The problem is others are terming what I said as the sam choice as it is said now. They disregard everything I say and write that it is the same choice as touted by groups like NOW. I didn’t do that, other’s did that.
I have said over and over that I don’t like any of the choices available today and that I seek another where no life is lost and choice itself is not lost. It is not my fault others refuse to see the difference or claim there is none.
Many things over time were speculative. Ideas about what is not in the here and now is where advancement comes from. As example I offer this. “Kirk in Scottie” (as Captain Kirk tunes his ‘communicator’) Today we have cell phones. ‘Communicators’ right?
Point being this, ideas often lead to progress even when they seem unattainable in the bginning.
How about if the choice is ‘pregnant or not pregnant’ and regardless of the decision, no life is lost? Is this not progress from where we stand today?
The option/choice (in idea) I am talking about is intended to replace abortion, not simply be added to the list of ‘options’.
President Clinton said that “abortion should be safe, legal and rare.” Do you agree with BJ?