One can be against abortion but in support of an individuals right to choose. I don't think those who engage in black and white thinking can understand that simple concept though.

__________________

I'm a leftwing fascist, disease spreading, devil worshipper!

Thank you for the definition of "splitting hairs"!

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

That describes my wife. She is 100% pro life and would never even consider an abortion. Yet she supports other women's right to decide for themselves. She does not believe that every one of her personal moral stances should be public policy.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

And there we have it: in black-and-white world, any nuance is called "splitting hairs."

Agnostics are atheists.

Pro-choice means pro-abortion.

Supporting free speech means "pro-pornography" and "pro flag burning".

Supporting warrant requirements means "pro-terrorist."

It reminds me of the legislature that tried to define pi as "3.14" to make the math easier. All that nuance after the 4 was just too much trouble.

If computers used that logic, nothing designed on them would work.

__________________
Man up.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pro-life

I guess that means she's actually pro-choice, doesn't it?

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

Yup. In favor of choice; neither pro- nor anti-abortion on the policy level.

__________________
Man up.

Which all goes to show that there is a fine line between a subtle nuance and an extreme dichotomy!

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter

Well sure she is. And her choice is not to have one. Hence, she is, by definition, not pro-abortion.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

No, they oppose those measures because they are a straight-forward contradiction of a whole constitutional amendment.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

No, they are to keep young women, who are probably there because they've been inundated with pro-abortion propaganda from government schools and lib media from the day they were born, from making a rash decision.

Lots are young naive girls under pressure.

Complete fiction. The laws usually have a physician show them photos of the fetus at their stage of development. Why DON'T you want them to see it? Will it weaken your "it's just a blob" propaganda?

.

Completely false. The feminazis have fought ALL, repeat, ALL such laws. The libs who are behind this don't have some philosophical notion about non-involvement of government in abortion - they support laws FORCING physicians who have conscientous objections to abortion to perform them anyway.

Their objections to every and all of these reasonable laws stems from one central idea: they might stop an abortion, and no abortion should be stopped.

Like saying "please point me to a quote where Bush admitted he started the iraq war to help Haliburton" - OF COURSE they're not going to admit it.


You think the horrible things feminazis want can't be true because they're horrible? Uh-huh.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847