[ravinson]

Anyone who talks about "choice" is talking about choosing to deny life to a new baby.

That's total nonsense and you know it. There are plenty of pro-choice women who have children, so that's pretty solid proof that they did not choose to deny life to a child on at least one occassion.

[A.J.Armitage]

That's total nonsense and you know it. There are plenty of pro-choice women who have children, so that's pretty solid proof that they did not choose to deny life to a child on at least one occassion.

That's almost up there with the idea that pro-lifers should really want to tie women up and keep them pregnant (to be "consistent" in ravinson-logic). These pro-choice women you talk about want to have had the option to do otherwise, and not by keeping it zipped up or by contraceptives, but by abortion. Choice is a code word for legalized baby-killing, and you know it.

[Dusty Rose]

If you choose to deny life to a new baby on even one occasion, you are choosing to deny life. If you are pro-abortion even once, you are pro-abortion, unless you change your stance. If you allow for a choice for death, even once, you are allowing for a choice for death. "Pro-choice" can never be consistant with "pro-life."

[Dusty Rose]

Check this out: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/785378/posts