advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."

Frederic Bastiat

PRO LIFE? ANTI LIFE?

By
Neal Boortz
@ September 14, 2009 8:47 AM Permalink | Comments (100) | TrackBacks (0)

By now you know that some thug shot and killed an anti-abortion protestor outside of a school in Michigan last week. James Pouillon was standing across the street from a school holding aloft pictures that were purported to represent aborted fetuses when he was gunned down. A man has been arrested and charged with Pouillon's murder.

Now .. .make no mistake. I believe that the man who gunned down Pouillon should be convicted and then executed. In keeping with my oft-stated position, I think that he should die the same way his victim did. He should stand before a firing squad.

So .. why this column? Well, two reasons, actually, First ... I want to address the way the media defined the players in this sad story. Secondly; I just feel like really stirring up the pudding here with the anti-abortion crowd. Since most of these anti-abortion activists are men and will never really come face-to-face with the issue, I just enjoy getting under their skin.

You will notice that I've been using the sobriquet "anti-abortion" thus far in this piece. For the most part the media has been defining him as "pro-life." Well, I have a problem with that ... so let's proceed with making a huge number of people mad as a hornet's next. Just send your "I'm never going to listen to you again" emails to getoveritfool@hotmail.com.

Simply put, the "pro-life" label is bogus. It doesn't work. These labels have to define both sides of this issue on comparative terms. "Pro-life" fails the test. If one side is "pro-life," than the other side must be "anti-life." You simply cannot take people who support the idea of a woman's right to chose as "anti-life." Being "anti-life" would mean that in virtually all cases where a decision had to be made between life and death, that person would chose death. I would hate to be a bicyclist on a narrow road in front of such a person.

OK .. let's move on to "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion." Again, it doesn't work. I'll use me as the example here. I am most definitely anti-abortion with exceptions, of course, to protect the health and life of the mother. Having said that; I do not want our government to have the power to use a gun to force a woman to have a child that she does not want to have. Now don't give me a hard time with this "use a gun" thing. Government is force. Government is the only entity in our society that can use deadly force to accomplish its goals. That's what the so-called "pro-life" activists are after ... giving the government the authority to use force in this manner. Anyway; to use the "pro-abortion" label to describe me would be factually wrong.

So, where does this leave us? Well, just what are we discussing here? That would be whether or not a woman should be able to make the choice between terminating a pregnancy or going full term. And there is our solution. There we have the proper way to describe the combatants in this seemingly endless argument. If you believe the ultimate choice should rest with the woman, then you would be pro-choice. If you believe that instead of choice there should be compulsion, then you're anti-choice.

If the media in this country actually gave a rip about accurate and objective journalism these are the phrases that would be used in reporting on the controversy.

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: PRO LIFE? ANTI LIFE?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/43136

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • Kudos to all
    Kudos to all who pointed out that Neal is illogical in his arguments. Maybe the Talkmaster should have followed his own policy of not discussing abortion, ever.
    By BlueCat57 @ 09/17/09 03:39:25 PMreport abuse
  • To Lane Meyer
    Hey Ms Meyr, just wanted to let you know, my wife and I have adopted two children, from this country, even though we already had a biological child. We've also fostered close to 80 children for various lengths of time over a 7 year period. We are both registered Republicans.
    By Walt @ 09/15/09 02:24:39 AMreport abuse
  • So...
    It can't be "anti-life" because no one would almost always choose death when such a choice came up. So it can't be anti-choice because no one would almost always object to free choice when it was possible. In fact, the most anti-choice people out there are people who are pro-choice on abortion; as in, the liberals who oppose so many free choices in so much else (healthcare, guns, animals/environment, etc).

    Meanwhile, you say it can't be "pro-abortion" because you PERSONALLY object to it, even while you SUPPORT the legal platform that it should be allowed, and that's really all that matters. You are pro-abortion in the political arena, personal beliefs aside. You are pro-drug too. Or, maybe you would argue and just say you are "pro-legalizing-drugs", but then you should redefined everything and be "pro-allowing-abortion", and be done with it.

    You are not being logically consistent.
    By BWM @ 09/15/09 01:24:47 AMreport abuse
  • terminology for the abortion debate
    I like "pro-abortion RIGHTS" versus "anti-abortion RIGHTS" over all other terms I've heard used including "pro-choice" v "anti-choice" since we are talking about whether women should have certain rights over their bodies.
    By Andrew Sohor @ 09/14/09 11:28:38 PMreport abuse
  • Choice vs. Life
    Now, is the fetus a human being? I think for most people that is the question and, in the end, each person has to decide for themselves where they stand and, in the end, vote as they see fit and be prepared to give account when they meet the Supreme Being(s). I think one of the best arguments in favor of the humanity of the fetus is to ask what truly differentiates the fetus so as to be non-human? Is it that it is less developed? Well, an infant is less developed than an adult, but I think most people would agree killing an infant is murder. Is it that the fetus requires another person to survive? An infant is unable to provide for itself, but does that mean it is okay to kill them? Even if one is still not sure if the fetus is human, shouldn't we air on the side of caution? Just as if one is out hunting and hears a noise in the brush, isn't it their responsibility to check before they shoot?

    Now, if the fetus is a human life, then isn't it incumbent upon the State to do what is necessary to protect that human being from willful harm? Now, in terms of the woman's right to choose, she has the right to choose to do anything she wants, except to willfully violate the rights of others--in this case, the fetus/human being's right to life. Wasn't it Oliver Wendell Holmes who argued, and I paraphrase, that the right of one person to throw a fist ends when that fist makes contact with the other person's body?

    In terms of the issues of rape, does one have the right to punish an innocent being for the crimes of another? The fetus/human being no more chose to be conceived in such heinous a fashion as rape anymore than that woman herself chose to be raped. Since we would say it would be ludicrous and despicable to punish a woman for being raped--as sadly happens in certain cultures that allow/promote 'honor killings'--why should the fetus/human being be punished for the crime of the rapist? Let the rapist be severely punished, force him to pay, and if mother or child should die from complications, let the rapist be charged with murder. Punish the rapist to the full extent of the law, make him pay for his crime, but don't punish an innocent fetus/human being/child.

    When the mother's life is as stake, it is a tragedy, but is it right to murder one person to save another? If I was suffering from a terrible ailment and needed a new heart and had a very odd blood type, wouldn't I be guilty of murder if I killed someone whose blood type matched mine so as to have access to the heart and, thus, save my life?
    By Nathaniel @ 09/14/09 07:46:42 PMreport abuse
  • Wrong fight
    Two things:

    1) Sad to say but abortion is the wrong fight, it is a symptom of a problem more than a problem in itself. Women getting pregnant when they don't want to is the problem, and really shouldn't be considering all the technology we have at our disposal.

    2) It is not right that a woman can make all choices up to and including aborting a fetus when half that fetus is not the DNA property of her. A man should have say in whether or not a fetus should be aborted, because it is half his. Unless you are going to allow him to say he aborted the fetus and therefor doesn't have to pay for it.
    (No, I would never do this, but a woman can now.)
    By mcsupersport @ 09/14/09 07:33:45 PMreport abuse
  • You're wrong on this one Boortz!
    At least you're reasoning on why men shouldn't be "pro-life", "anti-abortion" doesn't pass a logical test. I happen to disagree with you on this issue, and know that I won't be changing your mind with this post, but hopefully you will see the fatal flaw in your logic, at least with the argument you have given.

    Here is where your logic fails you. You say: "Since most of these anti-abortion activists are men and will never really come face-to-face with the issue,". Presumably, you are attempting to minimalize a males opinion on this moral issue because they themselves will never become pregnant. Very interesting use of the lefts marginalization tactics proposed by Saul Alinskey.

    Let's take that to a similar conclusion on another moral issue: "Since most of these anti-salervy activists will never own a slave they aren't entitled to an opinion on slavery" or "Since most blacks will never own a slave they aren't entitled to an opinion on slavery". These arguments don't hold, because we have all agreed on this moral issue that slavery is reprehensible.

    In abortion, the fetus's right to life are over-ridden by a woman's right to choose. Certainly, you may assign no rights to the fetus as they are not sufficiently human for you. I further understand that we have not come close to consensus on abortion, or the rights of the fetus as a nation. However, taking your opinion makes one have to define just when a fetus should have the same rights as a human. Presumably, this would be at the time of birth.

    Assuming that you are for the "personal freedoms" you discuss on your radio program, surely you can see where there are very minor differences between the beliefs of pro-lifers and pro-choicers, in that you assign no rights to the fetus.

    I should conclude there, but will go on to state that at one time there was a vast number of people that assigned no rights to an individual based on the color of their skin. I'm just sayin'.
    By Zak @ 09/14/09 06:21:50 PMreport abuse
  • Beautiful Logical Argument
    Neil, your argument was beautifully written, Socrates would be proud.

    Ok, how about anti-federal government involved in abortion rights vs. States. If my state feels that there shouldn't be legal abortion for social purposes outside of a hospital and intense therapy then we should have that right. Was that written better? (honestly asking, not being snooty)

    I think people should bring back logic into their arguments instead of "you baby killer!" or "you hate women!!" America is dumbing down and you can see that in our political arguments.
    By ninotchka @ 09/14/09 06:11:20 PMreport abuse
  • Cute but not Very bright
    Neal,

    So one must be pro or anti in all cases if one references life but not choice ?

    After all the "thug" in question was merely making a choice.

    Very VERY weak argument. You usually do better Neal.
    By Fred L. Merritt @ 09/14/09 05:55:02 PMreport abuse
  • responsibility
    This is one of those few positions of Boortz that baffles me: how, being so right about most everything else, can he be so wrong about this? Nevertheless, he has a point with some of the terminological concerns.

    How, in any case, does "a woman's 'right' to choose" cohere with the Boortz doctrine of individual responsibility? Abortion must, 90% of the time, be the result of copping OUT of individual responsibility. The government, by allowing abortion to be legal, is once more condoning irresponsibility.

    In any case, the law on this matter does what the law always does: where there probably shouldn't even be a law, the law is made so that it goes in the absolutely wrong direction.
    By Flitcraft @ 09/14/09 05:12:48 PMreport abuse
  • Government should not have a position
    I frankly hate the idea that our society has come to a point when we set the value of an unborn life. I personally do not believe that abortion is an option but it is not my place to tell you that you cannot have one.

    My position is that there should be NO government sponsored agency that facilitates abortions. In other words if you offer abortions you cannot receive government funding of any kind which would include Medicare.

    Secondly to all of this is not a federal government issue. This is an issue of morality but like I said I cannot judge what you consider moral I can only speak for myself and my immediate family. Without jumping on another subject I do not believe that bankruptcy is a moral solution but I am not going to condemn someone who files for bankruptcy (for personal debt) nor do I believe that it should be illegal.
    By Daniel @ 09/14/09 05:09:16 PMreport abuse
  • Ah Konstantine
    That is not what I said, but then everyone can read what I said. So typical that if libs do not like what you say they just change what you say and then bitch about that. Nice try though. If you cannot afford a baby then do not make one.
    By Dave @ 09/14/09 04:48:13 PMreport abuse
  • Neal Boortz's mom
    One thing we know for sure...Neal Boortz's mom didn't abort Neal. I think that's a very good thing....but maybe Neal doesn't think so...

    Hey, Neal, do you think your mom should have been allowed to abort you?
    And if so, why would you have such utter contempt for your own existence?
    By Bruce @ 09/14/09 04:43:11 PMreport abuse
  • Abortion
    Abortion is just another tool of the "looters and moochers" to shirk personal responsibility. Supporters of abortion fit in with the Obama crowd perfectly because abortion is yet another way a innocent life has to pay the price for a liberal's poor decision. Neal should know better.
    By Andy @ 09/14/09 04:41:41 PMreport abuse
  • Pro-Choice, Anti-Abortion
    I am absolutely anti-abortion. However, I am also pro-choice. I don't believe it should be my decision to determine how other people live.

    I am not going to try to oppose other people aborting an unwanted fetus unless I am willing to step up to pay all bills and adopt the baby.

    Those who are pro-choice seem to believe that an unwanted pregnancy is similar to a cancer. Let it be removed and the individual can live a better life. I suggest avoiding terms like this when speaking with them or they may be come offended (if that is an issue).

    Pro-lifers tend to believe that life begins either at conception or at some point before birth when a baby is "viable". This is very difficult to define. A baby being born is easier to define.
    By Pete @ 09/14/09 04:36:45 PMreport abuse
  • Boortz Argument - Logically Inconsistent
    I think Boortz is not being consistent here with his arguments.

    If 'pro-life' is wrong because it implies that the other side is 'anti-life' and would go against life in all instances, isn't 'pro-choice' wrong on the same grounds?

    By Boortz' logic, the 'anti-choice' people would be against choice at all times. Just as he implied the 'anti-life' person would try to run over a person on a bike, wouldn't an 'anti-choice' person be against all choices included such innocuous issues as "Should we have chicken or fish tonight?".

    There could be an argument to be made that 'pro-life' is not the correct term, but, in attempting to be controversial with his listeners on this issue, Boortz has only managed to be logically inconsistent.
    By Jessica @ 09/14/09 04:35:29 PMreport abuse
  • Pro-choice
    I'm pro-choice. I believe a woman has a right to decide who to have sex with. I believe a woman has a right to choose to have sex with or without birth control. What I don't believe is that a woman (under most circumstances) has the right to end a life once it has begun to form. I am not irrational or unreasonable, so I can accept that a woman should be able to end the pregnancy in cases of her own life being threatened, rape, (because she was denied her choice in this instance), or incest (because of the high risk of birth defects and it usually isn't consentual). I don't believe a woman has the right to terminate it just because it is an inconvenience to her, which is in my opinion likely the main reason abortions occur today. Like it or not, a fetus is a life. It grows, it breathes, it eats, and left to its own devices it will (in most cases) become a fully developed human being. So you know what, Neil? If you're for allowing abortions in this instance, then I think your pro-life, anti-life labelling fits just fine. If you don't like it, then I suggest you rethink your position on it. Condoning something is only a hair's breadth better than supporting it. Stop splitting hairs and arguing about which words should be used, just so you can justify your incomprehensible support of murder.
    By Jeff Roberts @ 09/14/09 04:33:13 PMreport abuse
  • Boring!
    When I knock my women up I just push em down the stairs.
    By Slut Puppy @ 09/14/09 04:23:05 PMreport abuse
  • Choice?
    In reguards to this issue, I have always wondered why a woman's ability to CHOOSE only comes after they have had sex.
    By MBB @ 09/14/09 04:21:10 PMreport abuse
  • As I Read these Comments
    It is fairly clear that the same differences and arguments rage from end to end and get to the same place. Nowhere! No resolutions, no consensus, no agreements, but you know that’s also no problem. At least the people here seem to at least be smarter than the dumba$$ that prompted Neal to write this. Bullet points, not bullets.

    Sorry but I’m with Neal, the Semantics do matter. Over and over again I watch people make cute little use of words to get people to think like they do. The Democrats are great for that, look at their use of “public option” to describe their “government takeover plan” for healthcare. The best argument I’ve seen in these comments has been to drag in other choices, which you still know is bull since the topic is abortion not Hitler’s final solution. But if you want the Semantics perfect, sure Pro-Abortion-Choice and Anti-Abortion-Choice.

    I’m also with Neal and many others in not liking Abortion, but supporting the legal choice for it to be made. I’ll even go a little farther out on the limb. I support the government paying for it in cases of Rape, Incest or Life/Health of the Woman, but ONLY in those cases. Other than those circumstances, I don’t think the government should be allowed to require it as part of health insurance. You play, you pay.

    As far as arguments of when life begins, for this instance I’d have to say that my opinion is that when the fetus can survive outside the womb. (So yes, I object to partial birth abortion.)

    There’s my two cents, with all of yours maybe we have a couple dollars.

    BTW, one of my biggest objections is government involvement. They can screw up anything!
    By Tim - Ohio Libertarian @ 09/14/09 03:50:16 PMreport abuse
  • Should be a state decision
    I am kinda big on the original Constitution and not the perversion that has gone on under sometimes very faulty 'Supreme' Court decisions. I don't believe in the way Roe v Wade has been interpreted (and I share that with the decisions author), but think that such laws should be left up to the individual states (along with a lot of other things the Federal government has taken). I also think that if Neal won't allow debate on this issue, he should dummy up on it as well. When he starts pontificating, I tune out. Lastly, I don't understand why the man's part in deciding the fate of the fetus stops at conception, but he is still on the hook for child support, yet the woman gets to decide for her convenience up to the moment of birth. But on the upside, most of the abortions in this country are performed on libs, so they get less opportunity to raise replacements!
    By Frank @ 09/14/09 02:49:35 PMreport abuse
  • Big govt. boo-hoo
    As stated herein, the best terms are "pro-child" and "anti-child". It is either a person or it isn't. If it is not a person, and just a collection of cells, then there is no reason to be "disgusted" by the procedure. If you are "disgusted" by the procedure but still support it, it is because you know in you heart of hearts what the procedure is, but you don't want to get involved in the slaughter.

    "Big govt." my ass. A libertarian or conservative would never yell" big govt. if a cop is acting to protect a child from physical harm. Do you, as a parent, think you have the legal privacy right to whip your disobedient kid's ass with a bamboo rod? Of course not, because human society doesn't advocate such action. Holding a big ole picture up of the procedure of abortion does nothing but show you what it is, again, if it isn't a person, then why all the boo hoo from pro-choicers about graphic signs?

    Abortion for birth control purposes is the purest definition of malignant self-centeredness one could imagine.

    And as for Boortz finally being man enough to mention the topic on his website (banning it as he feels opinions don't change), then I am a walking talking example they do. After being force-fed the pro abortion side of the aisle in school, media, etc., I actually had my own questions, sought out opposing viewpoints, and ended up changing my mind quite significantly.

    I find it very odd that Boortz, a guy that lives on opinion and talk, would silence any opposition to his view, on a talk show, or a blog. That's the act of a person that does not have the strength or support for his convictions.
    By anonymous @ 09/14/09 02:48:15 PMreport abuse
  • Legal/Social Double Standrad
    Lest I be considered a religious nutcase, I am actually a agnostic who has no problem with pre-marital sex or birth control, or even abortion in legit medical instances. I just acknowledge the reality of the sex act and the risk involved.

    I have actually heard tortured arguments that a woman "doesn't consent to the egg fertilizing" which just goes to show the level of ignorance that exists out there(and a tacit admission that they consent to the sex act, thus they have to raise the bar to a "consent to fertilization", as if that were even possible.)

    Here's an example of the legal double standard- If a woman is pregnant with my kid, but insists on taking numerous drugs while pregnant, AND wants to carry the kid to term, can I stop her (force her) from taking the drugs, seeing as how I will be obligated to pay for possibly life-long medical treatment for the child upon birth?

    If the woman decides to carry the child to term, should the man be freed from paying for the child if he doesn't want it, since you had the equal opportunity to get an abortion and decided against it? You assumed the responsibility for the kid, but are still going after the father for support, when he had no say in the matter as to the kid's birth post-conception. A second bite at the apple. Under the law, both consented to sex, and the man had his chance to avoid this by refusing sex, and didn't, so he's bound by the child. However, the woman gets ANOTHER chance after sex to dodge the responsibility of a child (abortion) AND on top of that, holds the man's future in her hands as well, without any say, since he was "screwed" so to speak at the sex act. There is a serious imbalance there, and I am not the only one that has pointed it out.
    By SaltyDonnie @ 09/14/09 02:47:03 PMreport abuse
  • Core issues - a "person" or no, and consent
    Abortion is the greatest tool of a pig male - "coat-hanger that kid so I don't have to pay the bill or make the little league games". I have seen it myself numerous times. And yes, there are some men (myself included) that actually think outside OURSELVES and our wallets or social lives and are actually concerned about our unborn children, unlike so many selfish woman who don't.

    A man is not arguing to control a woman's body. The govt. is not controlling a woman's BODY. He is arguing for rights over his child (pseudo-child, quasi-child). The fetus is not a woman's body. The uterus is, but not the fetus. A woman is not having her uterus removed,or a tumor removed, or a mole removed, she is having the fetus removed. It has separate DNA from the mother, making it "individual" and distinct". It is not a tumor, or a parasite, it is a developing child. Now, if I have rights and obligations over the child, as a man, (i.e. I have to support the kid financially, etc.) then so does the woman. The main debate is over what a fetus is. Even if you accept that it is not a "person" it is most certainly a form of property that both mother and father have an interest in/right to. Anything beneficial can be done to the fetus without the consent of both because that action is beneficial. Anything detrimental cannot without consent of both. That is basic property law. Now do you see why the Supreme Court would not truly address the fetus specifically? They just said it is not a "person" under the law (just as they once said about blacks) and decided they wouldn't define the fetus as anything, and defaulted to a b.s. "privacy" concern of woman as a justification to avoid the difficult argument.

    By consenting to sex (consent is important) you "consent" to the probable outcomes that exist from sex, and have a responsibility to prevent or address those outcomes (i.e "assumption of the risk"). Like consenting to bungee jumping- you don't really want to hit the ground, but you consent that it is possible by jumping, and you assume that risk. If you don't, don't jump. If you use a condom, etc., or not have sex, etc., then you acknowledge that pregnancy or disease can result. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. Again, this attitude of total shock at becoming pregnant after sex is insane. This is a result of believing that sex's primary biological purpose is recreation, when it is actually procreation. To say that the purpose of a pen!s is for it to be rubbed for pleasure translates to the reason why I have feet is because I enjoy having them rubbed.
    By SaltyDonnie @ 09/14/09 02:46:16 PMreport abuse
  • Abortion
    Does the unborn baby get a choice Neal? Or does his/hers not count?
    By thetruth @ 09/14/09 02:40:43 PMreport abuse
  • Follow Up
    And while we're on the subject, what is this tripe about "She had a choice whether or not to have sex, so she deserves it!"? Men have a choice whether or not to have sex, and they CAN'T get pregnant, but they can get STDs -- are you saying then that, knowing the possible consequences, there should be no cures for STDs because "they had it coming?" This is similar to the theory that women "deserve" to get raped because they knew there was a possibility of it happening when they let the guy in/dressed provocatively/flirted.
    By Konstantine @ 09/14/09 02:37:44 PMreport abuse
  • Choice
    An unborn child's life is NOT as important as a mother's life. An unborn child has contributed nothing, experienced nothing, and has not formed relationships with anyone other than the mother. The mother has contributed, experienced, and formed relationships. The mother's life is more important, as illustrated by the people who say, "I'm against abortion, EXCEPT when it is to save the mother or because of a rape." That says it all right there -- the mother's life is more important.

    Assuming you all agree that welfare whores/broodmares are bad people and need to be gotten rid of, maybe you'd rather financially provide for low-income single mothers or low-income families yourselves. You know... be there to hold the mother's hand through labor, provide for the baby for 18+ years, help start a college fund. If not, shut up. You have no business telling a woman that she HAS to have a child and forcing her to make that decision without some of the liability falling to you.

    And please don't talk to me about foster care, adoption, etc. I'm a child of the adoption system. I know how fucked up it is, and how people would rather have an "exotic" Chinese baby than to adopt from the overcrowded foster systems in this great country.

    Forcing a woman to carry something inside of her is a violation of her rights AND her body. Such a law is no better than rape.
    By Konstantine @ 09/14/09 02:32:18 PMreport abuse
  • Logical Argument
    "I am most definitely anti-abortion with exceptions, of course, to protect the health and life of the mother."

    Than why not write the laws to this standard rather than leaving it to someone who is fearful that they will be inconvienced? Your 16 and pregnant? Congradulations you will not be a productive memeber of society? Since when was this an excuse to kill someone?

    The fact is the baby is a human being, with rights, and anytime an abortion is done for reasons short of what you describe is a murder. And yes, at that point government should enforce this at the end of a gun, it is actually one of the two reasons for government, protect us from evil doers and for national defense.
    By David @ 09/14/09 02:14:07 PMreport abuse
  • Pro-choice
    There is no one who is anti-choice.
    Pro-choice means that you support peoples rights to make choices.
    But you cannot claim to be pro-choice when referring to a specific choice.
    You are pro-that choice.

    Pro-life does not just refer to abortion. Pro life (should) refer to the consistent ethic of life.
    The consistent ethic of life stresses the highest regard for dignity of human life.
    This includes:
    + All people in objecting to unjust war and nuclear arms.
    + The unborn in objecting to to abortion, in vitro fertilization, frozen embryos, embryonic stem cell research, and cloning
    + The elderly, sick and dying in objecting to assisted suicide and euthanasia
    + Prisoners in objecting to torture and the death penalty
    + The poor and minorities in supporting social justice issues.
    By ABC @ 09/14/09 01:58:01 PMreport abuse
  • now hold on there................................
    okay here's the deal.............if a woman is headed to a place for an abortion.....tell her you will foot the bill and adopt her child.......

    step up or shut the .... up...... you kno' what I mean......
    By butt neckid @ 09/14/09 01:54:06 PMreport abuse
  • Arguer is a plant killer
    Yo Arguer, what makes you think that pigs are more alive than plants? hypocrite.

    The fact is the government is supposed to protect life. The fetus is alive (we don't know when but evidence points to pretty early). Just because you're a woman and you're carrying a baby doesn't give you the right to kill it. If we're going to label it lets call it "pro-protecting life" and "pro-pick and choose who gets to live and who gets to die". I think it's very hypocritical that many so-called "pro-choice" folks are also against the death penalty. Personally, I don't think the gov't should have the right to kill any of its citzens.
    By The Svedberg @ 09/14/09 01:50:04 PMreport abuse
  • My Choice
    Neal - with your logic I can go sign a contract for a new car, have all the fun of driving the new car, and then CHOOSE not to make payments on the car.

    As stated below - having sex is equivalent to accepting the terms and risks of a contract.

    Got any cars for sale???
    By Tadpole @ 09/14/09 01:36:14 PMreport abuse
  • Conservative Adoptions
    Oh, and Lane Meyer? I am a conservative man who has adopted two girls. Yes, in Georgia, a single man can adopt girls, if no one else wants them. The only liberals I know who have adopted wanted either perfect kids or politically meaningful showpieces.
    Probably the reason you don't know any Conservatives who have adopted is that we don't brag about it. We're good people, we just don't care if you recognize it. Our children do, that's enough for us.
    By petercat @ 09/14/09 01:28:27 PMreport abuse
  • Duty and Responsibility
    Neil, you are wrong.
    I am a man.
    I am not concerned with, as you have put it, "Preserving my issue".
    I merely feel that it first duty of any man is to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
    Even at the cost of my own life.
    No one is less able to protect themselves than an unborn child.
    Thus, if I am to live up to my responsibility, I must be against abortion.
    "Women and children first" is more than a line in an old book. It is the core of any true man. A child becomes a man the moment he accepts that others are more important than he, that he is expendable.
    By petercat @ 09/14/09 01:21:11 PMreport abuse
  • Neal
    I'm anti-abortion and often find Neal's comments on it naive, but if I could magically make Neal the president and every member of Congress simultaneously I'd do it in a second.
    By Steve @ 09/14/09 01:11:52 PMreport abuse
  • She had a choice
    When she decided to have sex she made the choice that could result in pregnancy. Once done she had to responsibility to bring that child to term. If she did not want to raise it then she could give it up for adoption. Killing an unborn baby is not choice, its murder.
    By Dave @ 09/14/09 01:01:36 PMreport abuse
  • anti-murder
    Abortion is the willful killing of a human life. You will always lose in this debate, because the facts of the matter are undeniable and irrefutable abortion is murder. To call it anything else is the denial of the truth. I can and will debate you and win everytime on this matter. Any time, any place.
    By pat @ 09/14/09 01:01:33 PMreport abuse
  • "Pro-Choice" Fails Your Own Standard
    Lame - using your logic, to be pro-choice, you have to be in favor of choice in all instances. Do these "pro-choice" favor allowing me to choose to pay an employee $1/hr? Do they favor my right to choose not to pay any income taxes? Your argument is, quite simply, stupid.
    By gm @ 09/14/09 01:00:43 PMreport abuse
  • One sided
    To theFantom: Neal has not said he won't put his opinion forward on this subject, just that no one else will be allowed to. Which is why I tune him out when he does and stopped reading this story after 1 paragraph.

    Neal, if you know this is such a partisan issue, stop bringing it up. Stop forcing your opinion out and not letting others comment otherwise, you're not a talk show host, you're just a radio lecturer.
    By Some Guy @ 09/14/09 12:53:45 PMreport abuse
  • what's wrong with anti choice?
    if it's a choice to kill a child or not kill a child, I'll gladly claim the "anti choice" label. i don't understand the issue here.
    By rhurc @ 09/14/09 12:51:35 PMreport abuse
  • New labels
    Let’s get to the core of the argument and change the labels to:

    Pro Fetus Rights

    vs.

    Pro Womb Rights

    With these labels we get rid of many of the BS semantic arguments that all sides know and love.

    Both labels reflect the base beliefs of each side in a positive and accurate light. I’ve changed my position from one to the other and still have sympathy for my former position.

    A “clump of cells”/unique DNA combination Vs. a woman’s own body.

    Which rights are paramount?

    That is a far more interesting and focused discussion.

    IMHO
    By A human @ 09/14/09 12:45:23 PMreport abuse
  • Your stance on abortion
    Neal,

    You have always dodged the bullet when it comes to discussion of abortion. In the 17 years or so that I've been listening this is the most open statement I have heard from you. I just wanted to applaud your bold statements.
    By David @ 09/14/09 12:41:47 PMreport abuse
  • Well too bad Neil
    Michigan does not have the death penalty so this sleaze will live off the taxpayers for the rest of his life. Get with the program Lansing and pass a death penalty law.
    By Efrem @ 09/14/09 12:36:36 PMreport abuse
  • Check your logic
    Neal, using your same logic you can’t call me anti-choice because I am pro choice in many other aspects including the choice of school my children attend, the doctor that I go to, or the choice a woman has to engage in activity that results in pregnancy. Bottom line, we are talking about whether abortion should be legal or not, from that standpoint you are either pro- legalized abortion or anti-legalized abortion. Even if you “wouldn’t have one yourself but don’t want to deny others” you are in essence pro-legalized abortion.
    By the way, don’t bother claiming you are against abortion because you consider it a choice issue instead of a human life issue – to use your example, I am fine with the government using a gun to keep someone from murdering me as I walk down the street (as I am sure you are also) and so am ok with them using a gun to save a baby’s life. I imagine you are ok with the government using a gun to make sure a citizen pays your Flat Tax; to bad you don’t have the same commitment to a baby’s life. I have twins, I saw the many ultrasounds, don’t tell me otherwise.
    By Rob @ 09/14/09 12:36:03 PMreport abuse
  • Neal, please address personal responsibility
    Neal, I disagree with you on this subject but I'll not stop listening to you. One your your fans made the below statement. I think you should address it. "In MOST cases, that woman did not have a gun put to her head when she committed the sexual act which created that new life. That act alone is signing a contract saying you accept the risks involved in what you are about to undertake. Your position is inconsistant with your message of personal responsibility Neal."
    By Snowrider @ 09/14/09 12:35:52 PMreport abuse
  • Pro-life
    You don't want the government to use a gun to force women to give birth, but you think it's ok to metaphorically allow women to use a gun to end a child's existence. Wow! What a guy!
    By Diane @ 09/14/09 12:33:31 PMreport abuse
  • The Choice category doesn't work either
    The title of "Pro-Choice" or "Anti-Choice" does not tell what you are choosing. I choose to eat M&Ms with my lunch, so does that make me Pro-Choice. Perhaps we need the phrase "Pro Abortion Choice" and "Anti Abortion Choice".
    By Ken-Bob @ 09/14/09 12:29:13 PMreport abuse
  • To LibralHater
    "Neal loses it again..
    Neal,
    Who the hell are you to decide what is right or wrong? That is an issue for us collectively. You're just upset because some people don't agree with you. Get over yourself.
    By LiberalHater @ 09/14/09 09:54:16 AM"

    Apparently, Neal believes he is the same person you and all those who want to tell everyone else what is right and wrong. ;o)
    By Jeffrey @ 09/14/09 12:23:05 PMreport abuse
  • Pro-Life?
    I am anti-abortion in the sense that I think Roe vs. Wade is an unconstitutional power grab by SCOTUS. I am emphatically not pro-life. Not with 21 years in the Army. I wouldn't loan you the cost of a phone call to the governor on behalf of a convicted murderer. If you want me to help take down Bin Laden, tell me when and where. Calling "anti-abortion" "pro-life" was the dumbest move abortion opponents ever made. All it did was open them up to attacks along the lines of "then why aren't you against capital punishment?" The issue is not life. It's INNOCENT life. Fetuses are guilty of nothing more than inconvenience.
    By Steve D @ 09/14/09 12:20:52 PMreport abuse
  • pro-choice/anti-choice
    Neal...you made me think about my opinion, thanks. I'm pro-choice as long as the little American citizen in the mother's womb can have a choice. If his life, liberty and pursuit of happiness is taken without his choice then it's a travesty. Remind me again, what do we call it if an American citizen's life is taken without choice?
    By Snowrider @ 09/14/09 12:19:49 PMreport abuse
  • ProChoice?
    I have to agree with the first post (jACK714?). Most pro-choicers I hear about are not really pro-choice unless you agree with them.
    By gerry @ 09/14/09 12:17:04 PMreport abuse
  • those of you that believe.................................
    sooo....... ya'll gonna bring GOD into this board............okay......I don't have a problem wit' that......just not a believer........

    if I 'member correctly wasn't FREE WILL part of the deal??????

    and sumpin' else comes to mind.........NUNYADAMNBIZNISS!!!!!!!!
    By butt neckid @ 09/14/09 12:07:01 PMreport abuse
  • I think you are missing the point Neal...
    This is coming from a Conservative that is truely on the fence in the abortion argument. Being truely objective, you have to realize that there are people that feel like taking an unborn life is taking a human life. To those people, to the "choice" to eliminate the fetus is the same as the "choice" to murder someone (I don't necessarily agree with that)....so it is not the "choice" they oppose. "Anti-choice" is as blatantly biased as calling someone "pro-abortion". I am surprised, as fair minded as you usually are, that you don't see that.
    By Grant @ 09/14/09 12:06:07 PMreport abuse
  • missing the point
    I really respect your political analysis, but your abortion argument means little to those of us who think that the unborn baby's life is just as important as the mother's life. Choice has nothing to do with it.
    By Landon @ 09/14/09 12:03:33 PMreport abuse
  • ???
    I am pro-abortion so I'm not just an anti-abortion person chiming in to whine.....but what the hell did that little rant have to do with the shooting?
    By varelse @ 09/14/09 11:50:46 AMreport abuse
  • Steve nailed it.
    I have NEVER heard of a man who wanted to force a woman to have a baby! That being said I am sure its happened but ITS NOT THE NORM. Most men run away from child support, not towards it.

    I got a better label. It's too long, but it most acurate. you are either pro-dismembering a fetus to terminate developement, or anti-dismembering a fetus to terminate developement.

    Neal, I will never STOP listening to you. YOu are my favorite talk show host, but we will never agree on this.
    By Brian Thompsn @ 09/14/09 11:36:08 AMreport abuse
  • How about pro-baby, anti-baby?
    Is that sharp enough for you? Or...pro-mother, anti-mother to be stinging from the other side.

    I don't hear people talking about pro-/anti-choice when discussing homicide. To be pro-choice with homicide would support anarchy.

    So...is terminating an unborn baby homicide or not? I don't care what term you use. Answer the real question!
    By Greg @ 09/14/09 11:34:10 AMreport abuse
  • Interesting to see posts open on this topic.
    The comments section is going to be just as polluted as if you allowed this discussion on the air, but it's interesting to see Neals position clearly stated, and more interesting to see that I agree with him on the subject almost to the letter... I despise abortions, but would not make them illegal for various reasons.

    However, I have NO problem with some guy showing pictures of aborted fetuses. First, you can't legislate good taste; secondly, the facts are the facts... I think the women getting abortions ought to see a 3D ultrasound before being allowed to sign on the dotted line.
    By Fred in Lilburn @ 09/14/09 11:33:59 AMreport abuse
  • Equal Choice
    I'm not only pro-choice. I'm Equal Choice. When it comes to sex and parenthood, women should have the same legal choices as men.

    That means, neither men nor women should be forced to have sex. Rape should be illegal. And by Jove, I believe rape already is illegal, and has been illegal for millennia.

    But if a man and a woman choose to have sex, they should both be responsible for the care and feeding of any resulting baby. That's what the law tells men. That's what the law SHOULD tell women too.

    And parents should not be permitted to kill their children in order to escape their parental responsibilities. That's what the law tells men, and that's what the law SHOULD tell women.

    What we've had since Roe v. Wade is a double-standard of sexual and parental responsibility: one for men, a different one for women.

    Aren't you sick of all the leftist double-standards ?
    By Franz Fafner @ 09/14/09 11:33:02 AMreport abuse
  • Abortion on Boortz?!
    Why has Neal dropped his universal prohibition from mentioning this taboo topic? He knows it will be unresolvable and usually avoids it at all costs.

    Women must have at least a partial or limited right to choose even if some will abuse it. The question really arises at that point in the pregnacy (25 weeks is about right) when the baby becomes viable outside the mother, with varying levels of medical intervention required. (I have worked in neonatal intensive care units and have seen some 'miracle' babies that will survive at very early ages while others, born later, will require a lifetime of care.)

    No one knows and no one can know what that point is for any given pregnacy--only statistical averages can prevail.

    To me, the only rational course is to allow all first-term abortions, make second term abortions exceedingly rare and more difficult to obtain, and to forbid third-term abortions unless two doctors concur that the life and/or health of the mother is at imminent risk.

    There can never be an absolute answer for all individual pregnacies.
    By theFantom @ 09/14/09 11:27:39 AMreport abuse
  • Why was the abortion doc given so much more favorable media coverage?
    I know the answer to this, but thought I would point it out. It seems the media did a far more excessive job in covering the anti-abortion doc who was gunned down, where as the two people here seem to be marginalized as radicals, thus there death seems to be insignificant in contrast.

    Now the one difference between the two sets of murders is the one was done in a church - even though the outcome is unfortunately the same for all parties, the church just seems to be a horrid place for such an act.

    So why the difference? The two anti-abortion folks are literally old news, and the doctors coverage seemed to last for a month? And I personally am not an Anti-abortion advocate - similar to Neal Boortz's stance.
    By wxw101 (the Burque) @ 09/14/09 11:27:06 AMreport abuse
  • Faulty syllogism
    Unfortunately, your major and minor premises are entirely assumed.
    By Phil @ 09/14/09 11:18:09 AMreport abuse
  • I bet more pregnancies are terminated because the man demands it than saved because the man would not allow it.
    Agreed. As Boortz says... Men are dogs, no exceptions.

    The REAL problem is not that men are demanding this, but that the men today do not understand what authentic manhood is truly about and they have very few if any examples to show them. What most men believe is being a man is really a perversion of what it really means.
    By Dave R @ 09/14/09 11:08:42 AMreport abuse
  • Sorry, just can't agree
    I hate to disagree with you Neal, because you're dead on about 99% of the time, but you're dead wrong on abortion.

    Your terms only work when you look at the issue from the mother's perspective. Let's change it to the child's perspective:

    To the child, it's either life or death and thus pro-life and anti-life would work. Additionally, I know not a single suicidal infant, so pro-choice and anti-choice would work from the child's perspective as well.

    One area the government is allowed and should use the gun is to protect its citizens that can't protect themselves; the un-born child deserves that protection.
    By Jonathan @ 09/14/09 11:08:02 AMreport abuse
  • Soooo easy...
    "Yes, the "pro-life" / "pro-choice" labels are ridiculous. I bet most "pro-lifers" would have no problem with killing in self defense or with the death penalty, and we all know most "pro-choicers" are leftists who hate choice in just about every aspect of life."

    The reason why I can be against abortion and pro-death penalty is...

    You cannot tell me that the unborn has done one single thing to harm society and you have no way of knowning if that unborn child will find the cure for cancer or kill thousands. You are in effect passing judgement on that life without a trail or any evidence of wrong doing.

    The person who is attacking me or who has received the death penalty has had evidence provided showing that he or she is harmful to society. In these cases, killing them is a benefit to society and permanently prevents that person from ever again being harmful.

    Sure, some innocents will be toasted, but that number is astronomically lower than the number of innocents killed via abortion.
    By Dave R @ 09/14/09 11:04:54 AMreport abuse
  • The abortion issue isn't one way for libertarians...
    BTW, don't assume that the abortion issue is one way amongst the libertarians. See http://www.l4l.org/ for one example. Many libertarians will argue that life begins at conception, and that ultimate liberty exists for the unborn child as well as for the mother.
    By Greg @ 09/14/09 11:01:05 AMreport abuse
  • one mo' thyme...... uuum time.............
    damn it.........just b'cuz you're nuts....I mean testicles along with stubby get you in trouble doesn't mean you can get involved in an issue 'bout abortion.......

    if it ain't YOUR WOMB stay the hell out!!!!!!!

    only the woman that is pregnant can make any decision about what the next step will be.........so guys.... go get a cold one, turn on jerry springer and watch yo' kinfolk fight on tv!........

    girls...........damn I hate to say this.........the ball is in your__________........I kno' I'm suave, deboney and handsum as hell but I'm spoken for.....think befo' you give him a ride.....you are the one that has to live with the decision you make......
    By butt neckid @ 09/14/09 11:01:03 AMreport abuse
  • It's a matter of WHEN that choice is made...
    "If you believe the ultimate choice should rest with the woman, then you would be pro-choice. If you believe that instead of choice there should be compulsion, then you're anti-choice."

    There are so many things you could do PRIOR to conceiving a child. In all cases, consenting adults know that pregnancy is a risk that will result in the creation of life.

    Decide all you want prior to having sex, but if you get preggers... you got the bullet in Russian roulette. The only way out after that is to commit murder.

    In that sense... Pro-life is the correct term. In all cases, you are for that life coming to full term.

    My main beef is the treatment of that fetus as anything other than another human life. Biologically, you can't make that argument. DNA is DNA. What is a human that has to depend on it's mother like a parasite is the exact same as a senior citizen in a nursing home.

    Life is life. I don't care what you call the other side and most of what you are doing here is avoiding the real debate to have one on semantics.

    Should the government be involved here and tell a woman what to do? Sure, if you believe that what is growing inside of her is a human and is a US citizen. If you don't, if it's just a lump of cells like cancer... then obviously you can say it has not value and the decision is solely up to the host.

    Just don't avoid the debate about what that mass of cells is. You can't have this debate without first establishing what rights an unborn child has.
    By Dave R @ 09/14/09 10:58:00 AMreport abuse
  • wombats
    Lets take this out of the womb- if a someone kills a 5 year old child because they don't want them anymore, should they be prosecuted? Is it her choice to care for the child? I don't know how else to describe someone willing to kill a baby on a whim: pro-death works for me.
    By TW @ 09/14/09 10:57:11 AMreport abuse
  • same way
    Yes, I believe that you should be executed the same way you killed the other person. But with one tiny difference: if you survive it, they don't get to try again.

    Alternative: You get to choose your method of execution, but they get to try it as many times as it takes.

    I see nothing wrong with either of these alternatives.
    By someguy @ 09/14/09 10:55:49 AMreport abuse
  • Another logical mistake from Neal
    Neal,

    If you are anti-choice you are not in favor of forcing a woman to have a baby, but in favor of forcing a woman to give birth to one. I find the notion of killing a living human because it would be inconvenient for you to give birth to the baby quite abhorrent. If our government forces the woman to give birth to the baby against her will, then we should also provide for the care of that child and remove that unwanted child from that mother.

    Our declaration of independence states that we all have the right to pursue happiness, but are not gauranteed it. By protecting the right of a child to be born and protection the right of the mother not to keep that child we are protecting the right to pursue happiness for both parties and only at the sake of inconveniencing the mother for nine months.
    By jsday @ 09/14/09 10:55:35 AMreport abuse
  • God is Pro Choice
    Look it. God gave Adam a choice in Eden. He's given us the choice too! God is Pro-(the right)-Choice. Let's choose wisely with the rights given to us by our creator.
    By Anthony @ 09/14/09 10:49:57 AMreport abuse
  • Republican Hypocrites
    Some of the comments here are the reason I left the Republican party and became a Libertarian.

    Republicans are all for small government unless it's one of their pet issues like abortion. As long as the fetus is in the mother, it is part of the mother, and should be the mother's decision. If you feel it is morally wrong, use education and communication to convince a woman not to abort instead of force of law. The same goes for drugs and all other vice laws. Get government out of personal decisions.
    By Danny @ 09/14/09 10:47:40 AMreport abuse
  • To be anti-abortion is not to be anti-choice...
    The terms pro-choice and anti-choice aren’t apt to this issue, let me use this analogy…
    If the speed limit is 75 MPH, does the statute or posted speed limit sign govern the throttle of the vehicle? Of course not. The driver of the vehicle governs the throttle. By governing the throttle, the driver chooses the speed. If the driver chooses to drive faster than the posted speed limit of 75 MPH, the driver then becomes subject to enforcement and subsequent penalty of the statute. Alternately, the driver doesn’t become subject to enforcement and subsequent penalty of the statute if the choice to not speed is made. Thus, whether or not the driver is subject to law enforcement and subsequent penalty of the statute hinges on choice.
    With that analogy in mind, if abortion was illegal, and a woman chose to have an abortion, she would then become subject to enforcement and subsequent penalty of the statute. Alternately, if a woman chose not to have an abortion, she would not be subject to enforcement and subsequent penalty of the statute. Thus, whether or not a woman is subject to enforcement and subsequent penalty of the statute hinges on choice.
    I am both pro-choice and anti-abortion. I stand on the principle that choices require responsibility. I stand on the principle that choices have consequences. If a woman is responsible enough to become pregnant, she is responsible enough to face consequences of her choices.
    Neal, you may say that I don’t know what it’s like because I’m not a woman and to that I say this… I know what it’s like because I used to be a fetus. I am fortunate my mother stood on the principle that choices require responsibility and choices have consequences.
    By Scott @ 09/14/09 10:47:14 AMreport abuse
  • womens choice?
    i understand its a womens body but its also the fathers baby.a women can decide if that man is going to be a father or not.a women can decide if she wants to be a mom or not.with two boys, 18 and 20,i wouldnt want them to get a women preganant and she decide if im going to be a grandfather or not.women hold all the cards and no one else has a say.yes its her body but its much more than that when shes caring for a baby inside of her.
    By TRay @ 09/14/09 10:44:27 AMreport abuse
  • Neal,

    A Pew Research study from 2007 found that there is almost no difference in the percentage of men and women that are against abortion. The study was even posted on the Democraticunderground website. Since in fact 50.7% of the US population is female, this means that there are more women than men that believe Abortion should be illegal.

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x602052
    By jsday @ 09/14/09 10:38:44 AMreport abuse
  • Pro-choice
    Call it what you wish. The plain fact is that calling it "pro-choice" really means "pro-choice for the woman to decide if she wants to kill her unborn baby". This is the inescapable truth.
    By WD40 @ 09/14/09 10:35:58 AMreport abuse
  • Pro-life?
    I agree that the term "pro-life" is a misnomer when used to describe most of those who are against abortion. To call them that would be to imply that they also are against capital punishment, which is statistically not the case. I believe the "anti-abortion" label is much more accurate for these folks. Pro-life implies an enlightened view on the sanctity of life, which does not hold up when one simultaneously supports capital punishment.

    Where Neal and I will disagree is the government's role in the anti-abortion argument. If one considers abortion murder, which the anti-abortion crowd does, then were elective abortions illegal on those grounds, the government would have the same role in punishing or preventing elective abortions as they do murders. Neal can take this stance apparently because he does not share that definition of abortion.
    By kdavismd @ 09/14/09 10:25:42 AMreport abuse
  • choice
    Neal is wrong, and as long as he continues to have a radio program where he talks mostly one-way about his views his mind will never change.

    Being anti-abortion/pro-life/whatever is not anti-choice. The reason? The woman has plenty of choices. She has the choice to abstain. She has the choice to use birth control. She has the choice to wait until she's married or in a relationship with enough trust to risk having a child. Abortion is simply running away from the consequences of your own actions. I support abortion in the case of rape and incest, but it should be done early enough. The woman has a choice to get the morning after pill or something equivalent in this situation. If she waits 3 months, that's her choice as well.

    And I, unlike most men, have come face to face with this issue. I was with a girl for almost 5 years. We waited almost 4 years to become sexually active. We were engaged. She got pregnant and ran out and got an abortion on me. I wanted to have the child. I was going to support her as I had health insurance and money. Where is my choice? Where are my rights?
    By steven @ 09/14/09 10:22:10 AMreport abuse
  • Anti-abortion people who eat meat are hypocrites
    The slaughter of a living pig (or many other animals people eat) -- a smart, conscious, living being -- is a far more gruesome and arguably inhumane act than terminating a few cells that constitute a few-weeks-old fetus.

    If you are a vegetarian, I'll listen to your anti-abortion rants. Otherwise, I cannot take you seriously.

    By the way, I am NOT a vegetarian, so my pro-choice position is not hypocritical.
    By Arguer @ 09/14/09 10:18:27 AMreport abuse
  • In response to "Forced?"
    I would like to add to your comments, with which I wholeheartedly agree, by posing this question: Exactly HOW would the government use a gun to force a woman to have a child that she doesn't want? Lock her up in a room where she's chained to a post or something until the baby is born? No, I think not. Maybe Neal means that by not paying for an abortion, the government is effectively forcing a woman to give birth?? Does he mean that IF abortion is made illegal, then women will be "forced" to have children they don't want? Someone please help me with this one!
    By Aunt Nee Nee @ 09/14/09 10:17:27 AMreport abuse
  • bravo.
    Bravo mr. Boortz. I have been saying the exact same thing (seriously, there's a few papers out there with my letters to the editors there, from the last 20 years).
    If you think abortion should be legal, that does NOT mean you think it is a good thing. Ｉ have known people to go thru it and they were not happy about it, but they thought it necessary.
    Seriously. Look at the alternatives. Because it is illegal does not stop it (so what happens? Women die? they go to anyone who says he can do it? is that really the society we want to live in?).
    By atlmom @ 09/14/09 10:15:23 AMreport abuse
  • ten foot pole / MT 22:21
    Paging Daniel Webster

    Report to 21st century America.

    Daniel Webster, report to 21st century America.

    Semantics here. Nothing more, nothing less. To belittle this debate with the use of vague semantics comes off as very shallow.

    A side you coldly dismiss is the man's rights. After all, a man's genetics (since God is simply sideswiped, too) are always involved.

    When does life begin? No one agrees on that, but whenever that point in time is (and that point does exist), that life (at least in America) inherits certain unalienable rights.

    Defining this complex issue in black and white is impossible. I, for one, am not standing in line waiting to adopt any of these millions of people (AKA American Citizens). Are you? On the other hand, I am not drilling baby brains (AKA American Citizens) as they come out a “mother’s” birth canal. How about you?
    By ed davis @ 09/14/09 10:11:55 AMreport abuse
  • That's ridiculous
    Lane says most adoptions are by liberals. That is so stupid. Maybe it's only the liberals who brag about it.

    Nope, I know a lot of people who have adopted, they usually try to keep it quiet so the child does not think he/she is not as wanted as the rest of their children.

    As far as abortion goes, science seems to keep pushing the boundaries on the survival of a fetus born prematurely so if we can't even decide at what point a fetus is not a viable human, then how can we abort? Maybe these women need to practice a little birth control and stop being so incredibly irresponsible. There are a few exceptions but they do not excuse the majority. To get pregnant in this day and age is just stupidity.
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 09/14/09 10:11:20 AMreport abuse
  • Forget religion...
    A sane caring passionate human being is one that opposes abortion. No matter how you spin it you are terminating a human life. If you are a woman you have the right to choose not to have sex. If you are a woman who is raped then that is a horrible act of violence and special steps should be in place to determine if it was in fact rape and then and ONLY then should we even entertain the notion of abortion. This is coming from a man that has had a loved one that actually was raped. You have to understand that rape is a SERIOUS crime and if you are a woman and you claim rape it better be true and provable. BTW I am coming at this from a purely logical standpoint. I am not religious at all. I just know right from wrong and I believe in personal responsibility. That is all one should need to make the correct decision on abortion.
    By Ivan @ 09/14/09 10:07:50 AMreport abuse
  • abortion
    Predictably I validate Boortz' invidiousness; I am explicitly anti-abortion NOT pro-life. I oppose feticide for the reasons of patriarchy & male dominance Boortz has oft cited. I re-call life before women's liberation & prefer it to the situation since 1967 when uppity b----es have been running round loose ever since. As I have frequently stated prior I backed George Wallace for president in 1968 when I was in second grade so am aggrieved against minorities, immigrants, homo-sexuals, welfare bums, do-gooders, communists, socialists, hippies, protesters of the war in Viet Nam--but ONLY that war, I am after all isolationist--detractors of legislative committees on un-American activity, gun controllers & rioters too. I dis-like most people on the right as well, they are usually neo-conservatives, moderates, imperialists, militarists, idolators of Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Churchill, Reagan, the reverend doctor Martin Luther King junior & Nixon, deplorers of conspiracism or just plain deficiently EXTREME. No wonder der vaterland security ministry hates me.
    By Jack in Dayton, Ohio @ 09/14/09 10:07:47 AMreport abuse
  • Neal loses it again..
    Neal,
    Who the hell are you to decide what is right or wrong? That is an issue for us collectively. You're just upset because some people don't agree with you. Get over yourself.
    By LiberalHater @ 09/14/09 09:54:16 AMreport abuse
  • Terminlogy
    "Pro/Anti Choice" is just as flawed as "Pro/Anti Life". But, what would rather we use. "In the affirmative/In the negative"?
    By LEN @ 09/14/09 09:52:13 AMreport abuse
  • Pro-Choice
    Let's try the term "pro-choice." It doesn't work. If one side is "pro-choice," than the other side must be "anti-choice." You simply cannot take people who oppose the idea of a woman's right to chose as "anti-choice." Being "anti-choice" would mean that in virtually all cases where a person gets to make a choice in their life, that person would never have the freedom to make the choice. (just using your own logic against you, Neal)
    By Tim @ 09/14/09 09:51:20 AMreport abuse
  • It's not about choice
    Neal, if you can't agree that a women should be able to have an abortion ONE day before the baby is due, then your argument for choice fails because you are acknowledging that at some point a fetus becomes a LIFE and that the government can and should step in, with a gun, and not allow the women to kill the LIFE.

    Those on the pro-life side believe life begins at birth and, therefore, the issue it about life, it's not about controlling women.

    The only real debate in my mind, is when does life truly begin, and, since no one can answer that question today with any certainty, I will err on the side of caution, and believe life begins at conception, until it can be proved otherwise. Because if you choose some arbitrary number, say 3 months, and you are wrong, then you have indeed sanctioned murder.
    By paganposts @ 09/14/09 09:36:51 AMreport abuse
  • Presumption of Rights
    Until someone can produce an objective test of when a live biologically unique animal becomes "human", then we must presume the same rights as any human and must protect them.
    By Humbug @ 09/14/09 09:32:02 AMreport abuse
  • Anti-abortion protestors
    Why are anti-abortion protestors disproportionately fat and ugly? So many of the guys are big-bellied sweaty types who look like they'll have a heart attack at age 55, and the women tend to be dowdy and frumpy.

    Perhaps they are envious of healthy, fit, attractive people who have good, positive sex lives (and who responsibly use birth control); protesting abortion is some sick way to act out on this jealousy.
    By Secular Conservative @ 09/14/09 09:31:19 AMreport abuse
  • Forced?
    Neal said: "I do not want our government to have the power to use a gun to force a woman to have a child that she does not want to have."

    In MOST cases, that woman did not have a gun put to her head when she committed the sexual act which created that new life. That act alone is signing a contract saying you accept the risks involved in what you are about to undertake. Your position is inconsistant with your message of personal responsibility Neal.

    Abortion is disrespect of the human life. Life has been proven to begin at the moment of conception. The heart begins beating 11 days after the act. The fetus has a very good chance of survival 25 weeks after conception- yet abortion is allowed up until the day the baby is born. The emotional scars of the abortion are carried by the woman for the rest of her life as she wonders what that baby would have grown up to become. All of this done in the name of the woman's health.

    I won't stop listening to you Neal. I have always thought that your position on abortion was the "safe-road" from your perspective- safe and ignorant. I shared that view once too, but I learned the facts about abortion. The facts don't allow me to support this act.

    Have a blessed day!
    By Matt @ 09/14/09 09:29:32 AMreport abuse
  • name
    I agree with you, but to use your own logic, someone who is 'anti-choice' would then always be arguing for no choice, which might not be true.

    You would need to use a term like 'anti-abortion-choice' to fully pinpoint this persons views.
    By DJ @ 09/14/09 09:28:22 AMreport abuse
  • For Republicans, I think it should be Pro-Big Government
    Here come Republicans again, always wanting government invading their privacy. Personally I dont want the government pointing a gun at the beautiful women in this country and forcing them to have a baby. My favorite is that the only people who I know that have adopted are liberals, so there goes that argument for crazy republicans. I would love for all these anti-science republicans to agree to not use any scientific advances when they come forward. Typical Republicans, they stand strong on an issue until it benefits them, then they politely switch sides. Trust me, this is why republicans are secretly pro-government health care. (1) they are too busy spending their money on mobile hime expenses and guns to afford insurance, and (2) they get the government to control health procedures such as abortion
    By Lane Meyer @ 09/14/09 09:25:36 AMreport abuse
  • Abortion? Choice?
    I used to be pro-life. Then I flew from Montego Bay to Atlanta. Not only did my views on abortion instantly swing 180 degrees, but I wanted to abort most of the little sh*ts on that plane retroactively, by shoving them through the window at 31,000 feet.
    By Randy @ 09/14/09 09:21:37 AMreport abuse
  • I agree with the labels
    Yes, the "pro-life" / "pro-choice" labels are ridiculous. I bet most "pro-lifers" would have no problem with killing in self defense or with the death penalty, and we all know most "pro-choicers" are leftists who hate choice in just about every aspect of life.

    Though I'm "anti-abortion" I believe Neal has the correct point of view for a person who does not acknowledge that a fetus is human life.


    Blah-blah-blah

    That said, I mainly take issue with Neal and his position about men on the issue. I those statements are on par with Barbra Streisand on economics. For example, Neal often says that men want abortion illegal so that a woman is forced to give birth to the baby. This is a way for a man to exercise power over a woman.

    Now correct me if I'm wrong but since when do men embrace the news of their becoming an unexpected father? In the real world, the idea that a man got a woman pregnant is welcomed with fear and panic! Men want the pregnancy to just go away and abortion provides that option!

    I bet more pregnancies are terminated because the man demands it than saved because the man would not allow it. And, trust me, any man with powerhungry the mindset stated by Neal is going to have the power to keep his woman from having an abortion anyway! In these cases keeping abortion illegal is irrelevant, and quite possible part of the fun of the power: "See woman? SUFFER! You could have an abortion but I will not allow you to do so!"
    By Steve @ 09/14/09 09:17:08 AMreport abuse
  • prolife or prochoice
    If you believe “prolife” is a misleading term to describe a person who opposes abortion, perhaps you should apply equal scrutiny to the “prochoice” label. After all ... a real “prochoice” individual would support anyone’s choices including those made by Adolph Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Joseph Stalin.
    By Dave @ 09/14/09 09:16:41 AMreport abuse
  • topic
    Sorry, I stopped reading. This is one topic not allowed at boortz.com.
    By Jon @ 09/14/09 09:15:53 AMreport abuse
  • Pro-choice = Pro-abortion?
    I think Neal is wrong on this one. It should be pro-abortion and anit-abortion. The biggest problem is us in the middle get lost in the arguements. ProChoice is a miss nomer(SP) having been on message boards with pro-choice proponents they will not accept any other choice for unwanted preganancy but abortion, addoption (we are trying make them baby factories for the rich) programs to help these women with a baby if they keep them (we want to sadddle them with and anchor (mixed metaphor)).

    The problem with being in the middle is its hard to come up with a rallying cry. ABORT 50% of all pregancy doesn't work. Women in these situations need to have real choice, keep, adopt out, maybe temporary foster care, and abortion. Try to put that on a sign and carry it around.
    By Jack814 @ 09/14/09 09:11:46 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement