In response to:

Andrea Mitchell Corrects Guest Who Called Herself "Pro-Life": "Anti-Abortion Is More Value-Neutral"

danr27 Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 6:57 AM
The late Joe Sobran wrote that the accurate terms in the debate are anti-abortion and pro-abortion. Goodness knows what Andrea Mitchell thinks is the opposing position to anti-abortion, but something tells me it's not "pro-abortion."
NullifyNow Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 7:52 AM
Politics is the perfect place for the rhetoric of terms like pro-life. Yes, anti-abortion is the correct scientific term. But we were, in the beginning of this struggle, not debating science, we were debating instinct and the heart

Now that science has confirmed instinct and the heart and proves that conservatives were correct about abortion killing human life, it doesn't really matter at this point that the rhetorical flourish became the lingua franca for the movement against abortion ( which if we really want to be accurate) in most cases was murder

If the filth, Mitchell, wishes to be value neutral, she would never call rape rape; she would call it copulation. That would remove any moral distinctions that upset the leftist filth

My (rhetorical) question is this: Why would a pro-abortion--or, "pro-choice" if you're looking for something more value neutral--advocate like Andrea Mitchell want the issue of life and death to be "value-neutral"?

Here's a little nugget I came across today from Pastor John MacArthur: "They keep saying, 'A school is supposed to be a safe place!' Yeah well so is a womb."