http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/13/16949097-pregnant-texas-...

Teen want's to keep her unborn baby while her parents want to force her to have an abortion. I do not believe those on the left are actually for choice like they say they are. They are pro abortion so I am assuming they will keep quiet in this matter. I'm not talking about the people who post here. I'm talking about the loud vocal pro-choice leftists in our country. Those women who claim to be for women's rights will never in a million years stand up for this young woman's right to keep her child. They will remain quiet on this matter.

Views: 947

Replies to This Discussion

I just can't find the logical strand to say that the pro-choice people are "hypocritical" because they are not marching with pro-lifers for this girl to have a choice.

You can't see the "logical strand" in wondering why "pro-choice people" (particularly activists) are not marching "for this girl to have a choice"?

Come on.  Not difficult to follow the logic there.

If, like NARAL or NOW or whomever, your entire job is fighting for "choice" ... and there's a fight going on "for this girl to have a choice" ... and you're nowhere to be found ... it raises legitimate logical questions about whether your mission statement is what you say it is.

If I were pro-choice ... I'd be supremely irritated that people claiming to represent me in the fight for "choice" are allowing pro-lifers to take the lead in the fight "for this girl to have a choice."


JB

Well-said, Jack. +1

"Not difficult to follow the logic there."

He's liberal so you can't hold him to logic, facts or reason.

I think Shieldes point is, not marching all up in arms about X, when X already has lots of defenders - does not mean support for Y. 

He's liberal so you can't hold him to logic, facts or reason.

*rolleyes*

I think Shieldes point is, not marching all up in arms about X, when X already has lots of defenders - does not mean support for Y.

The way Mullah's worldwide don't rise up in protest against Islamic terrorism?

Let's leave out the alternative and simply look at what they claim to support. When groups that support choice do not come out and support choice (because well someone else has this one we'll just take the next one) can we actually believe they support choice? Do they just support choice sometimes? Do they only support choice when it results in abortion? There are very vocal pro-choice groups across the country and I find it very telling that they are not vocal in supporting this choice.

Basically because the case is still pending and is so new, yeah.

Here is the deal, if she was denied her choice by the court, and if NOW or one of the others didn't come out in support, then I would take the side that it is a glaring case of hypocrisy.

But right now, I just am not willing to throw out that accusation. Right now, for me, it is overly emotional and throwing out accusations based on wanting to hurt one side or the other, to fulfill a need to be on the side of rightousness rather than what all is actually happening.

That, and people who take to the streets, screaming about every little thing about anything just annoy me. Right side or left. So a little quiet while we let the system at least try to work is a nice change.

Small edit and it still leaves all the truth we need to know.

I just can't find the logical strand to say that the pro-choice people are "hypocritical" because they are not marching for this girl to have a choice.

Why does it matter who else is on what side? Why dose it matter which side the pro lifers are on? Seems it would only matter if one side was pro-life and the other was pro-death. Then yes I would not expect them to march with the pro-lifers.

Well I was replying to Jack, who stated that it would somehow be horribly bad for Pro-Choicers to "allow" the Pro-lifers to "lead the charge".

Most pro-choice people I know really don't give a shit as long as you get a choice. If that means on this one individual case that the pro-lifers scream the loudest, fine. As long as it remains that the mother gets to have a choice, whooppeeedeeeefucking doooooooooooo.

I don't see a glaring hypocrisy in any aspect of that.

Shields, you don't have ONE SINGLE example of ANY of these "pro-choice" (read: pro-abortion) clowns ANYWHERE coming out in support of this woman--and you're going to clobber Paul over the head for NOTICING?  What, none of us on the right are supposed to recognize rank hypocrisy?  This case is not some obscure little side issue--it's a big deal, with serious implications for defining rights.  The fact that we're not hearing A PEEP about this from N.O.W., "Planned Parenthood", or liberal loud-mouths like Nancy Pelosi or Maxine Waters demonstrates just what these people are really all about--it has nothing whatsoever to do with privacy, women's rights, or freedom to choose--it's all about abortion.

 

You ask Paul why he doesn't man-up and say he hates all people who are pro-choice.  Well, I'm not Paul, but I'll speak for myself---I don't hate "all people who are pro-choice".  I sincerely think SOME of them are simply deluded, muddle-headed, not thinking clearly, and A FEW may even sincerely be interested in helping women (on some level).  Lots of supposedly "pro-choice" people have simply never been presented with the facts or have never really thought it through, and many are still operating under the old "just a blob of tissue" myth that was prevalent when Roe was passed, before we really had the science to demonstrate what we now know about beating hearts and developed nervous systems.

 

But many of them are just plain evil, and that's all there is to it.  Knowing what we know about the horrors of partial-birth abortion, knowing what we know about the barbarity of late-term abortion, some of these people are STILL supporting abortion rights all nine months---and I don't even want to breath the same air as people who can support something like that---much less vote for them.  It's evil, and there's no other word for it.

I believe the main point of the pro-choice leftists is that any woman should be free to do whatever they want, so unless we are talking idiotic people here, any pro-choice, extreme leftist is going to be supportive of the girl's decision, however stupid it may be, as it's all about individual freedom.

Paul, I think you've hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head!

RSS

Latest Activity

The Dutch Dastard replied to Matt L.'s discussion Mix and match vests
"+1"
3 hours ago
Steve replied to Jonny's discussion Was putting my dog to sleep the right thing to do?
"That's no way for a much loved pet/companion to live...you absolutely did the right thing IMO.   It's always heart breaking to lose a pet in any circumstances, but we have to take responsibility for these things, and it would have…"
3 hours ago
Steve replied to Vincent's discussion Appropriate Interview Suit?
"I'd go for a more classic cut personally, and something far less shiny. I have a suit that is similar to yours, it's cut in a more tailored style as opposed to the extreme slim cut of yours, but it's something I'd only wear for…"
3 hours ago
Chuck Knight replied to Daniel's discussion Casual Belts for Jeans?
"The real ones are called trophy buckles, and are actually given as trophies in rodeo events.  The bigger and shinier the buckle, the higher the ranking.   I nicknamed them "turkey platter" buckles."
5 hours ago
Aaron Lancaster replied to D.J.'s discussion Let Down in a Relationship
"Good call. Actually college and drinking go together remarkably well. It sounds like you guys have a difference in values. Finish it up now before you both become miserable. Move on, find a nice quiet girl who doesn't drink,…"
5 hours ago
Will replied to Herb Munson's discussion The Primacy and Existence of God in the group The Great Debate
"I had assumed that was a joke, Herb! We always used to say we hoped and prayed the school would burn down so we wouldn't have to go -- because it was torture, man!  Not a joke I'd make in current circumstances, tho."
5 hours ago
Todd Serveto replied to Rob Sexton's discussion Secular Manhood vs Christian Manhood in the group Christian Men
"Hey, Rob,  The Bible says: 3. For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. 4 But after that the kindness and love of God our…"
5 hours ago
Aaron Lancaster replied to Aaron Lancaster's discussion Gday from New Zealand
"Cheers Ian. It certainly is a good drop.  I'm never sure if I'm making sense or not when talking to people from other countries. We mainly call it "tramping" over here but then that implies walking from point A to Point B on…"
5 hours ago

© 2013   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service