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

To a desperate Democrat, perhaps.

Actually, I have discussed this with others here on this forum and they've had no problem comprehending what I'm saying.

its the people who aren't consistent about these things who don't get it....

Well, you don't speak for anyone but yourself, so there's no use projecting your own assumptions on to others.

I'm just having a discussion....

No, everybody does not agree with your definition.

However, we don't all agree on your definition and that it is the only one that pertains to this discussion.

Yet you just conceded that there are multiple definitions of the term, and the fact remains that the term is generally used to refer to the unborn.

I'm not in a predicament and I did that to point out how people manipulate language.

I didn't make a false equivalence - you just tried to push your narrow definition of choice on others and disconnect it from the right to self-proprietorship.

All you've established is that sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking, and your sloppy language and sloppy thinking doesn't give you the "right" or authority to trample on other people's right to self-proprietorship.

Too bad for you.

 

Nonsense! The political label "Pro-choice" means only ONE thing in this country. Anybody who tells you otherwise is lying.

The fact that you would double down on something this absurd makes my case.

 

Again, you would be wrong.

For many of us in this country, the term pro-choice means exactly what it means - pro-choice, which means respecting people's right to self-proprietorship. It is not just a cowardly euphemism that many in the pro-abortion crowd use to make themselves feel better because they can't make a moral and intellectual argument supporting their position.

Another reason many of use refuse to subscribe to that term because it enables the Democratic party and individuals who are not consistent in respecting the right to self-proprietorship to pretend they are pro-choice when they are hypocrites who selectively support that right when they're not busy violating it.

And let's get one more thing clear, shall we?

The people who exercise their right to self-proprietorship and refuse to take the Covid 19 vaccine that anti-choice Democrats unsuccessfully attempted to force them to take are neither threatening anyone's life, "innocent" or otherwise, nor depriving anyone of their right to self-proprietorship, i.e., getting the shot or not.

 

I don't even have to argue this. ANYBODY who reads this would interpret "pro-choice" as related to abortion.

There is no "self-propriatership" when you choice involves putting the life of others at risk. However, I have no idea what your fixation is about the Covid 19 vaccine. Even thought it's off-topic, there isn't and there has NEVER been a vaccine mandate. So you are arguing against yourself. And I'm just sitting here watching you debate yourself.... and losing!

 

Sorry but dems do want women to be able to choose to have an abortion if they want to.

 

And death by a gun for whatever reason is a death.
When you start trying to decide who should live or die and why, you are playing god.

 

Did it occur to you that "pro choice" includes NOT aborting the fetus?
ISTM the assumption is that "pro choice" means abortion is a mistaken one.
IOW those who are "pro life" have no choice to offer. It is an absolute defined by THEIR beliefs...fundamentally authoritarian.
Pro-choice allows exactly that. Choice .

As for your assertion that not receiving the covid vaccine does no harm to others I'll go along with that
As long as you stay in your own home and don't see anyone for the infectious period.
People DIED through encountering infectious other people. People can be subject to any number of lung or heart conditions that are targeted by covid.
Frankly those who refuse the vaccine through some principle of choice are endangering others.
And how hypocritical when they INSIST on not giving a woman a choice but rebel when they want exactly that in another issue.
" don't tell me to receive a vaccine that protects other people but I do think my opinions about abortion should force you to have that procedure".
How do you defemd that glaring hypicrisy?
It is most selfish to impose a life changing decision on someone you have never met across tens of thousands of women, especially when the other half of the fetus isn't held as responsible.
And some of them think being pregnant and giving birth is easy to forget.
Extraordinary.

 

May I suggest that sloppy thinking by "pro life" is a fully authoritarian position .
Pro CHOICE is exactly that. There are two options.

 

Thank you Captain Obvious, but everyone is aware that exercising one's right to self-proprietorship includes the option of having a baby, and we all know that the anti-abortion crowd seeks to deprive women of that right, so spare us the "did it ever occur to you" routine.

In case you're unaware or have forgotten, I'm pro-abortion, and let's not hide behind euphemisms like a bunch of cowardly gimps who can't make a moral and intellectual case for a woman's right to self-proprietorship. To be "pro-choice" is to be pro-abortion.

Quite frankly they're not.

Either the vaccine works or it doesn't. If the vaccine works, the unvaccinated pose no threat to the vaccinated. If it doesn't, there's no point or use in violating a person's right to self-proprietorship and forcing them to take a vaccine they choose not to take.

Clearly, it's not me who has to defend hypocrisy here.

Unlike the authoritarians and cattle who pass themselves off as men and women, I don't labor under the delusion that I have a "right" to deprive anyone of their right to self-proprietorship. When I say "my body, my choice" I mean it all the time, not sometimes when I selectively decide that I have a non-existent "right" to deprive other people of the right to make decisions that I have no right to make for them. Their body, their choice. Period.

 

I would agree that "pro-Life" is as sloppy a euphemism as "pro-Choice". Many on both sides are not what they claim to be. I have also repeatedly pointed out that it is the definition of authoritarianism to deprive individuals of the right to self-proprietorship.

That being said, there are people on both sides who don't hide behind sloppy euphemisms and can make a moral and intellectual argument in support of their position. We may never agree on this issue and we may never be able to compromise our principles, but I can accept the former and respect the latter.

 

Sorry, but Dems only want to allow people to choose when Dems decide to allow people to choose.

People who are actually pro-choice and pro-liberty don't presume to tell people when and what they can choose. They leave that up to individuals to decide for themselves.

 

Makes sense, of course. Abortion is mostly mistreating of fetuses.
There may be valid reasons for having an abortion, but not the simple will of not wanting to have this child.

 

And it is fatuous to compare abortion to the delivery of the vaccine.
They are not comparable.
One involves the immediate health of a tiny number of people and affects no one else.
The other is about saving the lives of tens of thousands of people.
I thought you wanted to SAVE lives. So why would you be against encouraging everyone to be vaccinated? I should think pro-life includes any measure to do precisely that.

 

It is not in the moral gift of anyone to decide what is a valid reason or not.
And certainly for thousands of women you have never met.
Suppose your verdict was applied to a child you helped to conceive and you were forced to bring up that child, feed it, clothe is, educate it for 18 of your next years...and you had just got your dream job and already have a family.
Is your moral compass now so fixed?

 

Is that the way you justify causing extreme pain to an unborn baby?

 

OK then what life are you saying it is about?
How about "pro-choice" what choice is that about?

 

Why do you want to limit this right to choose to just abortion?
Are you pro-choice when it comes to voting and support people being able to choose who they vote for?

 

Including the

Or for smoking, or wearing wearing helmets to ride a motorcycle, or to wear seat belts, for to be vaccinated, or drink alcohol. The majority of what government does is to limit our ability to choose...just about anything. The one choice that should not be limited, apparently, the the right of a woman to kill her baby?

 

It feels nothing, thinks nothing, has no awareness at all, so how does abortion amount to mistreatment? Better to mistreat women, right? Force them to give birth regardless of circumstances, even at great risk to their own lives. There's your mistreatment.

 

Actually it's in constant pain, if you believe it can feel anything.

Ur probably right. But if it could register anything to entertaint the thought, it would register suffocation, containment, ear ringing, nervs being formed, etc which is very very painful.
Imagine the feeling when ur foot falls asleep, except everywhere, all the time.

 

There are sonograms of the babies smiling.

 

Look in the mirror when you poop, ur smiling then as well.
It's a wince, or contraction.

Comical thing though, iv seen babies come out angry Had a look like, "No one asked me if I wanted to be here" didn't even cry when butt slapped just glared.

 

Immediately after a baby is born, it feels pain. Do you really think that only magically happens the instant after it is born?

 

Well yea, because they come out still born as well. As if a soul never found that vessel.

You should hope they don't "feel" cause being In there is torture. Formation isn't a good feeling at all.