quality of an argument that is called 'reductio ad absurdum'. Here is the definition used in Encyclopedia Britannica:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/reductio-ad-absurdum
reductio ad absurdum, (Latin: “reduction to absurdity”), in logic, a form of refutation showing contradictory or absurd consequences following upon premises as a matter of logical necessity.
In this case I am showing the absurdity in asserting that one is "pro-choice" by juxtaposing that with their view of being "anti-choice" with regards to other things, such as in your case, the right of parents to choose which school to send their children to.
In favor of:: The choice to intentionally kill one's unborn children - typically at any time, for any reason, by any method, no matter how brutal, and in some cases even after birth. The Democrats fought tooth and nail against various legislation to protect children who were born alive during abortion procedures. Hospitals around the country had actually utilized inducing labor and then allowing the born children to languish and die without food, water or any sort of medical care, other than what they called "comfort care", wrapping the baby in a blanket and letting him or her die... sometimes in a dirty linen closet, or other times in a bassinette in the nurse's lounge while nurses stopped in to grab a bite or something to drink during their breaks. Barack Obama called referred to them as "a fetus outside the womb". Fetus, btw, is the Latin name for an unborn child.
Against: The choice to choose which school to send one's child. Children of wealthy parents get the best schools, while children of poor parents are doomed to substandard, dangerous schools... giving them an almost insurmountable hill to climb in order to succeed in life.
Seeing them juxtaposed like that should be jarring to anyone who hold such view simultaneously... unless one consciously embraces evil, of course.
Edited by JeffB at 17:45:45 on 09/06/24