In response to Ed O’Toole’s letter (11/14, “Slanted language?”): No one is pro-abortion. Everyone is pro-life in the sense that they wish for a high quality of life for all, including a healthy, wanted child and a healthy, caring mother.
I feel that the terms “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” better define the opposing viewpoints with regard to reproductive rights, and it is very difficult to argue that the Stupak amendment to the House health care bill represents the former. And, by the way, since when do Catholic bishops determine our health care options, Ms. Pelosi?
Susan Fischer
Leawood
"No one is pro-abortion. "
Do you support legal abortion? If so, sorry, but you're pro-abortion, sweetie.
"I feel that the terms “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” better define the opposing viewpoints with regard to reproductive rights,"
Uh-huh. So, if you're pro-CHOICE, that means you oppose the federal funding of abortion, correct? Because that would take away a person's right to CHOOSE whether or not to pay for abortion (with their tax dollars).
No? Oh dear, it looks like you're anti-choice. Sorry.
Posted by: asfaloth12 | November 24, 2009 at 07:07 PM
“Although valid Ms. Fischer’s belief the terms “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” better describe the differences in the abortion issue it will not endear her to those who oppose a woman’s right to choose.” - renfro
Slanted language never “better describes the differences” in any issue. Slanted language is an effort to frame the discussion and has little to do with intelligent dialog let alone endearing anyone other than those who think alike. Fine, you too preferred the slanted language used by The Star in the “news” article.
“For the most part that opposition is a result of…….” - those who are different are evil.
Yes, yes, yes renfro. You don’t have to validate your preferences on slanted language. It’s a free society. But your issues with living in a democracy have been noted. Here’s wishing your particular personal dogma all the best.
Posted by: GCYL | November 21, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Would pro or anti fetus be an acceptable alternative, Renfo?
The topic is abortion; and no matter how pretty of a label supporters of it come up with, at the end of the day it's still about removing a fetus from the womb. That reality doesn't change, no matter what side of the argument you are on.
Posted by: Smarter Than You | November 21, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Although valid Ms. Fischer’s belief the terms “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” better describe the differences in the abortion issue it will not endear her to those who oppose a woman’s right to choose.
For the most part that opposition is a result of religious teaching or indoctrination. – Apparently unwillingly to accept a Theocracy the faithful still profess a benefit and enjoy the “perks” and advantages offered to all in a free society as long as we ascribe to their particular religious dogma. -- Anti or Choice preferences or prefixes at least remain an option but there’s no reason to expect an intelligent dialog on abortion from those who believe lives or the afterlife are governed by anything other than “Choice” at the polls ----- in a democracy!
Posted by: renfro | November 21, 2009 at 12:19 PM
Ahhhh, Ms Fischer feeeeeeeeels that "pro-choice" and "ant-choice" should be the "CORRECT" terminology. Isn’t controlling the language one of the Alinsky rules? By the way, Ms Fischer, do you ever wonder how one of those victims of “choice” feeeeeeeeels as it is being sucked out of the womb?
Posted by: Bohemian | November 21, 2009 at 11:33 AM
The home is on notice, get there when you find your car keys......
Posted by: Kee | November 21, 2009 at 10:34 AM
“BTW I thought rifle fire took out the deer…” - where’s my coffee?
No one is pro-rifle, it’s all about pro-choice. Sometimes the use of a rifle is a morally right thing to do.
And I have no idea where you put your coffee.
Posted by: GCYL | November 21, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Clycerin you are talking to yourself....call the home.
BTW I thought rifle fire took out the deer, did they really use mortars, or are you trying to make a point?
Posted by: Kee | November 21, 2009 at 10:14 AM
A rose by any other name, Susan.
Posted by: Smarter Than You | November 21, 2009 at 10:12 AM
“And, by the way, since when do Catholic bishops determine our health care options, Ms. Pelosi?” - Susan Fischer
By all means, politicians should stop listening to voters. Well, they should stop listening to THOSE voters and concentrate on me. Good luck with that Susan.
Posted by: GCYL | November 21, 2009 at 08:08 AM
The use of 120mm mortars was chosen as the method to reduce the excess deer population in a local park. No one is pro-120mm mortar, it’s all about pro-choice. Sometimes the use of 120mm mortars is a morally right thing to do.
[Eye roll]
Posted by: GCYL | November 21, 2009 at 08:03 AM
“No one is pro-abortion.” - Susan Fischer
Main Entry: pro
Function: noun
1 : an argument or evidence in affirmation
2 : the affirmative side or one holding it
Typical mental gymnastics found on both sides of the abortion debate. Susan doesn’t see a use of slanted language because her reality depends on slanted language. Cleary Susan does not make an argument for nor present evidence in affirmation of the use of abortion. She has no problems what so ever with society adding additional restrictions to the use of abortion because, hey, she’s not pro-abortion she’s pro-choice.
In the abortion debate it’s hard to avoid slanted language but that’s okay as long as you’re not trying to convince me that it’s not being used. Susan should have been honest with herself and just stated the obvious, she agrees with the slanted language that was used in the “news” article.
Posted by: GCYL | November 21, 2009 at 07:58 AM
You can get instant quality full coverage medical insurance for entire family at the best price from http://bit.ly/39pFJx
Posted by: spruillhand | November 20, 2009 at 11:07 PM