tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5895289090338830907.post5691800782401124586..comments2023-07-22T03:43:32.738-04:00Comments on -Contrarian Bunkum-: What's in a name?Harrison Lewishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03035655733295521333noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5895289090338830907.post-39351069419307878902007-08-22T14:02:00.000-04:002007-08-22T14:02:00.000-04:00You're right. I don't the pro-lifers chose the nam...You're right. I don't the pro-lifers chose the name for rhetorical purposes alone- not by any means. The fact that they see pro-choice as being anti-life is what adds so much fuel and emotion to the fight. <BR/><BR/>The point was just that it has a powerful rhetorical effect that "pro-choice" does not. <BR/><BR/>'Choice' in other words is whimsical, convenient, and fun.<BR/><BR/>'Rights' are inalienable and central to democracy. <BR/><BR/>I just think it was a poor choice.Harrison Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03035655733295521333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5895289090338830907.post-1527027440162852572007-08-22T00:26:00.000-04:002007-08-22T00:26:00.000-04:00answering the question, "do you think No Child Lef...answering the question, "do you think No Child Left Behind is working?" is somewhat like answering that question , "Do you still beat your wife." You're damned whether it's affirmative or negative.<BR/><BR/>Food for thought: Many pro-lifers do actually see pro-choicers as being anti-life. From the pro-life perspective, pro-choicers are advocating legalized murder. To pro-choicers, this may look like rhetorical trickery. But to pro-lifers, it may look like an apt reflection of the debate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com