It's like an adult Where's Waldo!Follow

http://www.foxnews.com/index.html

Okay, the middle of the homepage shows "anti-abortion protestors" and a "heated battle in the court"

To the left however, underneath "zarqawi aide nabbed" there is a link where "Iraqi clerics promise there will be no theocracy"

Is foxnews making the claim that Iraqi clerics got something right that we havent?

And why is it "anti-abortion activists"? Why can't they be "Anti-choice" activists? Because they are activists against a choice. Oh wait, this is the same news agency that claims that Pro-choice people are "pro-abortion". It's a beautiful thing!

no. I dont watch tv, unless there is something really good on on the History Channel or the Discovery channel.
Why?

Lol. It is a funny bit of wording. I actually find the bit about him being captured (and being a leading bomb attack planner), and a heading about carbombs right under it more amusing though...



Only if you *really* twist the meaning of "Theocracy". If you actually think that a state allowing license purchasers to spend extra money to get a custom license with a message on it, where one of those messages has stance that is related to a religious one is theocracy, then you've never actually seen a theocracy.

First off. The messages says "Choose life". Um... That's implying that you have a choice, right? That's technically pro-choice. Now if the message was a somewhat pithy: "Pro-choice is No-choice", you might have an argument, but the message in question only recommends that you choose life, not that the choice be taken away. That is therefore *not* in violation of Roe v Wade in even the most vague way. States are certainly legally allowed to recommend a course of action for their citizens, even when that course is not legally mandated.

And I also tend to agree with the initial ruling (not the appeals court ruling), that since no one submitted a pro-choice message and was denied, they can't claim that their right to equal medium was violated. But then, what would they put in there? "Choose Death"? "Choose Abortion"? I can't really think of anything that the pro-choice people could put in there that would actually counter the "choose life" message and not make them sound really really bad. The "choose life" message already includes the idea that it's a choice, so you have a hard time countering it with something that's just about allowing choice.

I just think it's kinda silly IMO. It's a license plate. No one forces you to get one with a message on it. It's your choice (there's that whole choice thing again). States have a whole list of messages that you can get on your license if you pay them extra. That's also your choice. Private groups can petition the state to get a license design with a particular message on it, but presumably must be able to convince the state that enough people will want them to justify making the masters. If the pro-choice people don't like that message, then just petition for their own to be available. Problem solved. By not even making an attempt to get the equality they demand, and instead running right to the courts and the government, IMO that weakens their position dramatically.



Um. Because in many cases (and especially in the context of this particular story) they *are* anti-abortion, but not necessarily anti-choice. If they were anti-choice, the message they're defending wouldn't have the word "choose" in it. The message specifically says to choose not to have an abortion. There's nothing about it that says we should not have a choice in the first place. Thus, you cannot refer to them accurately as anti-choice. They are anti-abortion.

What's funny is that you assume a Conservative spin when Fox describes them acurately as anti-abortion. But if CNN labeled them anti-choice (as you think they should be), you'd think that was the more accurate description and defend CNNs liberal spin, purely because you happen to agree with it (or you just want to portray anyone you disagree with in the worst possible light even if it's not accurate).

While I don't think Fox is a very good news source (for other reaons then their "spin"), most of the claims of Fox being Conservative leaning are the result of people who've gotten so used to the Liberal lean in all the other media that when they don't see it on Fox, they assume Fox is the one spinning and not everyone else. In this particular case (as you've nicely shown), they'd be horribly wrong...

You would think so, wouldn't you? Funny how hypocracy works though.

Whatever slogans and catchphrases the anti-choice movement cares to use, they are, in fact, all about the right to choose whether or not to bring a pregnancy to fruition being taken out of the hands of women and their doctors.

What's funny to me about abortion debate in this country is that the very people who are most vocal in their cries against abortion are the same ones who cry loudest about the decline of morals.

You'd think they would want to outlaw childbirth outside of wedlock instead.

Responding to you and Lefein here.

You are making an assumption that everyone who is "anti-abortion" is also "anti-choice". That's a huge bit of spin that is absolutely not true.

I know a hell of a lot of people who believe that abortion is wrong, and will not themselves have an abortion, but who also do not believe it is their right to force that same choice on someone else. That's the whole point of being pro-choice. You get to decide what you want to do, and I get to decide what I want to do.

Why on earth call it "pro-choice" if you don't agree with anyone who makes a different choice then you (or recommends a different choice)? Pro-choice means you agree that people should have the legal right to make a choice. In this case, that means that someone can choose to have an abortion, or choose not to have an abortion. You both seem to be thinking that pro-choice means choosing to have an abortion only.

Now *that* is hypocrisy.

generally speaking, they dont affect you. A man should only have a voice about opinion if it is affecting his own child. however, it is mainly the womans decision. I do not condone women making the decision without the man who got her pregnants opinion ( unless he is out of the picture or other reason) but ultimitely it is for the woman to decide.

And gay marriages do not effect you personally.

Eh. I'd expand that to say that anytime someone has a different opinion on something then someone else, they "must do something about it".

This particular issue is extremely polarized. While I agree that there are certainly those who are "anti-choice", and want to overturn Roe v. Wade, I think you can do a great disservice to the issue by assuming that any opposition to abortion represents that position. And within that context neither side has their hands completely clean.

The anti-abortion folks most certainly want to get their message out there and have young women taught abstinence and the options of marriage, adoption, or single motherhood in preference to aborting. The "pro-choice" folks certainly are also guilty of expanding their position from just allowing choice to one of opposing the above. Planned parenthood clinics are literal battlegrounds on this issue. Once side wants to remove all references to aborition as an option from the advice given to women, and the other wants to remove any discussion of abstincence as a viable form of birth control.

As I said. It's extremely polarized. The activists on both sides of this issue are not willing to compromise, even on issues that they logically *should* compromise on. Both birth control methods and abstinence should be advised and discussed equally with the pros and cons presented. Abortion and all the other methods should be discussed equally with pros and cons presented. But that's not generally what happens, and it's certainly not what *either* side wants (which is kinda silly and sad at the same time).

If abstinence is even mentioned in those clinics, the choice people go nuts and insist that religion is taking over the country. If abortion is mentioned, the anti-abortion folks say they are "preaching murder". It's a pretty ugly issue, made more ugly because those most involved have taken such absolute and unyielding stances on the topic.


It's totally incorrect to say that only the anti-aborition folks are being irrational or unreasonable here. The very fact that the "pro-choice" guys are ******** (and seeking to legally block) the mere advice that someone choose not to have an abortion should be the first clue that at least this particular group of "pro-choice" people are not about compromise, but about preventing the other guy from getting his message out.


IMO, fighting laws regulating what you can and can't do is good. Creating laws to regulate what you can and can't say is *bad*. That's what the alledged pro-choice people in this scenario are trying to do. That does not give them any political high ground.