Comments on: What about the baby’s choice?

By: Amanda Jo

Amanda Jo — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:43:04 +0000

So abortion is wrong despite not being illegal, while suicide is wrong BECAUSE it’s illegal? Now who’s the hypocrite?

You clearly don’t think legality equates to morality, or else you’d be all for abortion. What I’m asking isn’t about legality but about morality, i.e. if you value the baby’s choice so much, would you allow it to make a choice you personally consider immoral? Or would you only allow it to make the “choice” you support? Let’s say in this scenario you’re a lawmaker (God forbid), so you get to decide what’s legal and what’s not.

It is absolutely not hypocritical to rank the choice of a person over the choice of a potential person. What IS hypocritical is to pretend to care about the fetus’ choice while in reality having no intention of supporting its power of choice (even if it were capable of making one).

And I think you mean “due to,” not “do to.”

By: captdelaney

captdelaney — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:45:32 +0000

“A child can certainly choose whether he/she wishes to be born but suicide wouldn’t be an option do to the fact that suicide is illegal.” thats what I said. Read the first part carefully and come up with a more relevant response. But your saying, a woman has a choice, but the child doesn’t? Hypocritical! You want rights for all but yet you deny them for some.

By: captdelaney

captdelaney — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:34:56 +0000

Let me make it into simpler terms for you: A child can certainly choose whether he/she wishes to be born but suicide wouldn’t be an option do to the fact that suicide is illegal.

By: Amanda Jo

Amanda Jo — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:43:47 +0000

Did you even read the post?

By: captdelaney

captdelaney — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:27:50 +0000

“There are two victims of an abortion: a dead baby and a dead conscience”-Mother Teresea. Well, the baby cannot talk so it should receive it’s right to life.

By: Fred

Fred — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:00:00 +0000

I get your “ironclad” meaning of choice.

So be it.. pro-lifers are for the removal some choice.

It is unreasonable to believe that its oppressive considering all the other choices out there. Or thats how I see it.

By: Amanda Jo

Amanda Jo — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:36:57 +0000

Again, this post is simply an attempt to clarify a word thrown around in the abortion debate and often misused. That’s it. Whether or not you think abortion is wrong, the definition of the word “choice” is pretty ironclad. Pro-choice is for it, and pro-life is against it. If you really think abortion is evil, admitting you oppose choice rather than advocate it should be a matter of pride, but I hear pro-lifers try to co-opt the word all the time. I don’t think it’s too much to ask pro-lifers to use words correctly.

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:37:53 +0000

Sure, that is the whole idea.. anti-abortion/pro-life.

Just because one choice is removed, or people are opposed to it does not mean the goal of contraception cannot be achieved.

I think its reasonable to deny or restrict that one choice in light of the many options out there. I think many people like me that see some choices as improper.

The whole idea of oppression from this lack of choice is just silly. In todays society, there is more freedom and acceptance.

By: Amanda Jo

Amanda Jo — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:46:43 +0000

No, that was not my point. The sole purpose of this post was to point out that when pro-lifers use the word “choice,” they don’t actually mean choice. They mean “choice, but only if your choice is the one I’m forcing you to pick.” Which isn’t choice at all.

By: Fred

Fred — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:27:16 +0000

In essence, choice supersedes life? Is that your point?

Saying that there are no other choices, is false.
There was a choice before, and there are choices after the fact.