If I say I want to fund after-school programs in an effort to reduce petty street crime and vandalism, so that kids have some positive choices to make with their time instead of simply hanging out and presumably being tempted by crime, I’ve never once heard anyone criticize my use of the word “choices” in that context… even though the kids are being offered a “choice” between illegal activites and legal ones.
Listen, you poster, this is GD, not the Pit.
Do not post direct personal insults or other name-calling, here.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
The problem is Bricker street crime is already illegal, you’re not interfering with their right to break into your car, as that right never existed. You are not reducing their choices, as they only had two choices anyway…steal or not.
Abortion is legal, by making it illegal, you have reduced my choice to have one in a manner that I choose; as opposed to one I have to settle for. Further I already have all the choices you propose to give me, by making abortion illegal. You don’t have to make abortion illegal in order to offer me better options in health care, in child support, in education.
It seems to me that you’re afraid. You’re afraid unless you use the power of the government, you will never be able to convince the masses that your way is the best way. So you must limit my options; and ‘force’ me to turn to you for support.
So if we were having this conversation in 1971, your response would be different?
What specific conversation are we having, Bricker? I’ll tell you this though, I’m not the person I was 34 years ago, so don’t be so sure.
If the predicate condition were not “abortion is legal right now,” as you said:
So my question to you is: if that were not so – if abortion were not legal right now – then would any part of the relevant analysis change? Or is my extant hypocrisy solely derived from the fact that abortion is legal right now?
First, I’ve not called you a hypocrite. However, to answer your question, Yes, if abortion was illegal NOW, any help you offered to reduce the amount of CRIMINAL behaviour associated with it would be no different than helping your teenage street criminals, stay out of trouble.
My problem is, abortion is legal and the options you want to offer already exist. You don’t need to criminalize it in order to do what you believe will point people into a different course of action. Unless you believe, the only way to reduce and eventually stop abortion to stop the ability to legally acquire one, if that’s the case, then how can you deny that you’ve reduced my choice?
You can’t say you’re increasing my ability to make an informed discission AND at the same time criminalize the choice I would have made, before you decided to help me make an informed discission. You’ve given me two choices, comply or break the law; when before breaking the law wasn’t even a choice I had to make.
So I found it strange that you felt by making a legal option, illegal, you’ve somehow managed to increase the amount of choices one has or redirect them in another direction; when a. the choices already exist and b. you’ve severly reduced the ability of one. That’s where I’m coming from, not in the direction you’re pointing me at.
Well, I’d first point out that I’m doing more than simply making it illegal. I’m proposing actively working to increase the choices - or the desirability of the choices - people have. If it will smooth the terrain, I’ll be happy to confine my “choice” language to the choices of adoption or keeping the child, and point out that I’m working to make both of those options more feasible than they are now.
So I’d say that while I acknowledge I’m in favor of drastically reducing the legality of one choice, I’m simultaneously working to enhance the viability of other choices. If, on balance, you characterize that as working to reduce choice, I agree it’s a defensible view point.
Missed that one in the page rollover. Mea culpa.
I still think you’re playing fast and loose with the word “hypocrite,” however.