- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 30,527
- Reaction score
- 14,765
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
They're not being discriminated against by the words.Who is being discriminated against by those words?
They're not being discriminated against by the words.Who is being discriminated against by those words?
So your contention that the message intended could be totally unrelated to the abortion debate is bull****.
If you'd read the case instead of making stuff up, you'd know that several people requested plates that said things like "respect choice" or "trust women - respect choice." They were rejected. Hence the constitutional problem.
Only to those who like to engage in the intellectually dishonest game of ignoring the obvious political meaning of the term "choose life" as used by anti-abortion groups.
It seems to me that political feelings have become just a tad too strong over trivial matters. Sometimes we should just relax and admit that a 'slogan like 'Choose Life' is not such a bad thing. Same with Christmas Tree.being called a holiday tree. Can't people just lighten up a little? What petty lives these people must lead.
Who is being discriminated against by those words?
I didn't realize the abortion debate was trivial to you. OK. That's cool. Personally I don't especially give a ****. Of course I recognize that a fetus is not a person, so why the **** should I care?
What debate? The pro abortion/pro choice people won and abortions are now available everywhere. The debate was lost almost four decades ago.
That the pro choice people can't even accept something as innocuous as "Choose Life" makes their stridency appear too petty by far.
Judge finds NC ‘Choose Life’ plates unconstitutional | MyFOX8.com
So.... if NC issued a “Slavery Sucks!” plate, the ACLU would sue if the state does not also offer a “Slavery Rocks!” plate?
Who said it can't be accepted? I don't know if you noticed but the judge did not make his verdict based upon the words "Choose Life". He based his verdict on the fact that one group was allowed to use a state provided public venue while denying that same venue to another group. The denying of that other group the same venue that was allowed another group....THAT is what is unacceptable.
Would you find it acceptable if the government allowed pro-choice thier own plate while denying it to pro-lifer's? I wouldn't.
Edit: BTW, just because abortions are available doesn't mean that no one should fight to keep them available. As long as one side fights to suppress freedom then there must needs be a group to oppose them.
How is the "Choose Life" motto effecting anyone's freedom, and what is it about this message that offends you?
Aren't pro choice people also pro life? Or are they all pro abortion, that their livelihoods as abortionists, or commissions for women they send to their clinics, might be effected if some woman decides to Choose Life and adopt the baby out?
This is ridiculous. Life is a good thing for most people. Perhaps not for the Adam Lanza's of this world but certainly for most thinking, caring people. Why not just say so?
What IS offensive is the state government denying access of a public state venue to one group while giving access to that venue to another group.
What is this other group that is against "Choose Life"? They must be a very strange lot.
That is a restriction on free speech. If you want to argue that point then argue that point. Stop with this hyperbolic intellectual dishonesty crap. All that it does is hurt your side and makes you look foolish at best.
Judge finds NC ‘Choose Life’ plates unconstitutional | MyFOX8.com
So.... if NC issued a “Slavery Sucks!” plate, the ACLU would sue if the state does not also offer a “Slavery Rocks!” plate?
My side says "Choose Life", though I am also personally pro choice regarding abortion.
Intellectual dishonesty is making words appear to mean something they do not. You, and many others, are reading a great deal into the words "Choose Life" instead of just accepting them at face value. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship (CPCF) is a statewide, 501(c)3 nonprofit, pro-life organization committed to equip, encourage, and network pregnancy care ministries in North Carolina. Included are pregnancy care centers, adoption agencies and maternity homes
"North Carolina citizens are simply asking for the opportunity to purchase a license plate with a pro-life message that will provide financial resources to mothers and fathers in the midst of a difficult situation.
Why would we need to "read" anything into those plates? All that we have to do is know who sponsored them and put them up to the NC Legislation and who benefits from those plates. (and by "benefits" I'm talking money) Want to know who that is? Choose Life Inc. Also known as Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship.
For each of those plates sold $15 goes to Carolina Pregnancy Care Fellowship (CPCF) and to top it off those funds are also expressly prohibited from going towards any agency that "provides, promotes, counsels, or refers to abortion". And if you want any more evidence that the CPCF is expressly a pro-life organization then you may read it from thier own website...
But we don't have to stop here to find the evidence...
As you can see we don't need to "read" anything into the meaning of those plates. All that we need to do is read the organization website that sponsored the plates legislation in NC.
So the only intellectual dishonesty going on here is by those "pretending" that those plates are not about the pro-life movement and are not meant to be anti-abortion plates.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.
BTW, I never said the words "What is this other group that is against "Choose Life"? They must be a very strange lot." that you have attributed to me on the quote in your post with my name.
This was a good call. No longer allowing a religious belief on a license plate.
Ridiculous.
Valuing human life is not a religious belief.
Who cares who sponsors them? Is it that big a deal.
Actually, I agree that it is a religious belief. There are many different ways of valuing life, and being against abortion is only one of them. There are many people who are against abortion but for the death penalty and that distinction is based on religious beliefs.
This seems like a no brainier. If a liberal state allowed Pro Choice license plates but denied anyone who wanted a Pro Life plate then every social conservative would be citing that their free speech rights were being violated. This issue had nothing to do with one side being represented and so the other had to be represented. This was a case of a state taking a side and refusing the other side the opportunity to have a voice.
I'd like to see some evidence of that.
And are you saying that secularists don't value human life?
Are you not on the side of Choose Life? How could somebody not be?
This message should be discussed in schools, hospitals and every public building in order that there be fewer suicides, murders, abortions, etc. The value of a human life should not be debased by any person or any group.
I understand that the pro choice people with strongly held views are in a cultural war but perhaps they should just sit back for a moment and reflect about what fighting against these two innocuous words means, as well as the consequences. We should all support the slogan, no matter how we may feel about abortion.
Demeaning the value of human life is not a winning argument, though perhaps the courts will support this idea. But it seems to me that no social good is achieved by telling a group of people that the slogan "Choose Life" should be illegal and not appear on public view. We can see this negative attitude spreading throughout the county, the sides being taken, and the disintegration that results of a culture continually fighting wars against itself and often, as in this case, for the most petty of reasons.
Actually, I agree that it is a religious belief. There are many different ways of valuing life, and being against abortion is only one of them. There are many people who are against abortion but for the death penalty and that distinction is based on religious beliefs.
The problem here wasn't with the words "choose life" it was that the state would not allow the words "pro choice" to also appear.