Heard of satire? It’s another one of those indecipherable concepts; like metaphors.

Now, to return to our regularly scheduled merry – go -round…

THAT SONFABITCH!

http://macswain.blogspot.com/

You’re doing it again, Loopy!

If abortions are ILlegal, then a CRIME is being investigated. It is then permissible to examine the relevant medical records — as it is the case in any criminal investigation involving medical practice (Doctor poisons patient; patient stabs Doctor; Person accused of taking prescribed drugs in an illegal manner — see Limbaugh, Rush).

Am I typing in Chinese?

If abortions are legal, then why are records being investigated?

You see, it doesn’t start with investigating records. It starts with the abortion.

You have confused the ordinary, convential “right to privacy” in the Fourth Amendment, with the “penumbra of privacy” recently ‘discovered’ in the Roe v Wade decision.

Here’s a hypothetical for you:

Two soldiers are in a missile silo. They receive orders to simulteneously turn their launch keys and launch missiles on, say, France (I can dream, can’t I? Besides, it’s my hypothetical).

One officer refuses. An MP points a pistol at him and says, “Insert that key, or turn it over to me, or I will shoot you!”

The officer quickly swallows the key.

What do you think of his “Right to Digestive Privacy”?

Judge Neo, we await your decison. Careful, now.

We cannot have SOME restrictions, because that would be “killing babies” according to the right, and according to their god, there are no exceptions.

We cannot have SOME restrictions, because the concept of “privacy” means that the government shouldn’t have the right to go into the woman’s private medical records to find out if that baby was “miscarried” or whether it was aborted.

If you believe that Rush Limbaugh’s medical records should be private and protected from the lawyers prosecuting him for Dr. Shopping, then you must be pro-choice. There is no way to be otherwise, unless you don’t believe that women have the same rights as men.

The answer is simple: Because “anti – choice” sounds like you are opposed to choice, generically, when, in fact, you are opposed to the the choosing of an abortion — so, you are “anti – abortion.”

If you were opposed to the death penalty, would you like to be categorized as “anti – penalty”?

David W: Until, at the end of a pregnancy, there is a result other than childbirth, artificially terminating a pregnancy should be illegal. No abortions should be performed after the earliest point at which a child may be born alive: approximately 20 weeks.

So your daughter, while inside of your wife was nothing? It wasn’t a babies body in there? It was just your wife’s body? A woman has an abortion at 5 months. Guess what? She still has to go through labor? To dispose of what? A piece of her body?

The “her body” argument is the weakest and most intellectually dishonest case that is made for somebody that is pro-choice. I can’t even believe somebody would be foolish enough to espouse that tripe.

When I saw my son’s first sonogram at 10 weeks, we saw his little legs kicking. That was not my wife’s body. That was the body of child.

You twit.

while everybody on the Right wants to pretend that there are equal voices here, I don’t believe for a second that James Dobson or Jay C should be telling my wife or daughter what she can and cannot do with her body.

This goes straight to the heart of the argument of secular America vs. the Religious Right–you don’t like abortion? Fine. don’t practice it. The same goes for homosexuality, temperance, Heavy Metal music, or anything else that is about the individual’s right to choose their beliefs and how they live their lives.

I think the anti-choice crowd is all about fear-mongering, and equating abortion with third trimester bloodbaths, and taking any nuance out of the situation–personally, i’m not ‘for’ abortion: it’s one of the hardest choices in life that could be made–I wouldn’t want anybody in my family to have one, but I can see that there are cases when it is a viable option…

and, the bottom line is, i’m not a woman having an abortion, and i’m not so holier-than-thou that i’d presume to legislate what women can and cannot do with their bodies.

viva tu vida, no la mia!
(live your life, not mine)

I agree, JD, that the Pro-Abortion and Anti-Choice labels are pretty much the political equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?” “Your mom!” “Karl Rove has cooties!” and similar nonsense.

With respect to both viewpoints, all present, etc, however, I must submit that from a standpoint of language–purely what the words mean–those calling opponents of abortion “Anti-Choice” have the right of it.

Opponents of abortion would, ideally, have the practice of abortion abolished. “Abortion is Murder” “It’s a Child Not a Choice”… And where it’s nearly impossible to coax logic out of a debate that has its very roots in such impossible a concept as “When does Life begin?”, this much is simple and irrefutable:

1) Abortion opponents believe abortion is murder of an unborn child.

2) Murder is not an acceptable choice in our society.

3) It follows, according to this logic, that abortion should not be a legal choice.

Ergo, “Anti-Choice”.

What puzzles me is why individuals opposed to abortion don’t embrace this label. According to their beliefs, it hardly seems perjorative.

On a side note, it would be refreshing to see someone like, for instance, our President, have more courage in his convictions than he does love of his own ambition. Above all others, he should be the one out front saying “Heck YES I’m anti-choice.”

But that wouldn’t be politically expedient.

Refute at will–fair warning to all: arguements with a basis of “Oh yeah? Well, your guys suck too, remember when Joe Politico XYZ blahblah?” will be summarily ignored, at least by me…

Let’s try to address the points on the table before once more devolving into “Yo momma”s.

Notice how nobody actually debates the substance of these issues any longer? Now, it is just a campaign tool used by both sides trying to compare their opponents to the far fringes of the political spectrums.