you aren't being genuine here. Pro choice means women have the right to make the choice themselves. that is not hte same as saying we support abortion.
Looks like prison for leaders of the Republican National Committee. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57522694/voter-registration-fraud-claims-singe-gop/
Please don't take this as snarky--I'm genuinely interested (and you know my bias on this): I would argue that supporting someone having a "choice" to perform a 21-week abortion is supporting that abortion. Is that not how you see it?
Chipping in here, you're addressing two separate issues. Pro-choice is the recognition that women deserve freedom as much as men and nobody's telling you to go through childbirth (it's now medically possible), or to be the instigator of an unwanted pregnancy. Supporting women's freedom over their bodies makes it a moot point whether I do or don't support abortion.
Well, holding up signs that say "abortion" isn't the same as holding up signs that say "pro choice". Because Pro choice means it's not for me to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her own body. I'm pro choice, but I'm not in favor of abortions. I just believe that it's not for me to tell someone who isn't my wife or girlfriend, who I am not the father of the child, what to do with her own body. And even if it is my own wife, I can't tell her what to do with her own body. I'd much rather she didn't have an abortion BUT I don't think the # of abortions that are just 'oops, didn't mean for that to happen' are has prevalent as others do. Pro choice doesn't just mean 'abortion or not', in simple black or white terms (abortion on its own, isn't a black or white issue). There are health concerns you have to consider, both the mothers and the babies. There are also people who are pro choice but would rather people put babies up for adoption if they can (i.e., healthy enough etc). But if you take away pro-choice, you pretty much make everyone who gets pregnant have to carry their pregnancy to full term. In an ideal world, yeah, that would be good. but in the real world, no it's not. I have two anecdotal cases here. A family friend was in her 40's when she got pregnant. It was a planned pregnancy, but she knew with her age (at the time) it could lead to health issues for the baby. She had the test done to see if there were any health issues with the baby, and there was (the baby would have down syndrome). She chose to to have an abortion and while I didn't personally agree with her choice I supported her right to make the choice. As much as I didn't like the choice, nor felt comfortable with it, the pressure she was under (both in her own mind and her family) dwarfed any issues I had with it. What she needed was my support, and help. What she didn't need was me telling her that she can't make a choice on what to do with her own body. Another case is a 2nd cousin of mine who had to have an abortion, because she had an ectopic pregnancy. Had she not had the abortion, she would've died. In that case, I supported her choice and was glad it was a choice she was legally allowed to make. I would never want to make that choice, but I would really never want to be denied the right to make that choice. So thats why I think saying you're "pro choice" is not the same as saying you're "pro abortion". It's not the same, and it's just a simple way to demonize the argument.
Lots of people put on uniforms every day to support and defend the constitution's decree that one has choice to hate America. You do not have the choice, however, to bomb a building or kill someone while exercising that right to hate America. I recognize that my view of when a life starts is different than others, but I don't want to talk about that. I also don't want to rehash whether it's legal or not, because it is and I think there are many more things the government should worry about than rehashing a 40-year old law right now. My question was about the supporting-the-choice-equaling-supporting-the-act. If you supported someone having the choice for Act X, then it seems logically that you support their exercise of Act X. If you didn't want them to exercise it, why give the choice to? You wouldn't say "I support the choice of someone to punch guys in the face, but I hope vehemently that they don't."
I support the right to own guns, but I'm not a fan of guns. I support the right of people to defend themselves, but I don't support people shooting other people. I support the right for people to smoke tobacco, but I wish they wouldn't. You can drink beer all you want (if you're 21) but I don't support you getting drunk and making poor choices.
You cannot be pro-choice and not be pro-abortion. There is no logic that separates them. If you are pro-choice and abortion is legal (which it is), then for sure at least one abortion will be performed. When that abortion is performed, it will be a perfectly fine abortion for good reasons. If you are pro-choice and somehow not pro-abortion, you would be out there advising women to not have abortions. If you believe abortion is a safe and simple medical procedure, you are pro-abortion. In fact, it is the procedure of choice. (SIC) Own up to it. Be a man.
That is the biggest steaming pile of bullshit I've seen in a long time. That fallacious statement and you know it, I know it and everyone here knows it. Choice is not the same as doing. I'm not "owning" up to jack shit, you laid out a faulty argument. I already said that its not my choice. Like the old saying goes, it's not my cup of tea, but I'm not gonna stop you from having tea.
I support freedom of speech. I don't support everything that everyone says. I don't agree with many things that many people say. I support their right to choose their words, I just don't often support the choice they make with those words. See. I'm pro choice on freedom of speech, but can be against the actual acts people use with those acts. I think julius laid it out pretty well in his post. I don't support boycotting soldier's funerals like that wacky church does, but I suppose the freedom of speech that allows them to do it. There's a pretty large difference there, at least to me.
You can deny it, you can try to soften it by calling it something else (pro choice). It is what it is. If the country were not pro abortion, there wouldn't be any.
Again, thats a heaping pile of horse shit (it's now been upgraded from bull) Examples: I'm not pro war, but I'm pro military. I'm not pro drug use, but I'm not pro drug war. You can be for one thing (pro choice) but not for what the choice is, because I believe it is not my choice to decide what others should do. For fucks sake, for a "libertarian" you should be all for this. Just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean everyone else has to abide by my rules. Try this one on for size. I'm pro hunting, but I'm against killing animals. I think if you want to hunt animals, you can. thats your choice, and I'm not going to do something to stop you from doing it. But I don't think you should kill animals, for we can get food at local stores. Of course, this opens a whole other issue about hunting for sport, hunting for necessity or hunting for cruelty. for sake of my argument, and since it's my argument I'm picking what version of hunting I'm using, I'm talking about hunting for sport. I don't think hunting should be banned, but I don't like it and don't do it. Don't really see the point in it (if not for food/survival). I believe you have the choice to hunt if you want. I don't think abortions should be banned, but I don't like it and hope to never have to do it. Don't really see the point in it (if not for survival of mother,rape/incest). I believe in giving women (or couples/families) the CHOICE of doing it if it is necessary. But please, feel free to tell me that i'm wrong and that I'm apparently a proponent of abortions or in favor of them.
