How Pro-Choice are Democrats?

[Incorruptible]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

How about we start giving them control over their bodies when they start being responsible for their bodies instead of expecting men to pay for their health care, birth control, and reproductive choices?



53% of mothers cannot afford to feed their infants...

Well said they want control over their own bodies but want someone else to pay for the baby, Democrats address this issue

[zinfamous]

Originally Posted by Atreus21

What mandate did the 2004 election illustrate?

not much, really. The point is that this was a historic win for an incumbent trying to win re-election with economy and employment outlook that no president in history has ever been able to overcome. That, alone, is a resounding rejection of what the opposition had to offer.

In 2010, the pubs became so angry at...what, no one really knows...that they rode a wave of fear and obfuscation to overtake the House. within one year, the approval of the "obstruct all costs" coalition of meatheads reached historic lows, and has maintained that level since then.

If anything, this is a clear message that we tried you guys, and we don't like what you have become. Shape up and clear the chaff out of your party if you want to relevant again.

Of course, i don't expect this message to sink in. Repubs are all "It's because Obama lied! that's why he won (yes, so rich, in light of the what the Pubs put out there. LMFAO). All I have heard from party analysts and advisors is that they simply need to "refine their message, because we think the American people don't get what we are saying..."

Oh really? You think? Is it maybe that we understand loud and clear what you are saying, and it's fucking disgusting?

I heard one douchenozzle this morning claiming that it was merely the words of 2 outcasts and their rapey comments that doomed them. "Outliers" he called them. ...Never-mind that the party adopted the opinions of these disgusting maggots as their official platform.

Yes--The American people see through the smokescreen and there is nothing but hate and delusion at the center of the republican base. Clean it out, and try again.

[Borkil]

Meriam Webster

favoring the legalization of abortion

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prochoice

Dictionary.com

pro-choice
   [proh-chois] Show IPA
adjective
supporting or advocating legalized abortion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prochoice?s=t

Cambridge Dictionary

supporting the belief that a pregnant woman should have the freedom to choose an abortion (= the intentional ending of pregnancy) if she does not want to have a baby

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...e?q=pro-choice

/Thread

Almost missed your thread, Incorruptible. You used a instead of the

[momeNt]

Originally Posted by Incorruptible

Well said they want control over their own bodies but want someone else to pay for the baby, Democrats address this issue

There are inequities all over the place, it's the very nature of taxation and redistribution. What is disturbing is his incessant need to focus solely on women.

[Incorruptible]

Originally Posted by Borkil

Meriam Webster

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prochoice

Dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prochoice?s=t

Cambridge Dictionary

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...e?q=pro-choice

/Thread

Almost missed your thread, Incorruptible. You used a instead of the

I already said that pro-choice is used to refer to abortion BUT I am pointing out the hypocrisy

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by zinfamous

not much, really. The point is that this was a historic win for an incumbent trying to win re-election with economy and employment outlook that no president in history has ever been able to overcome. That, alone, is a resounding rejection of what the opposition had to offer.

In 2010, the pubs became so angry at...what, no one really knows...that they rode a wave of fear and obfuscation to overtake the House. within one year, the approval of the "obstruct all costs" coalition of meatheads reached historic lows, and has maintained that level since then.

So the Republicans lost because of their "obstruct at all costs" agenda. This has what to do with social issues?

[Thump553]

OP is apparently in some sort of competition with A420.

[zinfamous]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

So the Republicans lost because of their "obstruct at all costs" agenda. This has what to do with social issues?

I bolded the answer you conveniently provided to your own question.

You're welcome.

[Acanthus]

Originally Posted by SheHateMe

a fetus is not a baby.
a fetus is not a baby.
a fetus is not a baby.
a fetus is not a baby.
a fetus is not a baby.
a fetus is not a baby.
a fetus is not a baby.
a fetus is not a baby.

your sarcasm meter must be in another dimension.

[nehalem256]

Originally Posted by SheHateMe

a fetus is not a baby.
a fetus is not a baby.
a fetus is not a baby.
a fetus is not a baby.
a fetus is not a baby.
a fetus is not a baby.
a fetus is not a baby.
a fetus is not a baby.

You mean unless the woman wants it. That magically turns it into a baby

[SheHateMe]

Originally Posted by Incorruptible

I already said that pro-choice is used to refer to abortion BUT I am pointing out the hypocrisy

No, you are drawing parallels between a political term and "choice" when not used in a political context.

[zinfamous]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

You mean unless the woman wants it. That magically turns it into a baby

were you touched?

the baby is a baby when it is born.

that is all.

[3chordcharlie]

I can't see any legitimate reason that prostitution is illegal.

I also can't see a legitimate reason pot is illegal.

FTR I have no use whatsoever for either.

[shira]

The OP is shifting what he means by "pro-choice" in mid sentence. He means "personal choice" when referring to abortions and he means "business choice" when referring to selling unhealthy products.

Liberals aren't advocating that it be made a crime for individuals to eat trans fats, drink alcohol, or smoke. They're advocating that selling unhealthy products be regulated.

But leave it to the brain-dead OP to see these two uses of "choice" as being the same.

[sigurros81]

Originally Posted by Incorruptible

Reason TV went to the DNC and asked people there views on different choice issues
Democrats claim to be pro-choice but there only pro-choice when it comes to abortion. On other choices they aren't pro-choice at all such as eating fast food, the choice to be in a union, school choice. They believe on many issues people shouldn't be able to make their own choice

Many of the people at the DNC said government has a right to ban trans fats/fast food and other things

You could really summarize the American political system this way. "I want a small government when it concerns me, but a big government for everyone else."

So why do Democrats claim to be pro-choice when they really aren't pro choice at all? And why do they think its alright to not allow people to make their own decisions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwejQBIyjow

You can argue the same thing about republicans. They want smaller fed government yet they want to tell you that you can't marry the same sex or you can't have an abortion.

With that said, I don't fully agree with how they are clamping down on how Americans eat. I understand their reasoning, because a big chunk of our health care goes to taking care of fat, unhealthy slobs with heart problems, and it's their way of tackling the issue. And yes, the further you go left or right, the more hypocritical you become. That's why most people say I'm a moderate.

[Jhhnn]

Heh. Righties would define day as night, if they thought it would help them prove some imaginary "point".

This is no different. Google "Pro-choice definition" to find out what the term means, & then get back to me....

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally Posted by momeNt

Ridiculous on every level.

Life beginning at conception does not preclude the concept of libertarian evictionism. Looking at abortion rights any other way though is immoral as I have said before though.

Your soda argument is simply using government to create an immoral externality. What about those that aren't harmed by the excess sugar but then must still be forced to live with drinks that contain less sugar? Letting people do what they want and not harming the life or liberty or others is the only moral option.

You have a lot of moral based reasoning for the rules you wish to impose. Your fatal flaw is that you want state level compulsion to seek out those moral ends. You can't seek out moral ends through immoral means. Try thinking of ways to reach those ends without hampering the liberty of those you would like to pencil a border around and impose your jurisdiction. Then you can have a moral society that doesn't contradict itself.

Should we grant what you say is true, then it would be wholly dependent on the notion of pure free will.

But there is no such thing.

So, we are left with a utopic dream of free willed free citizens armed with all the possible information to always make a reasoned choice AND live with the consequences of those choices.

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally Posted by nehalem256

You mean unless the woman wants it. That magically turns it into a baby

Remember everyone, in nehalem's world women get pregnant and have babies with no intervention whatsoever by men.

[Charles Kozierok]

Originally Posted by MooseNSquirrel

Remember everyone, in nehalem's world women get pregnant and have babies with no intervention whatsoever by men.

I wish everyone would just stop replying to this lunatic, misogynistic, thread-jacking, Johnny-one-note nut job. But they never do.

[buckshot24]

Originally Posted by SheHateMe

Also, isn't prostitution ONLY legal in the Las Vegas area?


*edit Brothels are only legal in Nevada, you cannot go out onto the streets and sale your vagina. So, incorruptible is stupid...again.

I don't think there are any brothels in the Las Vegas area. Not that I looked.