Eric Jensen wrote: >Josh Hansen wrote: > > > >>Someone who is "pro-choice" doesn't necessarily think it's okay for them >>to get an abortion personally, only that they don't think the government >>should outlaw it for those who don't have religious beliefs against it. >>Perhaps that is what she meant. Is it wrong, according to LDS >>doctrine, to support the legalization of things that are forbidden by >>LDS doctrine, since not everybody is LDS? >> >> >> >> >> >That's more of how I see it. "Pro-choice" doesn't mean "guaranteed >abortion", it means exactly what it says it means, that you would like >the choice. Many pro-choice decide to not have an abortion when the >decision comes around, they just don't want the decisions made for >them. So you can be very LDS and be pro-choice. Your choice will just >be to not have the abortion. > > This is exactly why the debate rages on with no end in sight. It is polarized. Each side is arguing for a stance that doesn't necessarily conflict with the other. Pro-Choice doesn't always mean anti-abortion and pro-life doesn't always mean anti-choice for most people who can logically reason with each other.
-Dennis >Eric > >.===================================. >| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | >| Don't Fear the Penguin. | >| IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | >`===================================' > > .===================================. | This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. | | Don't Fear the Penguin. | | IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net | `==================================='
