Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinMike
Wow, where to begin? If someone cuts me off in traffic, I have choices of how I want to respond. I can (a) ignore it, (b) flip the person off, (c) kill the person. I have the right to select my response from any of the 3 choices I listed and probably several other choices. If I freely choose (c), then, I will rightfully be punished. I will be punished because it is against the law to act on (c). Do you not see how the right to choose is not dependent upon the rule of law? There are laws that prevent felons from owning guns. Does that take the felons choice away? NO. They can still choose to get a gun. But if they make that choice they risk going to jail. Making a law does not take away a person's choices, there is no correlation between a "law" and a "choice."
|
Okay. So everywhere in the world there is the right to have an abortion and always will be. It's just the law punishing people for their free 'choice'. What's the point of discussing abortion at all if you think there is a universalist right to it is already present?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinMike
It appears your wish has been granted. It is currently illegal to slaughter a roomful of children. Actually, it has been for a long time. Unfortunately, some sick people choose to ignore the law.
So, let's get back to my original question. What choice(s)s do you think people should not have? And a follow-up question, how do you propose to take that choice away from people?
|
What choices do I think people should not have? - Already answered. I think you are picking your words wrong again. I am not in favor of rolling back rights. I am generally in favor of expanding them, as I have written several times. I generally believe things with a clear and identifiable victim should be illegal, and everything else legal, whether or not I agree with it. I do not agree with using drugs, but if my neighbor wants to smoke a joint that's not my business. I don't think my neighbor has the right to hurt people though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinMike
Are you sure I'm pretending?  As I've pointed out, "pro-life" really isn't. And the problem with "pro-choice" is that when Roe gets overturned, the choice will still be there. But it will be illegal and the person performing the abortion and the woman would be in legal jeopardy. Plus the fact that the woman would be risking her life if she picked the wrong person to do the abortion. But, the choice is still there. |
At this point, I'm less positive my faith that people can read the dictionary and be generally aware of the world around them and apply some common sense may be slightly off base in this particular case.
We have already addressed what pro-choice and pro-life actually means, about 50 times. You and BobC are the only ones evidently incapable of understanding that words have meanings, that are not picked on the whims of any single individual.