Choice

[Temujin]

It is important to note that those who call themselves "pro-choice" tend not to really be "pro-choice." When you ask them whether they support one's right to "choose" to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense, all of a sudden, they aren't for "choice." "No. Guns are bad. We have to get them off the street" they say.

When you ask them if they support "school choice" so that poor women can "choose" to send their children to better schools they otherwise could not afford, once again "pro-choicers" all of a sudden aren't "pro-choice." "No. You will go to the public school we tell you to go, you will pay your school taxes, and you will stop whining." "Government knows best" they say.

When you ask them if they support your right to choose to run your business according to the dictates of your conscience and choose not to involve your business in things you find morally abhorrent--such as a gay wedding, once again, they are not "pro-choice." "If you want to run a bakery, and a gay couple orders you to decorate a wedding cake with signs and symbols you find morally abhorrent, too bad. The gay couple has the right to get married and you have an obligation to bake them a cake and decorate it with signs and symbols you find morally abhorrent because government says so." Why they can't just go to a business that caterers specifically to gay couples and gay weddings---is never explained.

When you ask them if you had the right to "choose" to attend religious services during the pandemic---and you are willing to assume the risks because you feel worship of your God trumps any danger a virus poses, once again, pro-choicers aren't so "pro-choice." "No. You will not go to Church, you are selfish if you want to do that. You will stay in your home and not come out until we tell you its alright. Government knows best."

My point? "Pro-choice" is a dog whistle, a euphemism for abortion. People who claim to be "pro-choice" aren't pro-choice at all. What they are is "pro-abortion." That needs to be understood. I refuse to allow abortion supporters to frame the debate as choice. Choice is a lie and always has been.

Your point is pathetic. It is obvious to the meanest intellect that choice in some contexts is appropriate and not in other contexts. It is also obvious that the Pro-Choice label applies to the exercise of choice in the context of abortion. Al the other issues are completely separate and will likely have different supporters and detractors from the issue of abortion. If you are reduced to this kind of Strawman argument, then clearly you have very little left

 

[Eightcrackers]

Well, we agree on something. No women should be forced to get pregnant.

I never said get.
I said be.

A woman should never be forced to be pregnant, whether or not she is pregnant.

Any woman who does not want to get pregnant may choose not to get pregnant. Women have the right to choose. No woman who wants to be a mother should be forced to get pregnant and be a mother.

You used the word get twice.

If you are opposed to abortion being legal, you are in favour of pregnant women being forced to be pregnant, by way of the law.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Your thinking is mentally deficient for the following reasons. Firstly, don't say "woman". A great many women cannot fall pregnant.

Why? Do they have a medical incapacity? If so----that is why they cannot get pregnant. All women barring medical issues have the potential for pregnancy. That is part of the nature of being a woman.

Meanwhile there are people who are legally men who can be and are pregnant.

No man can get pregnant. It is a biological impossibility. The "men" who are getting pregnant aren't "men." They are women. Just because they call themselves a man, just because the law recognizes that they are a man, does not entail they are a man. They are still a woman. All they are doing is living in denial--and the law is enabling that delusion.

Note: even famed liberal atheist Richard Dawkins agrees with that much. It is pretty bad when I have to agree with a noted liberal atheist, you know?

Some of these have women as partners, some transwomen, some cis women. Therefore "pregnant person" is much more accurate than "woman", which is vague, possibly confusing and includes people who cannot be pregnant while excluding some who can.

It is not at all accurate. It is a lie. A "pregnant man" is an oxymoron. If a person is carrying a child, by definition, they are a woman--regardless of whether they identify as a woman, regardless of the law.

Secondly, conception, whether expected, hoped for or dreaded is not the choice that is referred to. The choice is not whether or not to fall pregnant, but whether or not to stay pregnant.

Why? Why not just choose not to get pregnant? Seems easier to me. If a woman does not want to be a mother--don't get pregnant. What is so hard about that?

That is a choice that only the pregnant person can make.

And if all we were talking about was another body part--like an Aorta, a gall bladder, a kidney, who cares? Pregnancy is different. A woman is not pregnant with just another body part, she is pregnant with a child. That child has rights.

 

[Temujin]

Why doesn't the child have a "choice" in the matter? Why should a woman get to murder their unborn children at will, sir?

And----I think the point is that you cannot have "choice" without "consequence." This is something a lot of abortion supporters seem not to grasp. They want "choice," but they do not want "consequence."

Correct--the point is that if you get caught---you can get arrested and loose your freedom. This is because when you drive drunk, you put other people's lives on the line.

But WHY does a woman have a fundamental right to murder her unborn child? Does a woman have the right to murder their born children? Then why should they have the right to murder their unborn children?

They don't. That's the whole point. They do have the right to end their own pregnancy. We have covered ad nauseum why abortion, legal or illegal, is not murder. You don't get to ignore facts, and use falsehoods to pose an equally false dichotomy. There's no murder. Women have the right to perform legal activity, whether you approve of it or not. It's not compulsory , so they have a choice. That's what being Pro-Choice means. Being in favour of women being able to choose between two legal activities.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

They don't. That's the whole point. They do have the right to end their own pregnancy.

And they should not. THAT is MY point, sir.

We have covered ad nauseum why abortion, legal or illegal, is not murder.

No, YOU covered "ad nauseum" why YOU think abortion is not murder, sir.

You don't get to ignore facts and use falsehoods to pose an equally false dichotomy. There's no murder.

Sir, just because you call abortion something other than murder does not entail it isn't murder.

Women have the right to perform legal activity, whether you approve of it or not. It's not compulsory , so they have a choice.

This is what pro-lifers are attempting to change, sir. It is the whole point behind the movement. Abortion everywhere should be outlawed. It should not be tolerated in a society that claims to be civilized, enlightened, and educated.

That's what being Pro-Choice means. Being in favor of women being able to choose between two legal activities.

Sir, why not just say you are pro-abortion? Why use dog whistles and euphuisms?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

I never said get. I said be.

Well, sir, you see, there is a connection between a woman "being pregnant" and the choice she made to get that way. You cannot separate out her "being pregnant" with the choice she made to engage in the behavior that led to that.

If a woman is not ready to be a mother, does not want to be a mother--then she needs to choose to take whatever steps she needs to take to prevent that from happening. Once a woman becomes a mother through pregnancy, it is too late to say "Gee whiz! I don't want this!" We can't just go around killing people because we don't want them.

A woman should never be forced to be pregnant, whether or not she is pregnant.

Why did she get pregnant, if she does not want to "be" pregnant?

If you are opposed to abortion being legal, you are in favor of pregnant women being forced to be pregnant, by way of the law.

Um, yeah--that would be correct. Though---the way you put it--you make it sound like I want to control a woman's womb.

It isn't her womb I care about--it is the child in it that I care about.

 

[Temujin]

Why? Do they have a medical incapacity? If so----that is why they cannot get pregnant. All women barring medical issues have the potential for pregnancy. That is part of the nature of being a woman.

No man can get pregnant. It is a biological impossibility. The "men" who are getting pregnant aren't "men." They are women. Just because they call themselves a man, just because the law recognizes that they are a man, does not entail they are a man. They are still a woman. All they are doing is living in denial--and the law is enabling that delusion.

Note: even famed liberal atheist Richard Dawkins agrees with that much. It is pretty bad when I have to agree with a noted liberal atheist, you know?

It is not at all accurate. It is a lie. A "pregnant man" is an oxymoron. If a person is carrying a child, by definition, they are a woman--regardless of whether they identify as a woman, regardless of the law.

Why? Why not just choose not to get pregnant? Seems easier to me. If a woman does not want to be a mother--don't get pregnant. What is so hard about that?

And if all we were talking about was another body part--like an Aorta, a gall bladder, a kidney, who cares? Pregnancy is different. A woman is not pregnant with just another body part, she is pregnant with a child. That child has rights.

As a matter of interest, why are you digging up a year's old post, made to a poster I now have on ignore, instead of replying at the time? Particularly as your reply says nothing of substance and is overtaken by posts later in the thread.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

As a matter of interest, why are you digging up a year's old post, made to a poster I now have on ignore, instead of replying at the time? Particularly as your reply says nothing of substance and is overtaken by posts later in the thread.

I checked--just for the sake of interest if anything was going on these boards and I found replies to this. I had not seen activity in a while. Today I saw activity.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Well, sir, you see, there is a connection between a woman "being pregnant" and the choice she made to get that way.

Unless she was raped, I agree.
So? Choosing to have sex is not choosing to get pregnant, let alone carry to term.

If a woman is not ready to be a mother, does not want to be a mother--then she needs to choose to take whatever steps she needs to take to prevent that from happening.

Abortion is - and/or should be - one of those choices.
I don't see that giving birth should be the punishment for having unprotected sex.

Once a woman becomes a mother through pregnancy

A pregnant woman is not a mother.
Unless she has had prior children.

Why did she get pregnant, if she does not want to "be" pregnant?

Why do some people who cross the road, get hit by cars, if they don't want to be hit by cars?

Um, yeah--that would be correct. Though---the way you put it--you make it sound like I want to control a woman's womb.

You do - you want your beliefs to decide what happens to the contents of other people's wombs.

It isn't her womb I care about--it is the child in it that I care about.

Control of the contents entails control of the womb.

 

[Eightcrackers]

No, YOU covered "ad nauseum" why YOU think abortion is not murder, sir.

If a thing is legal, it cannot be murder, by definition.

Not your definition?
TS - the law doesn't have to care what you think.

 

[Temujin]

And they should not. THAT is MY point, sir.

Then why not say so, instead of promoting the lie that what they are doing is murder?

No, YOU covered "ad nauseum" why YOU think abortion is not murder, sir.

Wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, yours, mine or anyone else's. It's a matter of fact. Abortion, legal or illegal, never has been, is not and never will be murder in any society in the world. You are fantasising.

Sir, just because you call abortion something other than murder does not entail it isn't murder.

. True. But that is not th reason.

This is what pro-lifers are attempting to change, sir. It is the whole point behind the movement. Abortion everywhere should be outlawed. It should not be tolerated in a society that claims to be civilized, enlightened, and educated.

In your opinion. In my opinion any society claiming to be civilized, enlightened, and educated, will allow legal abortion, easy to access for all women for at least the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.

Sir, why not just say you are pro-abortion? Why use dog whistles and euphuisms?

Because I'm not pro abortion, anymore than I am pro amputation or pro mastectomy. I support women having the choice, which includes the choice not to have an abortion. I do not support those not involved in a particular pregnancy being able to tell those who are involved, what they can and cannot do. It is the pro life label that is a euphemism. What you really are is anti-choice. Why not just call yourself that?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Because I'm not pro abortion, anymore than I am pro amputation or pro mastectomy. I support women having the choice, which includes the choice not to have an abortion. I do not support those not involved in a particular pregnancy being able to tell those who are involved, what they can and cannot do. It is the pro life label that is a euphemism. What you really are is anti-choice. Why not just call yourself that?

Do you believe I should have the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense, sir? Yes or no?

Do you believe I should have the right to choose the school I think is best for my children and to ask the government to send my school tax dollars there? Yes, or no?

Do you believe I should have had the right to worship according to the dictates of my conscience and go to Church during the pandemic lock-downs? Yes, or no? Her body, her choice, right? Again-assuming it is a free choice.

Do you believe women should have the right to choose whether to sell themselves in the sex industry if they do so--freely--that is--they aren't forced or abused? Yes, or no?

If you answer "No" to any of the above, in what sense do you believe people should have the freedom to "choose" and not be told what to do? If you answer "no" to any of the above--once again, it seems when you say you are "pro-choice" what you really mean is "Women should have the right to choose to murder their unborn children."

 

[Eightcrackers]

If you answer "No" to any of the above, in what sense do you believe people should have the freedom to "choose" and not be told what to do? If you answer "no" to any of the above--once again, it seems when you say you are "pro-choice" what you really mean is "Women should have the right to choose to murder their unborn children."

"Pro-choice" is a term that applies to the choice to abort - expanding it beyond its scope, is disingenuous.

By that "logic", no pro-life advocate should support the death penalty, or killings in self-defence or war - life is life, right?

 

[Temujin]

Do you believe I should have the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense, sir? Yes or no?

Do you believe I should have the right to choose the school I think is best for my children and to ask the government to send my school tax dollars there? Yes, or no?

Do you believe I should have had the right to worship according to the dictates of my conscience and go to Church during the pandemic lock-downs? Yes, or no? Her body, her choice, right? Again-assuming it is a free choice.

Do you believe women should have the right to choose whether to sell themselves in the sex industry if they do so--freely--that is--they aren't forced or abused? Yes, or no?

If you answer "No" to any of the above, in what sense do you believe people should have the freedom to "choose" and not be told what to do? If you answer "no" to any of the above--once again, it seems when you say you are "pro-choice" what you really mean is "Women should have the right to choose to murder their unborn children."

Yes to all but the first. There, I am not competent to offer an opinion. In my country the notion of having to carry weapons for the purpose of self defense is absurd nonsense, outdated for two hundred years at least. I accept that your country has not reached that level of maturity, so I leave that issue to you.

 

[BMS]

Then why not say so, instead of promoting the lie that what they are doing is murder?

Wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, yours, mine or anyone else's. It's a matter of fact. Abortion, legal or illegal, never has been, is not and never will be murder in any society in the world. You are fantasising.

. True. But that is not th reason.
In your opinion. In my opinion any society claiming to be civilized, enlightened, and educated, will allow legal abortion, easy to access for all women for at least the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.
Because I'm not pro abortion, anymore than I am pro amputation or pro mastectomy. I support women having the choice, which includes the choice not to have an abortion. I do not support those not involved in a particular pregnancy being able to tell those who are involved, what they can and cannot do. It is the pro life label that is a euphemism. What you really are is anti-choice. Why not just call yourself that?

If we could determine what you understand by 'women' we could debate with you. A 'transwoman' cant get pregnant in the first place if they are a man, so only you think you know what you mean

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Your point is pathetic.

No, my point is spot on. You want to act like you are the cats meow, enlightened and so forth becasue "Well, like you know, I am pro-choice. People have the right to choose, man!" when, in fact, what you really are is pro-abortion. What you really believe is only that a woman has the right to get an abortion. That is about the extent of the choices you are willing to allow for people. When people want to choose to do things that conflict with your leftist agenda, now all of a sudden, it is just fine for the strong arm of the government to take away the right to "choose."

That, sir, is hypocritical. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, sir. A woman has the right to an abortion, but I do not have the right to choose to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense? A woman has the right to an abortion, but I do not have the right to choose what school I think is best for my children and have my tax dollars go to that school? A woman has the right to abortion, but I do not have the right to worship according to the dictates of my conscience when government feels it is too dangerous for me to do so? And you tell me with a straight face "I am pro-choice!" HYPOCRISY.

It is obvious to the meanest intellect that choice in some contexts is appropriate and not in other contexts.

Right. You think religion and worship of God is nothing more than medieval superstition. You cannot understand why it would be important to people today. Thus, how dare they want to worship according to the dictates of their conscience when an evil virus is lurking about? They are selfish is what they are. Well--too bad! The strong arm of government will keep them in line and make them behave. How dare they want to exercise their religious rights!

Sir, your point is utterly laughable. It is utter hypocrisy on your part to claim to be pro-choice. You are pro-choice when it suits you. When it does not suit your leftist agenda--you have no problem taking away "choice."

It is also obvious that the Pro-Choice label applies to the exercise of choice in the context of abortion.

Yes. You are pro-choice only in the context of abortion. Why not just say you are pro-abortion--since you are clearly not pro-choice? Why are you so afraid to stand up and say what you are really for, sir? Why must you use dog whistles and euphemisms? Why not just say "Yes. I am pro-abortion?" What is so darn difficult about that?

Not that you care--but I would have a lot more respect for abortion supporters if they would just lay their cards on the table and stop with the dog whistles and euphemisms. I respect honesty, sir. At least I am honest in what I believe and why I want abortion restricted. At least you know where I stand and where I am coming from. I am anti-abortion and darn proud of it. I am not afraid to state what I believe. There are no dog whistles or euphemisms necessary with me, sir.

Al the other issues are completely separate and will likely have different supporters and detractors from the issue of abortion. If you are reduced to this kind of Strawman argument, then clearly you have very little left

Straw man huh? Sir, YOU are the one who claims that you are "pro-choice."

If you just said "I am pro-abortion" that would be one thing. But you do not say that. For whatever reason, you find it necessary to speak in euphemisms. Just say what you mean and mean what you say. Then we wouldn't have to debate what "pro-choice" really means, sir.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Yes to all but the first. There, I am not competent to offer an opinion. In my country the notion of having to carry weapons for the purpose of self defense is absurd nonsense, outdated for two hundred years at least. I accept that your country has not reached that level of maturity, so I leave that issue to you.

The idea of carrying the tools necessary for self defense is outdated?

How does one defend themselves without the tools necessary for self defense? Or are you one of these people who argue that "Sometimes you just have to take the beating..."

 

[Temujin]

No, my point is spot on. You want to act like you are the cats meow, enlightened and so forth becasue "Well, like you know, I am pro-choice. People have the right to choose, man!" when, in fact, what you really are is pro-abortion. What you really believe is only that a woman has the right to get an abortion. That is about the extent of the choices you are willing to allow for people. When people want to choose to do things that conflict with your leftist agenda, now all of a sudden, it is just fine for the strong arm of the government to take away the right to "choose."

That, sir, is hypocritical. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, sir. A woman has the right to an abortion, but I do not have the right to choose to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense? A woman has the right to an abortion, but I do not have the right to choose what school I think is best for my children and have my tax dollars go to that school? A woman has the right to abortion, but I do not have the right to worship according to the dictates of my conscience when government feels it is too dangerous for me to do so? And you tell me with a straight face "I am pro-choice!" HYPOCRISY.

Since I answered "yes" to your list of irrelevant choices, your entire post here is based on a falsehood. You are being lied to by the person reading out the posts to you, as if you were capable of reading them for yourself, you would not have made such a stupid and obvious mistake.

If you want to talk about hypocrisy, try talking to the hypocrites who claim to be pro life but are for the death penalty. Perhaps your reader could help you find one. It shouldn't be that difficult.

 

[BMS]

Since I answered "yes" to your list of irrelevant choices, your entire post here is based on a falsehood. You are being lied to by the person reading out the posts to you, as if you were capable of reading them for yourself, you would not have made such a stupid and obvious mistake.

If you want to talk about hypocrisy, try talking to the hypocrites who claim to be pro life but are for the death penalty. Perhaps your reader could help you find one. It shouldn't be that difficult.

Or one could equally say, those that dont mind innocent human beings killed in the womb but object to murderers facing the death penalty.

 

[Temujin]

The idea of carrying the tools necessary for self defense is outdated?

How does one defend themselves without the tools necessary for self defense? Or are you one of these people who argue that "Sometimes you just have to take the beating..."

By having a society sufficiently mature, with a sufficiently professional and trained police service, fair system of government and restricted access to weapons. I appreciate that you are not used to any of these things, but they are pretty much taken for granted in most western countries. Of course, we don't have quite as many ice cream flavours to choose from as you do, but then we don't need active shooter drills in schools either.