Let's play a game.

The Reality of Being Pro-Anything

July 7th 2008 14:59

Another Orbler has written an article, apparently complaining about the term "pro-abortion." While I don't waste my time visiting anything that smacks of liberal drek, I did see the title and I do know who the author is. Since I'm one of those who refer to the "pro-choice" folks as being pro-abortion, it seemed like a good idea to respond with a little common sense.

Let's play a little game, shall we? I'll write a sentence and give you some words to use to fill in the blanks. Then we can discuss the results.

"While I'm not personally likely to _________, I believe that everyone has a right to do what they want. Just because I don't find anything wrong with _______________ doesn't mean that I'm pro-______________."

There's the sentence. Now for the words to put into the blanks.

"own slaves, slavery, slavery."
"have an abortion, abortion, abortion."
"kill a Jew, killing Jews, Nazi."
"murder infidels, jihad, murder."

Now for the fun part. Read the sentence and use the key words. Get the point, folks?

Tacit approval of anything that's so obviously and clearly wrong is precisely the same as being in favor of it or "pro-" it. Note, all the above were legal at one time. Two still are. Legal and right are NOT the same thing. If you don't take a stand against evil, you are supporting it.

Any questions?

Vote

subscribe to this blog

follow this blog on Orble

start your own blog

[ Link ]

Posted By: S.L. - Category: No Category

Related Posts:

Relate This Post

[ Previous - An Inconvenient Obscenity ]

[ Next - Ah, Holiday Weekends! ]

Comments

16 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by Jim Stillman

July 8th 2008 01:37

Yeah, if you are going to call my writing and opinions "dreck", please spell it correctly.

If I were to do so, I'd call your product simplistic drivel.

Comment by Anonymous

July 8th 2008 01:59

I find it funny that neo conservatives who support Mccain are talking on American television about how Obama will have a hard time getting the working class people to vote for him because of his previous comments, or that obama may be a racist or deceptive, as if neo-conservatives care at all about working class people, or equality or transparancy. I also find it sickening that people who support either mccain or obama actually believe they themselves are conservative or liberal. Those words and those people are simply one thing...lost in American spin politics and that is a box that is worth stepping out of into "reality".

Comment by Proctor

July 8th 2008 02:01

sorry i forgot to login on that last comment. Have a good night.

Comment by S.L.

July 8th 2008 02:33

The Political Brief

Simplistic drivel, Jim? Because I know the difference between right and wrong? Was there an error in my post? Were those comments not made at different points in history? Or do you find them acceptable because during those particular times the crimes of slavery and killing Jews were deemed politically correct? Does political correctness automatically make something right? That would truly be simplistic drivel.

Hello Proctor. Oh, the liberals care about the working class all right. The want their votes first and then their taxes. The working class is expected to foot every bill the libs come up with.

Comment by Proctor

July 8th 2008 02:41

Agreed, that's why if a 'third-party candidate' (or as I like to call them 'humanity's last non-violent solution to fascism in America') isn't elected we are going to hear the same bickering and see the same nothing done except the people losing, day in day out, year in year out. The Liberal, conservative illusionary back and forth will go on and on as Americans are enslaved and their wealth exported to china and the United Arab Emirates.

Comment by S.L.

July 8th 2008 02:46

The Political Brief

It could well happen, Proctor. Considering how incredibly weak both the current candidates are, we could use a good third party candidate. Unfortunately, it doesn't look likely. The voters of both parties know that to vote for a third party candidate could guarantee the loss for whichever they consider the lesser of two evils without getting the new guy elected. It's too late in the election cycle to even hope for a new candidate, anyway. A third party would have to be built up over time and have a really solid base to be viable.

Comment by Lester Caudill

July 8th 2008 12:56

Round Politics

Hey S.L. the terms Pro-Choice, and Pro-Abortion mean the same thing, which results in murder of unborn children.

Comment by RubySoho

July 8th 2008 14:20

Music Zone
Thought Zone

SL if you are going to post an article as a response to someone else's at least have the decency to read it first. And how can you claim all liberals write dreck if you never actually read what they write?

You know what a big difference between liberals and conservatives seems to be? Liberals actually read both sides of the argument before they make up their minds.

I also find it laughable that you keep on bringing up the same old tired examples of slavery and the persecution of Jews to labour your point, since both of these were justified using the same weapon that you use to justify your attempt to deprive women of their bodily autonomy- the Bible.

Comment by S.L.

July 8th 2008 14:52

The Political Brief

Really Long Link

Here's a link to another post of mine that you apparently didn't read, Ruby.

As for your silly notion that somehow the Bible is to blame for the crimes against humanity (slavery, Nazi persecution of the Jews, radical Islam, and abortion) it's not worthy of a reply. Suffice to say that each of those atrocities have been fought by Bible believing Christians. It was Christians that fought slavery and founded the Underground Railroad, Christian countries that liberated the Nazi concentration camps, and Christians who are fighting abortion. Poor Ruby, as usual you don't have a clue, do you?

As for my reading more liberal dreck from you or Jim in order to have the right to respond or make my own posts. Why should I? You libs/dems have already voiced your opinions ad nauseum and left no doubt as to where you stand on the subject of killing babies for convenience. It doesn't matter how many ways you re-word it to make it more palatable, it's the same trash. Sort of like adding catsup and mustard to used kitty litter, ya know? It may look a bit different, but it hasn't really changed.

Comment by Proctor

July 8th 2008 16:37

Any fight between parties that takes the country nowhere by deadlocking the government in a stalemate of values and beliefs on any level and on every issue, all the while deadlocking the country in a stalemate on every policy except of course sabotaging the one it is elected to protect "defending the constitution", while secretly outsourcing our wealth to asia and the middle east makes a lot of time wasted supporting or arguing for them. Democracy in america is the third party child, and the fascist parents who will never stop fighting just either give the child a stimulus check or reign in its liberties the worse the parents fight. Comical and at the same time a tragic waste of life.

Comment by S.L.

July 8th 2008 16:45

The Political Brief

As I said before, Proctor, a third party isn't a bad idea. But unless we have a viable third party that has it's own base (and a big base, at that) it will never fly. It has been tried many times and never succeeded. A third party would have to grow and build and reach people from both sides of the aisle without compromising any of the core values that really matter. It would have to get to a position of sufficient power to have a chance at winning a national election.

Perhaps such a party needs to grow from the grass roots up and develop its own following during the next four years (regardless who wins in Nov.) Local elections first to develop a cohesive platform would be the way to begin. Have you thought of running, Proctor?

Comment by Proctor

July 8th 2008 16:50

The republican party was a third party, and the consitutional party of the united states is just fine with me this time around. I would rather throw a dart at the map and vote for whoever's house it lands on than obama or mccain, but i'll be voting for Bob Barr or writing in Ron Paul this time(1st choice). And it is going to feel so good taking a vote from the mass media brainlock that this country is in and giving it to myself, a free american (free of being brainwashed).

Comment by Proctor

July 8th 2008 16:55

A great question to ask people would be...

Who will win if Bob Barr, Ron Paul or other third Party candidate doesn't win in 2008?

A. Mccain
B. Obama
C. No one in the United States. All Losers.

If they answered C they are smarter than 94% of America, and if they actually vote for these third party candidates not only are they smarter but they actually have something called Intelligence.

Comment by S.L.

July 8th 2008 16:56

The Political Brief

I just got my Newt Gingrich email. He was talking about Bobby Jindal (new governor of Louisiana). There's a man who holds to the Constitution. Maybe he'll be running next time, Proctor and we can all vote for him with a smile!

As for the two that are running this time, McCain is way too liberal for me. And Obama is way, way, WAY too liberal. I'll probably vote for McCain (him being the lesser of two evils), but it won't be with a smile unless he gets a really good Vice President.

Comment by Anonymous

July 9th 2008 00:29

The "pro-life" should also have their name changed to be more fitting with their actual goals. Anti-choice seems more fitting. I mean, rarely are they actually for life. Not the lives already here, that would require being for things that care for those lives such as better education, health care, and fair pay. And while they do tend to focus more on fetuses, their actions are often anti-fetus. Being against health care for the mothers (calling it socialized and comparing it to communism), against sex-ed to help people prevent the unwanted pregnancies or diseases that harm the fetus. Even Bush, who claims to be so "pro-life" refuses to fund programs that would actually help life. Like maternal health care to poor women.

Looking at the policies of most "pro-life" politicians and the rants of most "pro-life" people I've yet to see anyone actually trying to protect or better that crazy little thing called life. Instead they're completely wrapped up in removing a woman's choice over her body.

"Pro-life" is clearly a misnomer. Anti-Choice is the more correct term.

Comment by S.L.

July 9th 2008 01:12

The Political Brief

Sorry, but I'm pro-life, not anti-choice. Women can choose to use birth control or even keep their pants on. No child should have to die because the mother won't take responsibility. That being said, I'm a firm believer in adoption for the unwanted kids. I also believe that pre-natal care is important and should be provided for poor mothers (not with some socialistic government health care system that would bog us down and wind up denying the medical care necessary) but with the same sort of clinics that give vaccines and check-ups to poor children. I'm in favor of sex education for high school aged kids, provided it includes the explanation of how venereal diseases are transmitted, how to prevent them (and not just with condoms given out for free), parental notification (not teahcers taking under aged girls to abortion clinics!), and the many advantages of abstinance being clearly outlined. I don't think that kids should feel they have a license to be promiscuous via the classes, or that details about sex should be taught to children who are too young to understand anything about it. I think that with sex education should come lessons in responsibility and not new ways of getting away with risky behavior.

[ Previous - An Inconvenient Obscenity ]

[ Next - Ah, Holiday Weekends! ]