 |
|
Yes, that's true. But I see contradictions in the positions
Posted on: March 19, 2018 at 17:25:42 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
73685
Member For:
21.78 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
of pretty much anyone who spouts the meaningless phrase, "right to choose" in defense of abortion.
No one is in favor of a disembodied "right to choose". Not many are in favor of a "right to choose to drive drunk". Far fewer yet are in favor of a "right to choose" to murder or rape.
and as I point out below, pickle has never given anything approaching a reasonable reconciliation of his two opposing positions:
"no one has a right to use force against someone who himself has not used force."
and yet if a mother commissions an abortionist to rip the arms and legs off of her unborn child(ren) he quite contradictoraly maintains that:
"the moment that the woman no longer wishes to be pregnant, it is her right to end her pregnancy"
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a co-founder of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) in 1969
http://www.alliance4lifemin.org/articles.php?id=75
* “The truth never emerged in any way, shape, or form from NARAL.”
* “One of the major functions of NARAL and its executive board was the dissemination of false statistics regarding illegal abortion and deaths from abortion.”
* “We in NARAL were in the business of coining slogans principally for the media . . . we scattered catchy slogans for them . . . to use . . . in their stories. Slogans like “reproductive rights,” “freedom of choice,” “pro-choice.” For many years we’ve known them to be hollow and meaningless. They’re just catchy and, essentially, without substance.”
* “It’s amusing to me that many of the slogans I coined . . . in those years are still being used by NARAL . . . as arguments. They were never meant to be arguments. They were only . . . slogans . . . and many other things, but never the truth.”
Edited by JeffB at 17:29:15 on 03/19/18
No one is in favor of a disembodied "right to choose". Not many are in favor of a "right to choose to drive drunk". Far fewer yet are in favor of a "right to choose" to murder or rape.
and as I point out below, pickle has never given anything approaching a reasonable reconciliation of his two opposing positions:
"no one has a right to use force against someone who himself has not used force."
and yet if a mother commissions an abortionist to rip the arms and legs off of her unborn child(ren) he quite contradictoraly maintains that:
"the moment that the woman no longer wishes to be pregnant, it is her right to end her pregnancy"
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, a co-founder of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) in 1969
http://www.alliance4lifemin.org/articles.php?id=75
* “The truth never emerged in any way, shape, or form from NARAL.”
* “One of the major functions of NARAL and its executive board was the dissemination of false statistics regarding illegal abortion and deaths from abortion.”
* “We in NARAL were in the business of coining slogans principally for the media . . . we scattered catchy slogans for them . . . to use . . . in their stories. Slogans like “reproductive rights,” “freedom of choice,” “pro-choice.” For many years we’ve known them to be hollow and meaningless. They’re just catchy and, essentially, without substance.”
* “It’s amusing to me that many of the slogans I coined . . . in those years are still being used by NARAL . . . as arguments. They were never meant to be arguments. They were only . . . slogans . . . and many other things, but never the truth.”
Edited by JeffB at 17:29:15 on 03/19/18
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Yes, that's true. But I see contradictions in the positions - JeffB MU - 3/19 17:25:42