting it?

    And your argument against abortion above is ludicrous. My dogs can’t make the decision to feed themselves, maybe I should stop feeding them? How about children that are born and living but too young to care for themselves? Since they can’t take care of themselves do we have the right to make the life and death choice for them as well?

    Then again, in my short time on this blog Mark(2), I’ve noticed that logic isn’t your strong suit.

    Like

  4. “The unborn cannot make that choice, we must make that choice for them. I’m sure you know that. So I’m left wondering what you meant by that statement.”
    I have a sneaky feeling that all of them would choose to live if they could make that choice. Usually, every creature in the animal kingdom typically wants to live and an unborn baby choosing otherwise would be a total aberration.

    Like

  5. Mark (2),

    Re. marriage, I thought it was obvious that I meant “legally married” but apparently not. I meant that people should be forced into arranged marriages. I updated the post for that. I wasn’t thinking of those in the fantasy world where oxymorons such as “a same sex union of a man and a woman” can be real.

    Re. the unborn: They struggle to survive when being aborted. Do some research on how they grotesquely squirm during saline abortions which burn them to death. How about proposing a 10 years of appeals for them like condemned murderers get?

    Like

  6. Geez you guys are real good a piling on, but not getting the point of my comments.

    Who said I was arguing FOR abortion? That was a very poor assumption. I was simply stating a fact. And the fact is that the unborn cannot make that decision (they cannot make any decisions), someone else must make that decision for them. I’m pretty sure that you all know this to be true. I was merely asking for Neil to further clarify what he meant by the statement.

    Lonewolf – If you stop feeding your dogs, they will probably die. However, that is a choice you make. If you stop caring for newly born children, they will die, too. Again, that is a choice you make. You will go to jail for these choices, but the choice is still yours.

    Regarding schools. Lonewolf, I’m sure you know you don’t need my permission, What an arrogant thing to say. I was not slamming you, but again I’m sure you knew that.

    EVERYONE – even people without children – pays property taxes that go to public schools because EVERYONE benefits from an educated society. Now, if you don’t like the education provided by said public schools (and for the record I’m not saying I do), there ARE other choices available. You know this because you chose a different solution. However, this does not relieve you of your obligation to contribute to the public school system. Public schools would be far far worse than they are now if only those with children made contributions. If you disagree with the way the public schools are run, you have every right to attempt to change it. Get on the school board, attend meetings, DO something about the situation instead of bitching…

    The voucher solution essentially turns all schools into private schools and won’t make any meaningful changes to the current problems.

    Niel, if you thought it was obvious that you meant “no forced marriages,” then you wouldn’t have changed the statement. Normally, you are very good about being particular with what you say. This time you weren’t and I pointed it out. (of course I knew you didn’t mean same-sex marriage. But someone had to point out that you left the door open.)

    Like

  7. Lonewolf

    How’s this for logic? You said “…How about children that are born and living but too young to care for themselves? Since they can’t take care of themselves do we have the right to make the life and death choice for them as well?”

    I suggest that we not only have the right, but the responsibility to make the life and death choices for them. They can’t take care of themselves. If we don’t, who will?

    Why don’t you try reading what you write before pressing the submit button?

    Like

  8. Mark,

    Can you clarify your position that we have the right to make life and death choices for those who can’t make it for themselves? Legally, in some countries, yes. But morally do you have the right to decide life or death for those in your care?

    I see what you are saying, that de facto we are required to make some choices for those we are responsible for, but the right to choose life or death? Not sure about that one. Rights are tied up with morality, I think.

    Am I reading you correctly?

    Like

  9. Adam

    The point I’m trying to make is that we have the *responsibility* to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves and those in our care. Because if we don’t – who will?

    The choice to make “life or death” decisions is only for the emphasis that a price is to be paid (prison, eternal damnation – for those of you who believe in that sort of thing – etc.) if you make the wrong choice.

    There comes a time when we might have the right to chose life or death (brain dead, cancer treatments, etc.), but that is way off topic.

    I hope that helps to make my position more clear.

    Like

  10. I must say this one made me laugh: “Pro-choice of the unborn to determine if they can live.” Umm – that’s quite impossible. The unborn cannot make that choice, we must make that choice for them. I’m sure you know that. So I’m left wondering what you meant by that statement.

    What I learned in law school (which, if I’m to be cynical, represents the floor of moral behaviour, below which we tread at our peril) is that when someone makes a choice for another that the latter is incapable of making, that the choice must conform to a few standards. First, it must be made in the best interests of that person, and that person alone. Second of all, if the decision-maker’s own self-interest conflicts with that of the person on whose behalf he is making the decision, he is either bound to find another decision-maker or make the decision against his own self-interest (depending on the situation).

    So I would be totally fine viewing the mother as a fiduciary who makes decisions on behalf of her child, provided she conforms to the standards for that relationship. 🙂

    Like

  11. You know this because you chose a different solution. However, this does not relieve you of your obligation to contribute to the public school system. Public schools would be far far worse than they are now if only those with children made contributions.

    False dichotomy. There’s a difference between requiring everyone to pay for public schools, unless their cherubs are going to private school (at which point, they could receive a voucher for some of their funds), and requiring only those with children to pay.

    To put it another way: one possible solution is to require everyone to contribute to primary and secondary education, either via property taxes or by sending their own cherubs to private school.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s