Which Choice Are You Pro?


All of us are pro-choice to the extent that we believe that we should be free to choose the way we wish. The anarchists among us would agree with that point of view wholeheartedly. Libertarians might moderate that to the extent of limiting choices that affect another person. At the other end of the spectrum, nanny-statists and Progressives would say that choice must be limited by their understanding of what is good for us, by which they really mean the choices they choose.

At the silly end of things, nanny-statists such as Mayor Bloomberg want to take away your right to choose a Big Gulp. They argue that it’s bad for your health and that you’ll be a burden on the healthcare system, yada, yada, yada. At the serious end of things, they want to take away your right to choose to defend yourself with a modern sporting rifle loaded with a normal capacity magazine. They argue that … umm … well, actually they don’t have a logical argument; they just don’t like the idea that you might have a gun. They have to make a stretch to bring some other party’s interest to limit your choices.

OTOH, most Progressives favor a right for a mother to end the life of her child in utero. For those of us who look at the DNA of a child and see a member of our species from conception, it’s clear that an abortion affects an innocent party. Others may disagree about when that child deserves protection, but essentially no one advocates the killing of viable children born alive. The question of when to protect a child’s life is one of those inconvenient questions that many would rather not wrestle with.

That, I think, is the reason for the main stream media’s avoidance of the Gosnell murder cases. I brings that question into focus.

8 thoughts on “Which Choice Are You Pro?

  1. I think the media’s so-called avoidance of the Gosnell case hasn’t happened. They covered his arrest widely, with details about the crimes. They’ll cover the trial, once there’s testimony. It’s not the only thing of importance happening, despite how much one-issue voters support pushing out all other news to exclusively focus on a horror story. That’s not how news works. The story got the coverage it deserves.

  2. I had a mind to rebut your statement, then I realized you are willfully being ignorant or truly naive. I think the former is the truer statement. Thus I will not cast my pearls before willful ignorance.

  3. Please feel free to rebut my point. If I’m ignorant, I might respond to a dose of education. If I’m naive, experience can be an excellent teacher.

  4. Mr. Hoge, I am sorry, I was speaking of “Invisible Mikey’s” post. I neglected to write that in my post. I thought the post you wrote was excellent. My apologies for not making the object of my post clear.

  5. Another thought, I am impressed in how you didn’t do what most would do (immediately insult the writer of the negative post). I, like you, would love to read what Mr. DownTwinkles would say about the posts they have a thumbs down for.

  6. When people ask me about abortion, even in the case of rape I ask, what did the child do to deserve the death penalty?

    • Exactly! We would not have had either Ethel Waters or James Robison, both products of rape. There is nothing more innocent than a child, especially an unborn child, regardless of how they were conceived!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s