• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judge finds NC "Choose Life" plate unconstitutioonal

Aderleth said:
So your contention that the message intended could be totally unrelated to the abortion debate is bull****.
Click to expand...

So what if it is? Isn't choose life a positive message?



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.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with either "Respect Choice" or "Trust Women"? Why should anyone respect a choice, or necessarily trust men or women?
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
Aderleth said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Grant said:
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?
Click to expand...

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? NO ONE IS OFFENDED OR AFFECTED BY THE WORDS CHOOSE LIFE BY ITSELF! Did the bigger words help? I can make them bigger if you want.

Listen, re-read what I said previously. Try to look at it objectively instead of as if you or your belief system is being insulted. Because its not. 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. 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.

Now how much do people want to bet that someone will respond to this post cutting out everything but my first line and making an issue out of it instead of what this case is really about?
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...

Choose Life

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
Click to expand...

But we don't have to stop here to find the evidence...

More about Choose Life Plates

"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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who cares who sponsors them? Is it that big a deal.

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...
Click to expand...

Great! They are pro life. Who isn't?
But we don't have to stop here to find the evidence...
Click to expand...

As far as I'm concerned, we can, This "evidence" is of no interest to me. I am not fighting a war against any group of people, especially one who is pro life or says "Choose Life" I think these are both important messages despite my being pro choice. Presidents have supported abortion being available but one day might be unnecessary. Saying "Choose Life" might be a step in that direction, and a good one I would say.

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.
Click to expand...

Right. A group of people say "Choose Life". Where is your problem with that?

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.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with a pro life movement or saying Choose Life? Why make enemies out of those who support life? Aren't there larger battles to be fought??

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck.
Click to expand...

Bring that up when we're discussing ducks.

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.
Click to expand...

That is me who said that. My apologies for poor editing.
 
This was a good call. No longer allowing a religious belief on a license plate.
 
Muddy Creek said:
This was a good call. No longer allowing a religious belief on a license plate.
Click to expand...

Ridiculous.

Valuing human life is not a religious belief.
 
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.
 
JayDubya said:
Ridiculous.

Valuing human life is not a religious belief.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grant said:
Who cares who sponsors them? Is it that big a deal.
Click to expand...

Tell you what. When you start being honest in this thread then I will respond to your posts in this thread again. I will simply say that this case had nothing to do with the words "Choose Life" and refer you back to posts 332 and 335. I'm tired of repeating myself.
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some evidence of that.

And are you saying that secularists don't value human life?
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
nota bene said:
I'd like to see some evidence of that.

And are you saying that secularists don't value human life?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that the anti abortionist's view of "valuing human life" is motivated by their religious views which is pretty evident given that they often stop valuing human life when it comes to the death penalty and warring on other nations. The notion that just being against abortion is equatable to "valuing human life" is a religious notion because it values human life differently depending on the circumstances. I think the concept of valuing human life is inherently human but religious views influence how it is applied and that is most certainly the case with abortion politics. The rhetoric that anti abortionists play with pretending that they have a monopoly on valuing human life is deceptive at best and delusional at worst.
 
Grant said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

The pro abortion, pro life argument is that a young enough baby is not yet a person and therefore abortion is not causing any harm to anyone.

However murderers are adults responsible for their actions and therefore subject to the consequences.

I happen to be pro life, pro choice and pro the death penalty in some circumstances but am not a religious person. I don't think my situation is unique.
 
CriticalThought said:
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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because the words Pro Choice are meaningless unless it explains further what choices you are discussing.

Are the Pro Choice people in the cases of abortion not Pro Life as well? They need not be mutually exclusive terms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom