Abortions. I have no particular problem with burning the flag - it's a form of free speech. But like free speech, if you verbally assault someone, you might get punched in the face in response.
Denny, you are confusing your world view with other world views, and are assuming the same motives for making decisions from other people that you have. I could probably be considered "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice" but they are not the same thing. I am pro-abortion because, for the most part, someone who would have an abortion is likely doing it from a perspective that they are unfit to be a parent at that moment, and we don't need more unwanted children. And I think overpopulation is becoming an issue, so thinning the herd is OK by me. I am pro-choice because I believe there is only one person who is in the best position to assess their own life and make the decision if they are capable of having or raising a child. Government, the parents, and even the father should not be able to determine the outcome. I have no problem with others providing their opinion, but the final decision is the responsibility of only the pregnant woman. And I especially don't want the government making choices that should be an individuals. So, feel free to call me pro-abortion, but that is not e same thing as being pro-choice. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
I like the rectangle/square analogy. So we may as well call an orange a blue as if the name makes any difference. Because abortion is legal and because women do have a choice, there are between 500,000 and 1.5M abortions a year. Every one of them for good reason. Which ones don't you favor? I favor every one of them, as long as the woman freely chooses.
Not quite, a rectangle/square does not equal your blue orange analogy.what I was trying to say was that some pro-choice people (rectangles) are also pro-abortion (squares) but some pro-choice people (other rectangles) are not pro-abortion (squares). Here is an example I made up to demonstrate: Susie is a constitutional lawyer. Susie believes in the constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. Susie believes in a woman's right to choose. Susie is also a Catholic. Susie believes in the bible and its interpretation by the Pope. Susie would never get an abortion and prays that other women won't either. Susie is pro-choice and anti-abortion People are dichotomous and often have many beliefs at the same time that butt up against each other. Sure, this is an extreme example, but it is just used to illustrate my point. Favor is the wrong term for me, I couldn't give a shit about any of them that are outside my circle of friends and family as long as they are not forced (either way). As far as those inside my circle, well that would depend on how it would affect my loved ones. I would care, and might even give advice, but I would not presume to be the one that should make the decision.
Sorry, G0D, but Susie is pro abortion. You cannot buy into the every sperm is sacred bit (the bible and its interpretation by the pope) and also believe the opposite. It's one or the other. There are consequences to being pro choice that you cannot shirk, wish away, or pretend don't exist because you put a poorly reasoned disclaimer on it. 1.4M abortions performed last year. Because we pro choice people fight every "reasonable" restriction opponents try to put on it. Because we want it cheap. Because we want insurance to pay for it. Because we want it convenient. Like i said, I think every one of those 1.4M were justified and good. I am for every one of them. 1.4M is the consequence of choice. I shudder to think of the consequences of those being prevented somehow.
I disagree, Susie's stance might have the same effect as being pro abortion, but she is not pro abortion. She does not want women to choose abortion and would be pleased if the numbers went down or it magically ended, without rights being affected. A judge who lets a murderer off because of an illegal search is not pro-murder.
It is really tough to prove by analogy. If she did not want women to choose abortion, she would favor outlawing abortion. She cannot be both.
I don't know what else to say than you are wrong. She is both. Some people on welfare vote republican Some doctors smoke cigarettes Some environmentalists drive gas guzzlers Some antigay preachers chug cock Some ... I suppose if the most important thing in Susie's life was stopping abortion and all her thoughts and decisions were built around a paradigm of reducing abortions then she should not be pro choice. But in the real world people have competing thoughts and belief systems whirling around their heads. The majority of Catholics in the US use contraception. Why? Because there are competing ideas in their heads and they construct a hodgepodge framework of beliefs that suit them as individuals.
