(02-20-2020 03:37 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-20-2020 11:38 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  The thing the Left hates the most is that the choice belongs to the individual and they just can't have that, can they? Dems are against choice in any form, and it shows.

LOL, did you forget about abortion so quickly? Dems are kind of pro-choice on that one at least.

I believe in everyone being treated equally, and that goes for choice as well: everyone should get the same opportunity at a choice for thier lives, especially in important matters like life itself. How I and many folks perceive the "pro-choice clan" mentality is best worded honestly, which is "pro-anti-responsibility" coupled with "pro-do-over" and/or "pro-mulligan." Now, if you've ever played blackjack, how many times does the casino give you back the money you lost just because you said you didn't like the outcome when you busted or the house beat you? You made your bet, you made and received your choice. Just because there were negative consequences to your choice, the one you already had a chance to make, does NOT give you the right to overrule another person's choice that is directly affected by yours. Governments and courts have to discern between two opposing parties' choices all the time. In equity, each person should be treated equally, and if one person gets their "choice" to act in a matter that it brings into effect a consequence resultant from that first choice that directly affects the other party, then the other party shall have the right of refusal to fist make their choice in the matter next, before and superseding any subsequent choice opportunity of the first party. It is intuitively obvious (and intuitively human) that choice to live would be the default position of any affected party, so it would be the rebuttable presumption with prejudice in these cases. As I am unaware of anyone who would willfully choose to die having never been given the chance to live, I would need incontrovertible proof of that willingness to even consider overturning that presumption. the only acceptable overwhelming proof that would meet the standard of willingness to die in place of another would be for the first chooser to follow that course of action themselves first prior to requesting the second party to undergo the same, and for the first chooser, who has already exercised their choice once, to do so without willfully themselves bringing harm to the second party or causing or seeking to cause any other person from bringing harm to that second party, especially if and in the cases where a third party would be making any remuneration and/or profit off the second party's untimely demise.

I have yet to see any "pro-choicer" meeting that reasonable standard, but perhaps you are the first. If so, please direct me to the date and local paper of choice so I may refer to the obituary section as proof of your sincerity in your position. Failing that, I'm afraid you have no reasonable argument, however, I will allow the other side to rebut your misguided attempt anyway, to wit:



You may want to contact the folks in the video and make them aware of your passion and righteousness for your position by also notifying them of date and local paper of record for proof of your sincerity--I'm sure they'd appreciate your forthrightness.