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

I have claimed NOTHING except that I want a choice.
Please stop pushing me into your predetermined labels.
Nor do I attack anyone. Have you heard how you are attacking me?

If there is choice, some can choose to keep any unexpected pregnancy and some will not. That is their business.
But no one should deny others to make a different decision and then dump THEIR moral position on them, looking down moral noses at them .
Choice is freedom. And what individuals choose is NO BUSINESS of anyone else.

You may be surprised . They may choose "life" too. But they must NOT be forced to make any decision.

 

Pointless position.
We are discussing what the laws should be.
The decisions people make ate not my responsibility. I respect their decisions and I expect others to respect mine.
Laws made for the greater good for the greatest number is not part of this conversation.
Please dont expand the position into some absurd suggestion about what I may be saying.

 

I don't know any poster who more often congratulates himself.
The abortion debate can be reduced to one question: does abortion involve one human life or two?

 

It involves two human lives...and it's the BORN person's life that counts....the other UNBORN has no rights...

 

...

You are purporting to mind read them... You declare what they like, that they blame, and seek to punish the mother, rather than seeking to protect the unborn as they say.

Even when that choice is to kill other people?

 

???

If we are discussing what laws should be, how does that not involve the greater good for for the greatest number?

 

It does.

 

You just wrote it's not part of the conversation...

 

Sigh.

 

You sigh yet you speak incoherently.

Was it meant as sarcasm? If so, why? Nobody said it isn't part of the conversation until you did.

 

Not what I said. Sounds like you are trying to evade the issue. Republican policies DO destroy innocent life, whether they seek it or not.

Now, can you answer the question? Are you against policies, like those mentioned on the OP, that destroy innocent life?

 

Well, this thread is about the Republican Party platform. If you don't know what that is, even MORE research on your part would be warranted before you could expect to make any meaningful contribution to the debate.

 

It should be. But "human life" is not the main concern of the Republican platform, as the OP demonstrates.

 

On the contrary, the deeply dishonest OP introduces extraneous issues in an attempt to construct a broad political smear.

 

That isn't an answer to the question you responded to above. I didn't say I am ignorant. You said it is MY party. You are so stuck in your tribalism that you are presuming everyone you speak to who isn't with your party must be with your rival party.

 

How unfortunate that you just "forgot" to rebut a single word in the OP. Oh well... maybe next topic.

Thanks for playing!

 

It is tedious to call out so many falsehoods. Here are a few.
The health of the mother is of course a difficult issue, but it's right in the center of the question whether abortion involves one life or two. Generally, it is considered ethically dubious to save one life by taking another.
Gun control is a separate issue, joined here only for propaganda purposes.
Likewise nutrition, an issue pasted onto abortion only for propaganda purposes.

 

How the f... hell is that supposed to be a response to the OP? Are you feeling ok?

Never mind. Obviously you just wrote whatever was in your mind even though it had NOTHING to do with this thread. But then you are just wasting our time.

 

Would be nice if people had these conversations without purporting to mind read, wouldn't it?

I am pro-choice because I don't see the unborn at the stage of development where abortion happens as being a person; as being the moral equal to you and I.

I do recognize that pro-life people do see it as such, as they say they do, and simply disagree on that point.

I hear them say a freshly fertilized human egg (conception) is a "human life", which ok, it is, but so what? So is a hair cell. It is a human cell that has potential to develop into one of us, but isn't one of us now. I see this as mistaking a seed for a tree.

I also recognize that there is religious underpinning to a lot, but NOT all pro-life folks on this, and also that some of that DOES include traditional mores about the "purity" and of women etc. I know because a few of them say exactly that.

There are also some pro-life people who do wish to punish women for having sex etc. Again, I know because they say so. But that is NOT the whole of this issue and it is NOT fair to dismiss all pro-life folks on that basis alone.

And as for the Republican platform, again, it is what it is because it is designed to attract voters. Simple as that. Political platforms need not be consistent or even rational. That isn't how they are designed. You can see inconsistencies in Democrat platforms as well.

 

Yes but, the topic of this thread is what does it mean to be "pro-life"? Does it just mean "anti-abortion"?

I admire people who actually believe that all life (by which we understand all innocent life) is precious and should be protected. But who among Republicans actually believes that? Because, in many cases (and some in this thread have even come out clean and SAID it) they don't believe the same about the life of children who are immigrants and are likely to be killed if sent back to their country. Or the life of poor children who have a pre-existing medical conditions and if Obamacare is repealed, would likely die (like so many did before the ACA) because their parents can't afford treatment. Or other children who die in school shootings, which might not be totally avoidable, but CAN be made a bit more difficult.

THAT is the question in this thread. Anybody who says they are pro-life and is concerned about ALL of the above, has my deepest respect. But if they are not, then what does the term "pro-life" MEAN to them? And can they be more specific about what lives they are not so "pro" about?

I asked it about the Republican Party platform, but since many have distanced themselves from their party... then alternatively maybe they can explain their own positions.

 

You're the one who included unrelated issues in the OP. Don't complain when that propaganda sleight-of-hand is called out.

 

That is the challenge posed by the OP. Show WHY they are unrelated to protecting innocent life, which is how most in the "pro-life" movement describe their tagline (others have already admitted that they are not concerned about protecting other innocent lives).

If you can do that, then you are welcome to try. If you can't, then.... what are you doing in this thread? A response of the type "no they aren't" like yours is indicative that you wrote just to see your name in the thread despite the fact that you had nothing to contribute.

 

Neither extraneous issue (gun control and nutrition) poses the straightforward choice (one life or two) set by abortion. And neither has a single solution. There are, for example, ample research findings that conclude the availability of more guns reduces violent crime. (I take no position here on the merits of that claim.) That being the case, the debate would rapidly deviate from your innocent lives theme to dueling research citations -- not what you had in mind, I suspect. Ditto nutrition: there is ample research to suggest that increased income is the key to better nutrition, and prescriptions for increased income rapidly deviate to which economic model one prefers. The OP, in sum, is an incoherent mishmash.

 

No. It poses an even MORE straightforward choice: one life or none.

Absurd argument.

For that reason the OP only talks about LIMITED measures, like increasing the age to acquire a gun to 21. Or ANY that NO research concludes will save lives. Like limiting loopholes. ANY whatsoever. The Republican Party has made ZERO efforts to find any that would save lives.

You have yet to address ANYTHING I said on the OP. Did you even read it?

I see... so if they have no bread, then let them eat cake! I wonder if anybody in history has ever thought of such a "brilliant" solution to end world hunger.

As I suspected, you have NO arguments to address the OP. Now I'm sitting here wondering why I even thought it possible that you would have something to contribute.

 

I don't think you realize that you just demonstrated that you don't understand the first question, and that you yourself just showed the second and third to be irrelevant. My work here is done.