Bush's Ginsburg?

[Justin_stacy]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051031/D8DJ1NHG0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush, stung by the rejection of his first choice, nominated conservative judge Samuel Alito on Monday to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in a bid to reshape the Supreme Court and mollify his political base.

"Judge Alito is one of the most accomplished and respected judges in America," the president said in announcing Alito's selection. "He's got a mastery of the law and a deep commitment to justice." Bush exhorted the Senate to confirm his choice by the end of the year.

[siberianxkiss]

another guinea from jersey. interesting

well at least he's qualified

[splitsecond]

I think this is one of those "this is what you get for bitching" picks. If he is like Scalia at all, I will like him, but a lot of people probably wont.

[Kid Kilowatt]

He is trying to consolidate his base once again, after the Harriet Miers controversy.

[Lueda Alia]

Politics aside, I'm disappointed that he chose a man.

[splitsecond]

Politics aside, I'm disappointed that he chose a man.
He was going to choose a woman, but they were all to busy making me some god damn breakfast.

[A picasso blue]

I think this is one of those "this is what you get for bitching" picks. If he is like Scalia at all, I will like him, but a lot of people probably wont.
need i remind you that much of "bitching" came from fellow Republicans?

[radiofriendly]

He was going to choose a woman, but they were all to busy making me some god damn breakfast.
oh shit, i just had a spit take. is it wrong that i laughed so hard.

[open mind]

this'll drive the pro-abortion crowd nuts i assume.

[A picasso blue]

this'll drive the pro-abortion crowd nuts i assume.
wow i can't believe i need to tell someone this: It's not pro-abortion, just pro-choice

[splitsecond]

need i remind you that much of "bitching" came from fellow Republicans?
No I know, and now they will have to fight 10x harder to get this one through.

[open mind]

wow i can't believe i need to tell someone this: It's not pro-abortion, just pro-choice
you say tomato i say tomatO.........you get what i mean.
personally i don't see abortion as a real big issue so i could care less, it's the rest of this nominees record i'd like to know about, but i think the mass media will mostly make the abortion issue the big deal.

[Justin_stacy]

wow i can't believe i need to tell someone this: It's not pro-abortion, just pro-choice

Says who?

Politics aside, I'm disappointed that he chose a man.

So now we need a gender quota for the supreme court? How would having breast make one automatically a better judge....?


Honestly shouldn't quality be the deciding factor.......for an appointment of this type?

[zach]

wow i can't believe i need to tell someone this: It's not pro-abortion, just pro-choice
Speak for yourself!

[Lueda Alia]

Says who?



So now we need a gender quota for the supreme court? How would having breast make one automatically a better judge....?


Honestly shouldn't quality be the deciding factor.......for an appointment of this type?
Says we, the ones who are pro choice. No one likes abortions, so we can't possibly be pro abortion. That's absurd.

And about the gender thing, there just needs to be a balance, and women should be part of something as much as men are. Men and women may have the same beliefs, but it's still different - they will never be the same.

[Rebs]

Politics aside, I'm disappointed that he chose a man.
Same.

[Justin_stacy]

Says we, the ones who are pro choice..

No group gets universal control over how they are labeled by others, and in cases such as this, contriversial ones, the labeling is the choice of the writer, not the subject. I'm sure pedophiles would love to be called children lover's, instead of molesters and rapist, but that doesn't exactly have any bearing on how other people define them, does it?

Would you be willing to label anti-abortion advocates, in your own writings, "defenders of humanity" or "protecters of human rights" if they were so inclined to label themselves as such? These are no less loaded of terms then the one you chose.

And about the gender thing, there just needs to be a balance, and women should be part of something as much as men are. Men and women may have the same beliefs, but it's still different - they will never be the same.

But still this isn't congress, these aren't law makers. These are interpreters, and if they are actually doing the job of a judge, something I know people on your side of the political spectrum tend to disagree with, how is interpretation limited or changed by ones gender?

This is all about perception; you think it looks nice to have an equal ratio of womyn to men on the court. But with, what is unfortunately, the most powerful body in the land, perceptions, such as gender or race, shouldn't take a lead over quality and ability. We don’t need a quota system in the courts.

[Rebs]

Says we, the ones who are pro choice. No one likes abortions, so we can't possibly be pro abortion. That's absurd.

And about the gender thing, there just needs to be a balance, and women should be part of something as much as men are. Men and women may have the same beliefs, but it's still different - they will never be the same.
I completely agree. We need to be equally represented.

[Lueda Alia]

No group gets universal control over how they are labeled by others, and in cases such as this, contriversial ones, the labeling is the choice of the writer, not the subject. I'm sure pedophiles would love to be called children lover's, instead of molesters and rapist, but that doesn't exactly have any bearing on how other people define them, does it?

Would you be willing to label anti-abortion advocates, in your own writings, "defenders of humanity" or "protecters of human rights" if they were so inclined to label themselves as such? These are no less loaded of terms then the one you chose.

the bottom line is: we do not like abortions, therefore, we can't be pro abortion. to be pro something, you have to like or at least support it. we do not support abortion, we support the freedom of choice.



But still this isn't congress, these aren't law makers. These are interpreters, and if they are actually doing the job of a judge, something I know people on your side of the political spectrum tend to disagree with, how is interpretation limited or changed by ones gender?

This is all about perception; you think it looks nice to have an equal ratio of womyn to men on the court. But with, what is unfortunately, the most powerful body in the land, perceptions, such as gender or race, shouldn't take a lead over quality and ability. We don’t need a quota system in the courts.
I actually read this article today, about how biased males and females are with "ugly" children. you'd think that if people are biased in general, then the statistics for the genders would be the same, right? well, they were far from being the same. why? I have absolutely no idea. but it proves that someone's gender changes a lot. which is why I believe that, as Becca said, there needs to be an equal number of both.

I obviously agree that quality and ability matters more, but are you saying that there's no women out there that are as qualified as he is? what you said could be taken in two ways, you know?

[open mind]

being for the ability to choose abortion as opposed to being against the ability to choose abortion, to me seems alot more like approval of the procedure then diapproval to me, so i don't really see how the phrase pro-abortion is so far off the mark..........but like i said to me abortion isn't that big an issue, i just have a feeling it's going to get to much focus with this nomination and alot of this guys record won't be brought up because of it............but if it makes you feel better then fine, pro-choice

[Louballs]

These are interpreters, and if they are actually doing the job of a judge, something I know people on your side of the political spectrum tend to disagree with, how is interpretation limited or changed by ones gender?
Maybe I missed something. Which "side" disagrees with a judge's responsibility to interpret, not legislate? The side that secures liberties for individuals through a legitimate (if slightly strained) interpretation of the Constitution (see Roe v. Wade), or the side that had a President in office for 4 years through a complete disregard of a fundamental principle of judicial interpretation (see Bush v. Gore)?

Let's not assign party lines to views on judicial responsibilities-- it doesn't hold up too well.

[Justin_stacy]

the bottom line is: we do not like abortions, therefore, we can't be pro abortion. to be pro something, you have to like or at least support it. we do not support abortion, we support the freedom of choice.

Defend it how you wish, but the truth is it is openmind’s option to choose a label that he sees fit, as it is his writing. As much as you may dislike it, no one is going to use a label that they feel misrepresents their views on the subject at hand. And from my standpoint, attempting to force the word “choice” into a subject where mentally there is no “choice,” does just that, and which is why I, personally, have never used the misleading, and repugnant, term pro-choice.

Now I’m not attempting to imply anything about openmind’s opinion on the subject of abortion only that it is at his discretion to pick the word(s) that best suits his opinion on the matter. Groups, particularly controversial ones, do not have control over how others view, or describe, them.


I obviously agree that quality and ability matters more, but are you saying that there's no women out there that are as qualified as he is? what you said could be taken in two ways, you know?

Are you saying that just because a female was as equally qualified as he that she should automatically be picked over him, for the sheer fact that she's a womyn?

[Louballs]

And from my standpoint, attempting to force the word “choice” into a subject where mentally there is no “choice,” does just that, and which is why I, personally, have never used the misleading, and repugnant, term pro-choice.Uh.... "there is no choice"? Do you read what you type? Do you think people who get abortions don't choose to do so? Do you think people who see their pregnancies to term, even when economically it might not be in their best interest to do so, don't make a choice not to have an abortion?

The point is, generally speaking, people who are "pro-life" feel that abortion is wrong, and that no one should be allowed to get one. The "opposite" of that would be "pro-abortion," i.e., the idea that abortion is right, and everyone should get one. There probably aren't a lot of people who adhere to that belief. The middle ground--"pro choice"--is the belief that, regardless of your personal feelings on abortion (whether you think it's right or wrong for you) you believe that everyone should have the opportunity to choose for themselves whether they will seek an abortion.

To call that standpoint "pro-abortion" is "misleading."

[Justin_stacy]

Uh.... "there is no choice"? Do you read what you type? Do you think people who get abortions don't choose to do so? Do you think people who see their pregnancies to term, even when economically it might not be in their best interest to do so, don't make a choice not to have an abortion? ."

It is a difference of opinion. Is that too difficult for someone like you to understand? To me, and those that oppose discretionary abortion, human life is not a choice. You do not have the option of destruction just because it is a burden or makes you financially insecure or because of the irresponsibility’s of the host. Life is not something that can be thrown away on a whim. So again there is not a "choice."

And I understand that the "choice" in the label refers to the act and the not the being (not that that is particularly better), but the implication is still there, and therefore makes the term misleading.....


To call that standpoint "pro-abortion" is "misleading."

No less so, but again the individual has the determination. That's why you see terms like pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-womyns rights, pro-life, anti-choice, anti-abortion, etc......all readily used. The individual picks the term(s) that best fit his/her views or the message he/she is trying to get across. No one is going to pick a term that is counter productive to their views.

[JWKingofNerds]

Both sides of the fence use terms that frame them favorably. Pro-choice people aren't anti-life, and pro-life people aren't anti-choice. They should just go by pro-abortion and anti-abortion. I'm tired of people saying that they aren't for abortion because they're afraid of looking like they want to kill babies. I'm pro-abortion, I don't think it's a life up to a certain point, so until that point of the pregnancy is reached, I have absolutely no moral objection to abortion.

[Louballs]

It is a difference of opinion. Is that too difficult for someone like you to understand? To me, and those that oppose discretionary abortion, human life is not a choice. You do not have the option of destruction just because it is a burden or makes you financially insecure or because of the irresponsibility’s of the host. Life is not something that can be thrown away on a whim. So again there is not a "choice." Yes, it is too difficult for someone like me--of reasonable intellect, logic, and respect for other people's views and discretion--to understand that there "is not a choice" just because you say there's not. If you want to argue that there's not a choice, go ahead--you're just ignoring the fact that people do "choose" to get discretionary abortions.

Look dude, feel the way you feel, and call it what you want, but people do have a choice (that's just the fucking reality), even if you want to believe that there's only one "right" way to choose.

And I, for one, support their ability to make there own choices; hence, I am "pro-choice."

[Justin_stacy]

Yes, it is too difficult for someone like me--of reasonable intellect, logic, and respect for other people's views and discretion--to understand that there "is not a choice" just because you say there's not. If you want to argue that there's not a choice, go ahead--you're just ignoring the fact that people do "choose" to get discretionary abortions. ."

I'm so sorry o'lord and master louball, I forgot that opinions outside yours were such heresy. If only we could all be as intellectual, logical and respectful (?) as you, when it comes to assigning the value that we place on human life.

Look dude, feel the way you feel, and call it what you want, but people do have a choice (that's just the fucking reality), even if you want to believe that there's only one "right" way to choose.."

First you might want to look back at what I said, second life is life whether it’s burdensome or not. And the destruction of human life, for absolutely no reason, is not something that mentally anyone should be able to justify, hence there is not, or shouldn't be, any "choice" in the matter.

I'm not arguing anything about your notion of fucking reality......nor is it that, which makes the term so repugnant....

[Louballs]

I'm so sorry o'lord and master louball, I forgot that opinions outside yours were such heresy. If only we could all be as intellectual, logical and respectful (?) as you, when it comes to assigning the value that we place on human life.

1) Thanks for getting my title right.

2) You can be as arbitrary, logical, intellectual or ignorant as you want when "assigning value" on human life. And the guy next to you can be as arbitrary, logical, intellectual, or ignorant as he chooses to be. That's the "choice," dude.

life is life whether it’s burdensome or not. And the destruction of human life, for absolutely no reason, is not something that mentally anyone should be able to justify, hence there is not, or shouldn't be, any "choice" in the matter.

There are tons of problems with this.

1) Not everyone believes, as some Christians (and apparently you) do, that "life" begins at conceptions. That is a theoretical concept. Some people, very justifiably, I might add, feel that "life" doesn't begin at least until a creature can exist outside its mother's body--hence, some people think of abortion (early term, at least) as "destruction" of a human life.

2) I don't think it's fair to say that most abortions are for "absolutely no reason." Being a teenager and having to raise a child, particularly if (as is often the case) your pregnancy has (or would) cost you the support of your parents, is pretty fucking hard, as is having to give up a child for adoption after carrying it for 9 months. So I think there are some pretty good reasons, at least sometimes, for getting an abortion (particularly if you keep in mind my first point).

3) Finally, even if you're imposing your unilateral beliefs on the term "pro-choice," and saying "well, there shouldn't be a choice, because I don't think anyone should be able to justify blah blah blah," that misses the entire point of the phrase "pro-choice." I, personally, may or may not agree with abortion. I may agree with you, that it's a terrible, unjustifiable thing. I don't particularly care to divulge. BUT that doesn't mean that, by respecting other people's individual will to do what they are legally permitted to do, I suddenly become "pro-abortion." That's just ridiculous, and the worst reasoning I've ever heard. What I am is "pro-respect for other people's decisionmaking processes," and "pro-acknowledging that not everyone shares my beliefs." SO if I am a vegan, and I think that abuse of animals for food is "unjustifiable," am I still "pro-animal abuse" if I don't absolutely condemn everyone who eats meat?

As I said before-- believe what you believe. But remembering that there is more than one way to view the world doesn't make you "pro-abortion."

[Justin_stacy]

1) Thanks for getting my title right.."

.....and people wonder how the left got stuck with that elitist title? :thumbsup:

There are tons of problems with this. .

The only problem is that you lack the ability to grasp that not everyone thinks like you, a symptom of that elitist mentality I’m guessing. That is the only problem. I don't care what value you put on human life, I don't care if you don't think human life starts at conception, and I don't care if you don’t believe in personal responsibility. It makes no difference to me what so ever. You are entitled to your opinions, just as I am. And that is the point. Opinions and beliefs are actual choices. And in this case, if a group prefers a label that runs counter to another individual’s beliefs, there is no force in the world that can make him/her use it. I emphasize, no one is going to put forth, in their own personally writings, an idea which runs contrary to their own personal beliefs. The fact that those whom condone or defend discretionary abortions and the democratic party created(?), or use, a term that has other, more highly, negative implications is not mine, nor anyone on the opposite side of the aisle, fault.

Just as a large portion of the mainstream leftist publications (Newsday and NYT particularly) have drifted away from using the "pro-life" label because of the reflection it puts forth on their own beliefs, there is no justification you can give why someone should be forced to use a able like “pro-choice,” which, although initially meant to reflect the act of abortion, also gives the implications that human life should be a choice and furthering, what some view, as our society’s continued cheapening of the value of human life......

[splitsecond]

.....and people wonder how the left got stuck with that elitist title? :thumbsup:



The only problem is that you lack the ability to grasp that not everyone thinks like you, a symptom of that elitist mentality I’m guessing. That is the only problem. I don't care what value you put on human life, I don't care if you don't think human life starts at conception, and I don't care if you don’t believe in personal responsibility. It makes no difference to me what so ever. You are entitled to your opinions, just as I am. And that is the point. Opinions and beliefs are actual choices. And in this case, if a group prefers a label that runs counter to another individual’s beliefs, there is no force in the world that can make him/her use it. I emphasize, no one is going to put forth, in their own personally writings, an idea which runs contrary to their own personal beliefs. The fact that those whom condone or defend discretionary abortions and the democratic party created(?), or use, a term that has other, more highly, negative implications is not mine, nor anyone on the opposite side of the aisle, fault.

Just as a large portion of the mainstream leftist publications (Newsday and NYT particularly) have drifted away from using the "pro-life" label because of the reflection it puts forth on their own beliefs, there is no justification you can give why someone should be forced to use a able like “pro-choice,” which, although initially meant to reflect the act of abortion, also gives the implications that human life should be a choice and furthering, what some view, as our society’s continued cheapening of the value of human life......


Thats probably the finest post you've ever made on this site. Its amazing hpw people can utilize semantics to make something inherently good sound so bad.

[Cal Smith]

Yes, it is too difficult for someone like me--of reasonable intellect, logic, and respect for other people's views and discretion--to understand that there "is not a choice" just because you say there's not. If you want to argue that there's not a choice, go ahead--you're just ignoring the fact that people do "choose" to get discretionary abortions.

Look dude, feel the way you feel, and call it what you want, but people do have a choice (that's just the fucking reality), even if you want to believe that there's only one "right" way to choose.

And I, for one, support their ability to make there own choices; hence, I am "pro-choice."

aka....pro-abortion :bigsmile:
I'm like you in a way. I'm pro-choice when it comes to 1st degree murder. I dont agree with it but I support their right to choose.

Kidding aside, quick question. Do you fall in the line with "I dont think abortions are right, but I stand behind their right to choose."

If so then why, you personaly, do you feel abortions are wrong?

[Louballs]

.....and people wonder how the left got stuck with that elitist title? :thumbsup:

It was a joke. But nice jab; I appreciate a good one-liner.

The only problem is that you lack the ability to grasp that not everyone thinks like you

Dude, unless you're joking, you either didn't read my post, or you're a moron. Period. My whole point is that not everyone thinks like me-- OR you.

Opinions and beliefs are actual choices.

Amen, buddy. That's what I've been saying all along. And if a person (such as myself) believes that everyone has the right to make their own choice as to their views on abortion, or when life begins, or whatever then that person is PRO CHOICE. So..... I guess you're "pro-choice" too, huh?

And in this case, if a group prefers a label that runs counter to another individual’s beliefs, there is no force in the world that can make him/her use it.

Your point must be that you just don't want to call it "pro-choice," because you don't like term, for whatever reason. Because, as I've spelled out for you over the course of this forum, IT'S AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE PEOPLE WHO FALL WITHIN IT. To say that it's "not a choice"-- because your own personal beliefs foreclose any choice as to whether abortion is acceptable--completely and utterly misses the point of what the "choice" in "pro-choice" refers to. And you're obviously not a reading-comprehension-impaired moron (because if I called you that, it'd just be because I'm elitist (i.e., a rational thinker)), so you must just be saying that you don't like the words "pro-choice," NOT that they're "misleading." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that that's the case.

The fact that those whom condone or defend discretionary abortions and the democratic party created(?), or use, a term that has other, more highly, negative implications is not mine, nor anyone on the opposite side of the aisle, fault.

[Dude, before I address this fine piece of .... mental craftsmanship, a quick aside-- there are tons of grammar problems here. Just, you know, being elitist.]

Um...I think I found the part you don't understand: "Pro-choice" doesn't mean that you "condone" or "defend" "discretionary" abortions. It means that, regardless of your own personal beliefs (i.e., even if you're "pro-life," or whatever you want to call it) you understand that other people can make their own choice as to whether or not to "condone" or "defend" abortion. And since, as you so accurately pointed out,

Opinions and beliefs are actual choices.

"pro choice" means you respect other people's right to form their own "opinions and beliefs" about abortion.

[Cal Smith]

Dude, unless you're joking, you either didn't read my post, or you're a moron. Period. My whole point is that not everyone thinks like me-- OR you.

I've seen you point out grammer and spelling a number of times.

To make a long story short, no one gives a damn about grammer on a message board as long as it's readable.

If you want to talk grammer start with your own posts.

[Louballs]

Kidding aside, quick question. Do you fall in the line with "I dont think abortions are right, but I stand behind their right to choose."

If so then why, you personaly, do you feel abortions are wrong?

I'm of the mind that you can't judge another person's actions unless you've been in their position. I've never been faced with a pregnancy, because I'm a male. If I ever got a girl pregnant, I would be opposed to her getting an abortion, not for religious or moral reasons, but for personal reasons-- it would be hard to deal with knowing that I could've had a child, and wondering what would've happened "but for...." In other words, regret.

However, regardless of how I felt personally, in the end it would be her decision to make. Why? Because it's not my body. I can have whatever beliefs I want, and I would try to make her see my view. But I don't know how it feels to have a child, and I don't know how she would feel about the subject. So as "pro-life" as I would be vis-a-vis my own choice in the matter, I wouldn't impose that on her.

Which is also the explanation for my views on abortion generally. Much of the opposition to abortion is based on religion, and the concept that abortion is "murder" of an unborn child. OK. I get it.

But you can't forget that, as I said before, not everyone thinks that life starts at conception. To someone who does not subscribe to that belief, then the only "wrongs" in abortion are self-inflicted, just as with drug use or alcoholism-- it's a personal health choice.

[Louballs]

To make a long story short, no one gives a damn about grammer on a message board as long as it's readable.

If you want to talk grammer start with your own posts.

Or spelling, apparently. (Kidding.) I only point that shit out because, on a message board, all you have to go on is what people write. Spelling and grammatical errors reflect on the person writing them, and thus affect how much weight I'm going to give to what they say.

And by the way, I'm not sure what grammar error you were referring to in my post. You may have thought that you saw a punctuation error, but I assure you that you're mistaken-- this is a perfectly appropriate dash usage.

[Cal Smith]

I'm of the mind that you can't judge another person's actions unless you've been in their position.

So you're not impartial? So our jury's should be made up of people who have committed the crime of the accused? Makes sense...........thief's trying thiefs........murders trying murders.........abusers trying abusers........etc......


've never been faced with a pregnancy, because I'm a male. If I ever got a girl pregnant, I would be opposed to her getting an abortion, not for religious or moral reasons, but for personal reasons-- it would be hard to deal with knowing that I could've had a child, and wondering what would've happened "but for...." In other words, regret.

However, regardless of how I felt personally, in the end it would be her decision to make. Why? Because it's not my body. I can have whatever beliefs I want, and I would try to make her see my view. But I don't know how it feels to have a child, and I don't know how she would feel about the subject. So as "pro-life" as I would be vis-a-vis my own choice in the matter, I wouldn't impose that on her.

Which is also the explanation for my views on abortion generally. Much of the opposition to abortion is based on religion, and the concept that abortion is "murder" of an unborn child. OK. I get it.

But you can't forget that, as I said before, not everyone thinks that life starts at conception. To someone who does not subscribe to that belief, then the only "wrongs" in abortion are self-inflicted, just as with drug use or alcoholism-- it's a personal health choice.

That's where my question comes in. Many people who are "offended" when someone says pro-abortion argue that they feel abortion is wrong. The heart of my question is why do they feel abortion is wrong because the most commone reason people find abortion wrong is they believe it's taking a human life. That being the case I wonder if they believe either it's wrong to take a human life, but want to leave that choice to the mother........or.......is there some other reason they believe it's wrong.

[Cal Smith]

Or spelling, apparently. (Kidding.) I only point that shit out because, on a message board, all you have to go on is what people write. Spelling and grammatical errors reflect on the person writing them, and thus affect how much weight I'm going to give to what they say.

might be the case if you're reading a paper, resume, article, etc....., etc....., but on a message board people are just making a point and posting they don't spell check or check punctuation.



And by the way, I'm not sure what grammar error you were referring to in my post. You may have thought that you saw a punctuation error, but I assure you that you're mistaken-- this is a perfectly appropriate dash usage.

"me or you" = "you or I"

[Louballs]

So you're not impartial? So our jury's should be made up of people who have committed the crime of the accused? Makes sense...........thief's trying thiefs........murders trying murders.........abusers trying abusers........etc......

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so I'm disappointed that I have to tell you what's wrong with this. I wouldn't judge someone elses actions unless I'd been in their shoes. A jury doesn't judge the morality of someone's actions (at least, that's not their legal function). A jury decides whether or not they committed the actions, or had the requisite mental state, etc. In fact, most juries are explicitly instructed that their personal opinion of the defendant or the alleged crime should play no part in their decision.

So the jury reference is inapposite.

Many people who are "offended" when someone says pro-abortion argue that they feel abortion is wrong. The heart of my question is why do they feel abortion is wrong because the most commone reason people find abortion wrong is they believe it's taking a human life. That being the case I wonder if they believe either it's wrong to take a human life, but want to leave that choice to the mother........or.......is there some other reason they believe it's wrong.

All right, I know someone's going to misunderstand this comparison, but I'm going to make it anyway. Whether or not you believe that abortion is "murder" often depends on whether or not you believe that life begins at conception, or birth, or some other time in between. And often, that depends on your religious beliefs (not always, but usually).

Now, consider saying the word "God." To some people, saying "God" (in most circumstances) is "taking the lord's name in vain," and is thereby a sin. To other people, "God" is just a word, with little intrinsic significance. Thus, just because "God" has significance to me doesn't mean that it has significance to anyone else. So if someone else says it, I can't condemn them, because I don't know their views on the word.

Same thing with abortion. If you don't believe that life begins at conception, then abortion isn't as serious a transgression. So if one were against abortion for religious reasons (i.e., my belief that life begins at conception), it would be inappropriate for them to condemn someone else's getting an abortion, because the person who got it might not share their beliefs.

"me or you" = "you or I"

Correct, if I had wrote "me or you." But not if I wrote "me--OR you," which I did. The dash makes the difference. (My mom's a college English professor.)

[Cal Smith]

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so I'm disappointed that I have to tell you what's wrong with this. I wouldn't judge someone elses actions unless I'd been in their shoes. A jury doesn't judge the morality of someone's actions (at least, that's not their legal function). A jury decides whether or not they committed the actions, or had the requisite mental state, etc. In fact, most juries are explicitly instructed that their personal opinion of the defendant or the alleged crime should play no part in their decision.

So the jury reference is inapposite.

A jury does delegate punishment often enough and what is this delegation based on................?

So the jury reference is appropriate. You feel you can't judge someone until you have been in their shoes. That being the case how do you expect juries to put a time frame on how long some would should stay in prison?

the very idea of giving someone probation or life imprisonment come down to the degree of the crime. That being the case a juror is forced to judge the morality of the crime.



Correct, if I had wrote "me or you." But not if I wrote "me--OR you," which I did. The dash makes the difference. (My mom's a college English professor.)

why does the dash make the difference? what english rule is this?

[Louballs]

A jury does delegate punishment often enough and what is this delegation based on................?

how do you expect juries to put a time frame on how long some would should stay in prison?

Actually, juries are guided in the punishment they give in two ways: 1) they're generally given a range within which they have to select a sentence, and 2) they're generally instructed on exactly what they can consider when they determine the sentence. True, it does involve some subjective judgment, but it differs from the subject we've been discussing in two ways: 1) a jury isn't supposed to sentence based on whatever criteria they want (i.e., if they think rape is worse than murder, for example, that doesn't affect (necessarily) their sentence), and 2) quite obviously, you're required to serve jury duty-- you're not required to judge someone else's morality in the abstract.

why does the dash make the difference? what english rule is this?

The dash serves to set off the "OR you" as an alternative to "me." I.e., it is as if I said "agree with me" or "agree with you." Not "agree with me or you." As for what english "rule" it is, I don't know if they're numbered, but if I get a chance I'll hunt down an English Grammar book of some sort and find a citation for you. But don't hold your breath.

[Justin_stacy]

It was a joke. But nice jab; I appreciate a good one-liner. .

I realize it was a joke, as was mine…..nothing personal was ment by it, I assure you.

Dude, unless you're joking, you either didn't read my post, or you're a moron. Period. My whole point is that not everyone thinks like me-- OR you. .

It makes no difference what you type if you contradict it, nor does that make me the “moron.” You can not say you think everyone is entitled to their own opinions, if you keep asserting that your opinion is absolute.

If you honestly think everyone is allowed to think differently then you, you would understand that not everyone is going to share your beliefs on the use of the term “pro-choice” or the impact that it has.

Amen, buddy. That's what I've been saying all along. And if a person (such as myself) believes that everyone has the right to make their own choice as to their views on abortion, or when life begins, or whatever then that person is PRO CHOICE. So..... I guess you're "pro-choice" too, huh? .

I haven't said anywhere that you shouldn’t be able to call/label yourself anything you want, have I? If you want to label yourself "pro-choice" on this issue, more power to ya.....

And to agree with you, I am "pro-choice" on many subjects that present an actual choice....not everything in life does though.

Your point must be that you just don't want to call it "pro-choice," because you don't like term, for whatever reason. .

You’re absolutely right! I do “dislike” the term which is obviously why I don’t use it. I feel that it has the ability to be misleading and that it furthers, maybe not intentionally, the cheapening view of human life in our society. But please feel free to tell why I must still use it.

But I would ask what would you do if say the “pro-life” movement were to change its title to the “anti-murder” movement. Would you use this new label in your own writings to describe the group, even though it obviously reflect negatively on your own personal views? And is misleading by your standards?

Because, as I've spelled out for you over the course of this forum, IT'S AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE PEOPLE WHO FALL WITHIN IT. To say that it's "not a choice"-- because your own personal beliefs foreclose any choice as to whether abortion is acceptable--completely and utterly misses the point of what the "choice" in "pro-choice" refers to. And you're obviously not a reading-comprehension-impaired moron (because if I called you that, it'd just be because I'm elitist (i.e., a rational thinker)), so you must just be saying that you don't like the words "pro-choice," NOT that they're "misleading." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that that's the case.

It must be hard to find a hat that fits such a swollen head……but let me see if I got it right. Because you believe that “pro-choice” is a valid description of your stance on abortion that I in turn have no right to personally disagree with that or the term. And that because you feel that your views are somehow superior (ity complex, maybe?) to mine that I must adhere to your views and your ascertains regardless of how they reflect on my own views……and yet I’m a moron for somehow not being able understand that you still think everyone should be allowed to have their own opinions on this matter….???

[Dude, before I address this fine piece of .... mental craftsmanship, a quick aside-- there are tons of grammar problems here. Just, you know, being elitist.] .

That would fit the example of an elitist, as that comment had no real bearing on what we are discussing, and honestly was uncalled for. You must remember that this is a message board we are not being graded, published or attempting to impress anyone with our writing style. This is nothing more then a friendly conversation between acquaintances, and I hardly feel that spelling or grammar (particularly), is of any great importance. They change nothing, add little and in the overall scheme of things are very trivial complaints. And the fact is I have never once attempted to cover the fact that I don’t excel at either (just ask cal), nor do I honestly care.
And my original comment was obviously very clear, as the individual right before you understood it perfectly….

I would point out too that normally individuals on message boards that “bitch” about trivial things, which grammar and spelling are, do so as a distraction, an attempt to relieve pressure on their own faults which normally pertain to the actual subject being discussed.…..but that’s just what I’ve noticed.

Um...I think I found the part you don't understand: "Pro-choice" doesn't mean that you "condone" or "defend" "discretionary" abortions. It means that, regardless of your own personal beliefs (i.e., even if you're "pro-life," or whatever you want to call it) you understand that other people can make their own choice as to whether or not to "condone" or "defend" abortion. And since, as you so accurately pointed out, .

No I understand exactly what pro-choice means to you. My comments there were directed at your 1 2 3 examples in your previous response, not the term itself.

What i can not understand is why you still lack the ability to understand that not everyone views things exactly like you…..but I guess that could be one for the ages….right?

"pro choice" means you respect other people's right to form their own "opinions and beliefs" about abortion.

:sick:



*apologies for the lateness of my reponse, absolute punk has been a bitch to log onto for days....

[Louballs]

You’re absolutely right! I do “dislike” the term which is obviously why I don’t use it. I feel that it has the ability to be misleading and that it furthers, maybe not intentionally, the cheapening view of human life in our society. But please feel free to tell why I must still use it.

You can use whatever terminology you want. But if your gripe is that "pro-choice" is misleading, all I'm saying is that it's accurate; more so, at least, than "pro-abortion."

But I would ask what would you do if say the “pro-life” movement were to change its title to the “anti-murder” movement. Would you use this new label in your own writings to describe the group, even though it obviously reflect negatively on your own personal views? And is misleading by your standards?

If that's what that movement chose to label itself, then yes, I would use it. And no, I wouldn't think it was misleading-- people who are against abortion generally consider it to be murder, and are thus entitled to espouse that stance.

It must be hard to find a hat that fits such a swollen head……

You have no idea . . . . (see my signature)

but let me see if I got it right. Because you believe that “pro-choice” is a valid description of your stance on abortion that I in turn have no right to personally disagree with that or the term. And that because you feel that your views are somehow superior (ity complex, maybe?) to mine that I must adhere to your views and your ascertains regardless of how they reflect on my own views……and yet I’m a moron for somehow not being able understand that you still think everyone should be allowed to have their own opinions on this matter….???

It's not that "I feel" it's a valid description-- it's what the words literally mean. Pro-lifers love to spew about "liberal propaganda," but your use of "pro-abortion" is far more inflammatory and inaccurate than "pro-choice." If I didn't make this clear, I apologize. But let me say again, you can call it whatever you want, but don't do so under the guise of "accuracy" and avoiding "misleading labels."

That would fit the example of an elitist, as that comment had no real bearing on what we are discussing, and honestly was uncalled for.

As you can see by my response to Cal's comment, I have my own reasons for picking up on such things. Further, my mother is a college English professor, so I've been raised to notice every little thing. That said, I supposed it was "uncalled for." But hardly "elitist"-- unless you think that only the "elite" should be expected to possess good grammar skills.

No I understand exactly what pro-choice means to you.

Look, you're basing your opinion on the connotative effect of the words as they relate to you. I'm basing my opinion on the literal meaning of the words and what they are meant to address. That's just a fundamental difference in viewpoint, and maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

That being said, I'm not "pro-abortion"-- I'm just "pro-choice."

[Just Decent]

People were actually surprised that e didn't pick a woman? :shake:

[Justin_stacy]

You can use whatever terminology you want. But if your gripe is that "pro-choice" is misleading, all I'm saying is that it's accurate; more so, at least, than "pro-abortion."

I haven’t used the term pro-abortion anywhere to describe you, have I? I am merely defending an individual’s ability, or “right,” to use the word(s) he or she sees fit based on their own views and objectives. That’s the point, regardless of how you or I feel personally, the choice is that of the writer’s.

Webster’s defines “pro-abortion” as favoring the legalization of abortion, so were hardly talking about an inaccurate term here or one that is necessarily anymore misleading then “pro-choice”. Each term is equally loaded…...

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/proabortion
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/pro-abortion

If that's what that movement chose to label itself, then yes, I would use it. And no, I wouldn't think it was misleading-- people who are against abortion generally consider it to be murder, and are thus entitled to espouse that stance.

So in turn that would make people like you murder endorsers or defenders, by your own wording? Why on earth would you want to perpetuate such a concept? Who cares what a group calls it’s self….There are no rules that dictate how a group must choose its label. Nothing that says they must be honest, balanced or civil. They are just words that attempt to either cast themselves in a positive light or another group in a negative light. That is all.

And I agree that every group, with very minor exceptions, is entitled to “espouse” their own stances or views, but that doesn’t mean that you have to help them or promote their ideas.

You have no idea . . . . (see my signature)

I wear an XL hat, so I guess I’m in no position to comment here…..

It's not that "I feel" it's a valid description-- it's what the words literally mean. Pro-lifers love to spew about "liberal propaganda," but your use of "pro-abortion" is far more inflammatory and inaccurate than "pro-choice." If I didn't make this clear, I apologize. But let me say again, you can call it whatever you want, but don't do so under the guise of "accuracy" and avoiding "misleading labels."

Valid description? No more so then the term “pro-abortion,” as I’ve already pointed out.

But i think this boils down to the fact that you don’t like what “pro-abortion” implies about your beliefs. Which is my point, words or terms can be viewed, or taken, differently then they were originally intended to. To you “pro-abortion” implies a support for using the act of abortion, but literally it means nothing more then supporting the legalization of abortion, and you support the legalization of abortion don’t you?

As you can see by my response to Cal's comment, I have my own reasons for picking up on such things. Further, my mother is a college English professor, so I've been raised to notice every little thing. That said, I supposed it was "uncalled for." But hardly "elitist"-- unless you think that only the "elite" should be expected to possess good grammar skills.

People use the term “elitist” to denote someone who attempts to cast themselves in a superior light. And I was saying that since you tried to attack me on a subject unrelated to the original discussion, that it looked like you were attempting to cast yourself in a superior light over me.
That to me fits the overall impression of an elitist; you can’t beat me on the discussion, so you try to discredit me on a totally unrelated, and really unimportant, issue. That's just the way i saw it.

Regardless of what your mother does for a living, this is a message board…..and you shouldn’t let that tidbit of relevant knowledge escape you.