New poll/old poll
I have a new poll question up asking your opinion about using the term “pro-abortion” in the abortion debate.
[Hat tip for the great question: Nathan Sheets]
Be sure to vote, and then make your comments here, not on the poll website.
And wow, the number of respondents more than doubled on my last poll question after doubling just a month ago! Thanks for participating. Statistics and geographical locations are interesting, aren’t they?
The very pretty stats in response to that poll were….
Aug.15, 2007 3:02 pm |
Polls |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
too bad we don’t know the reason for each of those in the 22% who thought it was a stupid question.
people sure love dogs.
Abortion is the worst!!!
I thought it was a stupid question. To me, the issues are completely unrelated. Abortion has to do with issues of personhood and capacity to feel pain, as well as validity of life. Dog fighting is deliberately forcing/raising an animal to be violent, while intentionally subjecting a creature with a full neurological system to severe pain. I think that they each bring up completely separate moral issues that can’t be compared on any level.
on today’s poll: I like accuracy in speech – so the problem is not pro-choice/pro-abortion, it is the word ‘have’ in like ‘have a medical procedure’. The word itself connotes approval – a gift. If we believe that abortion is murder, shouldn’t we use the phrase ‘commit an abortion’?
“undergo an abortion?”
for the pregnant woman
and “perform an abortion” for the doctor.
Pro-choice is really “anti-government regulation of medical decision regarding decision to terminate or continue pregnancy.”
Rather, “commit an abortion” for the doctor.
Erin: I thought it was a stupid question. To me, the issues are completely unrelated. Abortion has to do with issues of personhood and capacity to feel pain, as well as validity of life. Dog fighting is deliberately forcing/raising an animal to be violent, while intentionally subjecting a creature with a full neurological system to severe pain. I think that they each bring up completely separate moral issues that can’t be compared on any level.
Co-signed! Well said, Erin.
Best,
Doug
John: If we believe that abortion is murder, shouldn’t we use the phrase ‘commit an abortion’?
John, murder is a legal term, determined by the law, not by such “belief” or not, as you imply. You may hate abortion, not want it to ever happen, think all life is sacred, etc., but pretending your opinion supercedes the law is just plain silly.
You can say “commit” or anything but the truth isn’t altered.
Doug
I agree with Erin and Doug, that’s why my little marker is blue
I love blue ;-)
Jill I forgot to choose an answer in last week’s question….just mark me down as a pro-life/vegan activist! :)
@Doug,
I know, we can say ‘commit life-termination’ after all the term abortion is ‘the termination of a process’ and is quite rightly used to describe the stopping of a plane in flight. Once, I heard it as the word used to terminate the life of the character, Kirk Douglas was playing … old-age abortion! Gosh, thanks Doug!
The word ‘commit’ should be a rallying cry for pro-choicers because it is something ‘planned and desired’ as opposed to ‘just happened’.
You’re welcome, John, but danged if I know what for.
The word ‘commit’ should be a rallying cry for pro-choicers because it is something ‘planned and desired’ as opposed to ‘just happened’.
Here’s hoping that all women are committed to what is best for them.
Doug
right on Doug – but is murdering [the word is used in the Bible – a source way older than the existence of American jurisprudence ] her own baby – the best or just the most convenient? then she attempts to justify the deed, with people like you and words like: pro-choice.
John, if that killing in the Bible you describe was unlawful or held to be harmful to the community, then calling it “murder” would be consistent with the times back then. Do you have chapter and verse on it?
She doesn’t need to “justify” it. It doesn’t have to be cleared with you or with any other third party. It’s up to her. It’s what she wants. You don’t need things to be “inconvenient” for her. Really, why should her will be subverted to yours?
Doug
Phil, pro-life vegan, eh? What I find fascinating are pro-abortion vegans. Not to say you’re not fascinating…. oh, never mind….
@Doug,
the word murder in the bible depends on the translation … most still use ‘thou shall not kill’ … but some being more specific translate the word as the English word ‘murder’. I would like to know how this is translated in The King James version, as well as others too. At times the original text is more graphically-earthy than are translations … I recall that one of St, Paul’s text literally says: “I consider life without Christ-Jesus as so much shit …” This is usually translated as: “I consider a life without Christ-Jesus as so much refuse(rubbish)…..”
It is strange that you talk about any justification of a decision to abort as not necessary and as opposed to mine – my will vs her will, eh? I have never known a perfect person (except God, who doesn’t speak distinctly enough for this ‘dense’ person) so almost every decision a human makes from whether to take a morning bath, or what to eat has a bit of justification = intellectual input. Often there is a balancing act between the will (which is not perfect – an informed conscience helps decision making) and reason. But if I read you correctly: then choosing to kill her child should be a rather simple matter and need not even engage one’s conscience. Or, is information a threat to choosing for an abortion? What does this mean … a pro-ignorance-choice = abortion; or, that a pro-informed-choice = life? Is the latter bad?
A wee story about my friend George. He was a first-year teacher of math but was constantly confronted by a very large 6’3″ kid who was rude and obnoxious (filled with himself). After one particularly bad outburst … George met the kid in the hall. George pinned him against some lockers; grabbed him by the front of his shirt with one hand; and picked the kid up – clear off the ground! After George gave him a tongue lashing, a wobbly walking kid retreated. George never did have trouble again with that kid trying to impose his choice.
Morning, John. I think most Bible versions say “Thou shalt not kill,” but the actual wording in some is “murder.” Anyway, the true meaning in all is obviously “murder.” That ol’ Old Testament is chock-full of killing, orders to kill, rules for it, etc. In no way was “killing,” per se, what was prohibited.
Sure, there is always some “justification.” Short of physical compulsion otherwise, we do what we want the most, among our available choices. “Will and reason” is one way to look at it, but in the end it comes down to what is desired the most.
……….
But if I read you correctly: then choosing to kill her child should be a rather simple matter and need not even engage one’s conscience. Or, is information a threat to choosing for an abortion? What does this mean … a pro-ignorance-choice = abortion; or, that a pro-informed-choice = life? Is the latter bad?
No, it need not be a simple matter. The decision to continue or end a pregnancy may be enormously hard, with all manner of conflicting desires on the part of the woman. The woman’s conscience is all part of it. Some women would never willingly have an abortion just since they would feel too bad about it, and they know that, and that’s fine with Pro-Choice. Likewise, some women would not bring a baby into this world, given certain conditions, and that too is fine with Pro-Choice. More information is good. Nothing bad about it. Ignorance may lead to continuing a pregnancy or to ending one. Bottom line = the woman needs to know what will make her the happiest in the long run, if she wants to be happy, and of course all do (by definition), i.e. “we want what we want.”
……….
In school kids have more limited choices than do adults in society outside school. It’s set up that way due to people’s desire that the kids get a certain amount of education, and if there were no discipline less educating would be done. I have no problem with what your buddy did, and think that it’s too bad that nowadays a teacher could get in big trouble for that. My wife is a teacher, just begun her 2nd year. She is five feet tall, with zero inches added on. Last year she had 10th graders, some of whom tower over her. Believe me, there were a relative few that needed a butt-whuppin’.
Best,
Doug