Anti-choice v. arti-chokes
It finally dawned on me, as an editor, that the "lifers" have never put forward a hyper-inflationary equivalent to the innocuous "antichoice." El Christo, could you bore me more quickly with a prefix-suffix arrangement like that? Dr. Mesmer, please help. Does "anti-choice" mean "I would prefer not to have to make a choice," or does it mean "I'm against any choice upon which you might decide for me"?
My thinking for clarifying the situation is this. Instead of leaving the subject in the hands of the paper-pushers at the greeting desk of Mass. Med. Made Messy, let's bring it back to basic humanity, which it is assumed, medicine was initially and is now meant to serve.
When push comes to shove, it matters less that the unborn should stay unborn, for whatever reason. It's a depressing reality that only Republicans find their lives charmed before they have actually lived them. It's not really as if they missed something. It's the simple projection of their own importance that makes Republicans worship their own fetusness (fetishism?). But I would raise holy hell about those espousing "arti-chokes," or euthanasia, which robs life, based on administrative decisions, unless by careful consent of those whose heart is finally dipped in butter.
Nov 14 2010 - 3:59pm