Let's put this myth to rest once and for all: The Republican Party is NOT the "pro-life" party.

Even those who believe human life is sacred believe taking life can be justified in some cases.

 

We have AMERICANS not working and we have all immigrant we need of immigrants who cannot speak English or have anything other than minimal skills. There is a LEGAL way for those workers to enter under the authority of the United States.

I said nothing of the sort in fact it is I who say people who enter here LEGALLY should live as not as citizens as they are currently required to do for 5 years before they can apply. I have no problem with people living on a green card here as long as they entered and obtained it LEGALLY under the authority of the United States.

It's the ILLEGALS, what don't you get here?

Immigration has been debated since our inception with times where it was more open and times where it was more closed based on what we as a society determined was in the best interest of our country.

Please explain why what is going on at out southern border is in any way possible in the best interest of our country.

Well it may be for you but do not take it upon yourself to project that on me, deal with your own.

Do to a failing of our school system I would agree, why is that in the benefit of our country. How about the valued in them showing they DESERVE to be granted citizenship by learning as much as they can. And stop with the "superior" nonsense with me, I don't agree with you. It is about our HISTORY and FOUNDING and those PRINCIPLES of the country in which they are requesting citizens and all the rights and privilege's which come with it. As for the language it is a requirement to gain citizenship and we should do as much as we can to get rid of second languages. Language is what binds a people, having separate separates us.

I agree for our American children over whom we have some responsibility. We are NOT obligated to take every child anyone from anywhere in the world sends here. When I mention adoption in discussions about abortion I am quickly shouted down with the "We have THOUSANDS of kids in Foster care what are we supposed to do with these babies who are not aborted". Well shouldn't we take care of them first before all the children of the world being dumped on our borders? It's not an investment it is an expense. Who do you think pays for it all? Where do you think the money comes from?

A certified heavy equipment operator and when have plenty of Americans who could work those jobs.

Where do you get this idea we have had a draught of immigrants seeking LEGAL entry? That we have to go seeking immigrants to come here. And mean the educated ones that can make those $200,000 salaries not the ones with little education and will end up cleaning motel rooms at minimal pay and seeking healthcare and food stamps and housing assistance?

I think if I were changing the system, I would make it easier and quicker to make worker legal. I don't see any need to change the requirements to become citizens. My goal is safe, legal, tax paying workers that get the production we need done. If we have to bring along 200k children, I'm willing to take on that investment as well for the future 200k tax paying workers that also brings. I'm agnostic to what type of jobs they can fill as our needs are diverse and I'm agnostic to whether or not a legal workers care much about our history. A potential citizen, I care more so perhaps, but I see a distinction between the two, a citizen versus someone who just wants a job here. Hence why one should get easier, the other, probably not.[/QUOTE]

You want to and think we can support adding over 200,000 parentless children into this country a year forever? What do we do with them?

 

That last little snarky bit was uncalled for, and makes you sound like a pompous jerk. Also just as rude is cherry-picking someone's comment and taking your favorite tidbits out of context in order to justify your attack. I'm not the only user you do this to.

A fetus is not a person and has no rights. It has no thoughts, feels no emotions, and contrary to popular right wing rhetoric, it feels no more pain upon being aborted that would a slug or an earthworm.

A woman, on the other hand, is a full citizen with a mind and a life, and you so easily dismiss her as being " a dead body in the past."

Good to know whose life is sacred, thanks.

 

Why is the Democratic Party not the pro-choice party? Or was this just meant to be some Solomonic "politics are dirty" simplistic post? The Democratic Party is pro-choice because the party platform includes protecting a women's right to choose and opposes her being forced to have a baby against her will.

Pro-choice CAN refer to abortion only. Pro-life CANNOT. You can be in favor of some choices and against others. In fact, ALL people should have a right to choose on ANY issue that doesn't infringe on somebody else's right to choose.

It's inconsistent (therefore hypocritical) to be in favor of protecting some innocent lives, and not others.

Unless somebody cares to explain which innocent lives they are against protecting.

 

Yep, sorry.

 

Choice could be choice to do drugs. Choice could be to go on a vacation. Choice could be to change jobs. Choice could be to buy a house. There are all sorts of choices in life. Let's cut to the chase and make it clear and concise, there is Pro-abortion and Anti-abortion.

Well make the discussion a lot clearer.

 

And that allows you to mistreat him?

Murderers usually deny their victims the right to life. You deny fetuses the right to a future life. I find both reprehensible.

I wanted to clarify that abortionists ignore the "before" and "after".
Such attitude allows you to kill people because they'll die anyway.

It's not about harming women. Pro-lifers are't woman haters. We only want woman to give birth if they are pregnant. They don't have to worry about the child afterwards.

 

No! We're talking about abortion. That strawman has been tried an failed. When you say "pro-choice", we know it's about abortion. When you say "pro-life", if you DON'T mean EVERY innocent life, then it means absolutely nothing.

And actually, the fact that the only thing right-wingers can come up with to try to rebut my point is this lame strawman, is what proves I'm right!

 

That is absurd. Labels are frequently applied to only one issue. Like most humans, we are only capable of defending few issues at a time. Because we cannot defend all actions does not mean we are not sincere about that specific issue.

To defend all innocent life would be a physical impossibility.

 

Pro-choice no, sorry yes.

 

Where to begin?

Individual mandates? Vaccine mandates?

A general disregard for the right to self-proprietorship and a record of trampling it underfoot.

Democrats are exceedingly fond of their mandates, because power and control are the only things they truly care about. That's why the Democratic Party is the party of Big Government - without the coercive power of the State, Democrats are nothing.

Yet, when the time came to actually protect a woman's right to self-proprietorship instead of using it as a political football for its own selfish purposes, the Democratic Party decided it had more important things to do, like passing legislation that would trample on everyone's right to self-proprietorship by forcing them to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. In case you need it spelled out for you, that's anti-choice.

Of course it can, and "pro-life" is generally used in reference to abortion only.

And isn't that the beauty of euphemisms? They can mean whatever you want them to mean. When spouted out of one side of the mouth they mean one thing, when spouted out the other side of the mouth they mean another....

Yes, and political parties can be and have been inconsistent and hypocritical when it comes securing and/or respecting the right to self-proprietorship. In America, both the Democratic and Republican parties have been inconsistent and hypocritical in this regard, and both have been engaged in a race to the bottom where everyone loses in the end.

Just as it is inconsistent (therefore hypocritical) to defend the right to self-proprietorship in some cases but not others.

[quote[Unless somebody cares to explain which innocent lives they are against protecting.[/QUOTE]

And "explanations" magically make inconsistency and hypocrisy go away?

That's a rhetorical question, of course.

 

I am truly astounded at this ignorant assumption that a woman can carry a child for months give birth and then forget about it??
This really is right up there with a full ignorance of what pregnancy, birth and the changes in a female human being entails.

Do you EVER talk to women about anything other than what she made for dinner?

 

Exactly!

See? Yet another Republican who admits it's just a "label". Not that "pro-life" actually means they believe innocent life should be protected.

Couldn't have made my point better myself.

 

How can a pro-life bunch of people also promote open ownership of the means by which tens of thousands of people are killed unnecessarily every year?

 

How can you mistreat an embryo or fetus? That makes no sense.

I get that you think a fetus is a human being at conception, so we'll never agree, but what makes you think that giving birth and immediately giving that baby away is so effing easy? Have you tried it? Do you know any women who have? Do you know anyone who was given up at birth? You say you don't hate women, so why is it okay to punish them for doing what comes naturally, something for which only women are punished? If the man urges a woman to abort, why is she a murderer and not him? (That bit about it being murder was uncalled-for, extreme hyperbole.)

Why is it okay to strip women of their right to personal privacy and autonomy in accordance with the 4th Amendment? How did it ever become the government's business in the first place? Have you even thought about that?

As I said, we'll never agree on this issue, but calling

 

Is that why? ALL people have a right to choose so long as their choices don't infringe on the right to choose of others.

Having said that "pro-choice" refers ONLY to the abortion issue. Clearly it doesn't refer to "choosing" to leave your kid in a hot car for hours during a summer day.

So, looks like you didn't actually have an argument against Democrats being pro-choice in the abortions issue.

There are MANY things in which I am anti-choice. But only because it infringes on the rights of others.

Exactly my point!!! So I can say "not all choices should be protected". Choices that affect other people's right to choose, should NOT be protected. On the same token the anti-abortionist believes that "not all innocent life should be protected". And they have yet to state which innocent lives should NOT be protected.

You see? You stated a false equivalence. And to just... state it... it's easy. But when you are asked to show supporting arguments... that's when it gets harder for you.

Everybody's right to self-proprietorship ends where the right to self-proprietership of others begin.

The question is, where does the protection of the life of an innocent person end?

Can you answer that? Nobody in this thread has....

 

No you want to say it is about all choice as you want to say life is about all life. So which way do you want to discuss it? Pro-choice to have an abortion and Pro-life for the unborn baby? We could make anacronyms pro-cthaa and pro-lftub? Why not pro-abortion and anti-abortion since abortion is what this is about?

Your choice, you know pro-choice, which do you prefer if you want to change it?

 

Specious strawman.

An unborn baby is an individual human being, that is the definition of a person. You are created with your self evident inherent right to life.

When an abortion occurs a human being is killed and their right to life is denied them. Thus the reason the pro-abortion side can't even use the term to describe their position on supporting it and instead hide behind the "choice" strawman.

 

No! I'm saying it's NOT about all life. It's not, for example, about the life of poor children who are born with a pre-existing condition into families that can't afford treatment. Republicans couldn't care less about protecting that life. That's my point! Did you not read the OP?

 

Abortion is the intentional killing of a baby in the womb. It always results in death, it has no other purpose. Guns are intended to protect innocent people from evil or profoundly dysfunctional. They are far more often used to protect people than to harm them.

 

Are you having trouble with the English language. Where did I say its "just a label?

You, I believe, endorse "Black Lives Matter". Do you interpret that as meaning "only black lives matter"?

 

The part you conveniently edited out of my quote is why:

A general disregard for the right to self-proprietorship and a record of trampling it underfoot.

Words, but that's not what Democrats think. What Democrats think is that ALL people are obligated to do what they tell them to do or they will be punished.

Again, that's anti-choice.

Pro-choice is not limited to the abortion issue.

Clearly, we weren't talking about things that Democrats have nothing to do with. That would be a straw man or red herring.

Most Democrats are pro-abortion. That doesn't make them or the Democratic Party pro-choice.

You're anti-choice when you refuse to respect people's right to self-proprietorship. No word game can change that.

Your point was "Pro-choice CAN refer to abortion only. Pro-life CANNOT" and my point was that you were incorrect.

It's a free country - you can say anything your little heart desires, but that doesn't make you consistent in your respect for the right to self-proprietorship, and when you're not consistent in your respect for the right to self-proprietorship you're not pro-choice.

In the case of most Democrats, they're just pro-abortion. That's not enough to make them pro-choice, but it is enough to make them hypocrites.

They don't have to state anything. They have to be pro-life in all cases, i.e., anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-war, anti-assisted suicide. Some might even argue that you have to be a vegetarian.

I see that I haven't stated a false equivalence, and it hasn't been difficult in the least to substantiate my argument.

Interestingly enough, some of the people who say that think by saying it that gives them some imaginary right or authority to violate other people's right to self-proprietorship. The problem there is that they don't know what self-proprietorship is or they are deliberately confusing it with other things in order to violate other people's right to self-proprietorship.

That wouldn't surprise me given that the terms "life" and "innocent" can mean different things, and people can twist the various meanings of those terms and the context they are contained in into anything they want either one or both to mean.

That brings to mind something George Orwell once said, and it ran something along the lines of "sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking". Thus it goes to figure that people aren't going to be inclined to entertain fallacious questions.

 

Hah! You said it was a "label". And now that you realize that what you said actually makes the case for Republicans WORSE, you complain about an irrelevant modifier?

That's just hilarious!

But no! Fact is what you said before is TRUE! It's a label that applies ONLY to abortion, but not to the protection of any other innocent life. So don't try to repress it out of your consciousness. It's true! And it's what you are willing to accept if you are a strict Republican follower.

 

What desperate nonsense! Can you imagine telling somebody that you are pro-choice and them thinking "Oh... this guy is against mandatory draft".

No! They'll immediately think "abortion"!

My friend, you have run out of arguments.... and it shows.

EVERYBODY agrees that "innocent life" means somebody who did nothing that would warrant them losing their life (like killing or trying to kill somebody else, or being reckless, ... anything like that). There can be other meanings, but that very fundamental meaning in which we can all agree is the only one we need for what pertains to this discussion.

Anything else is a red herring.

Yep! And you just did that to get yourself out of a predicament.

You made a false equivalence. Whether you choose to interpret "choice" to mean all choices that don't infringe on other people's choices and "life" to mean all innocent lives... or both to just refer to abortion only; you have a position that is consistent, and one that is not.

You can use either interpretation... they BOTH make my case.

For that reason, your original attempt to make a false comparison fails at EVERY level.

 

But not that it was only a label. You made up that part.