How Pro-Choice are Democrats?

[Hayabusa Rider]

God Damn It, Pro Choice is what I say it is.

So true

Sticking to "choice" limits the argument regarding freedom of choices, thereby avoiding inconvenient truths.

 

[feralkid]

Yes. Only in the Las vegas area. I think it is a small mile radius from teh city too. Tops.

Nope.

Prostitution is illegal in Las Vegas.

You have to go to the next county.

 

[nehalem256]

LMAO Wow Dude...

Yes, being pimped out by a man that abuses you, takes most of your earnings, etc...is definitely a choice for most prostitutes. Not to mention the prostitutes that end up on the street in various countries due to sex trafficking. Not to mention the underage girls that end up prostituting because they are runaways and some grown as man manipulated them into thinking he can take the best care for them..etc.

Prostitution is definitely Pro-Choice.

So what you are saying is you do not trust women to make choices about their body.

Funny that you mention underage prostitution as in many states underage girls can consent to abortions.

Basically you are a massive hypocrite. Taking away women's choices is not pro-choice.

 

[Moonbeam]

You may.

So you say, but I remain highly suspicious. I might have such a discussion with my highly esteemed friend Moonbeam but I doubt such a feat would gain much traction here.

However, the issue as I see it is simply one of logic, and the correct perception of what truth really is at the moment, the real nature of the reality we live in. On the issue of choice two different mentalities exist, the absolute belief that life begins at conception, and the absolute right to control ones own body. One can't serve two masters, and the point at which live supersedes the right of body control is unknowable in any absolute way. That means that we poor humans are left to decide as best we can. That means we will have to try to come to some reasonable agreement among ourselves, without resort to religion, since we are a secular state, on some arbitrary cut off time up to which the the body rights prevail. As in any consensus, some will be more or less in agreement, but once the law is decided it becomes the law. If that consensus changes over time it may come to pass that the law is modified. So the real issue of pro choice is not about choice for the mother, but of choice for society. Are we going to chose to have a secular society in which the religious belief of a majority does not become state religion or not. Is a secular state a better state for people who want to chose what they believe? Are we going to leave religion out of our laws so that out laws do not ban all religion or establish just one.

On the other supposedly choice issues, should we legislate sugar content of soft drinks, their size etc. the issue is whether we will allow the cunning to feed off weaknesses in human nature, especially weaknesses that are exploited and magnified by advertising to manipulate people for the profit of very smart and cunning, but sociopathic people? Conservatives, containing a high proportion of just that very sort of people, as well as males still trying out their newly won hairy testicles for the first time and anxious to stand up to their Mommies, tend to say no. Mature, thinking adults, parental and nurturing, by nature, that is to say folk with good judgment, say yes. What is the point of a society that for the sake of money destroys its national security, increases the cost of health care, shortens the life and sexual attractiveness of its own people. We are our brother's and our children's keepers. We tell people what they can and can't do all the time. Every adult knows lots of other mature idiots who have children's level minds. You can't just let these folk kill themselves because of some abstraction called freedom of choice. If you are going to let people die because they were so destroyed as children that they can't exercise common sense, why shouldn't somebody kill you? If you refuse to save such people, aren't you murdering them.

So the issue of choice isn't whether we should or shouldn't have choice, but what is the right way to manage a secular society full of people of every level of evolution and every level of concern of disregard for the lives of all of us. It's all about the exercise of judgment.

But the cunning, the sociopathic who want money, don't like their feeding on the weak prevented, so they propagandize against common sense and infect all kinds of angry little minds with the notion that Big Brother is controlling them. They stir up the terror of a helpless childhood in which we were all terrorized and destroyed. And we live in and create that nightmare today.

 

[momeNt]

So you say, but I remain highly suspicious. I might have such a discussion with my highly esteemed friend Moonbeam but I doubt such a feat would gain much traction here.

However, the issue as I see it is simply one of logic, and the correct perception of what truth really is at the moment, the real nature of the reality we live in. On the issue of choice two different mentalities exist, the absolute belief that life begins at conception, and the absolute right to control ones own body. One can't serve two masters, and the point at which live supersedes the right of body control is unknowable in any absolute way. That means that we poor humans are left to decide as best we can. That means we will have to try to come to some reasonable agreement among ourselves, without resort to religion, since we are a secular state, on some arbitrary cut off time up to which the the body rights prevail. As in any consensus, some will be more or less in agreement, but once the law is decided it becomes the law. If that consensus changes over time it may come to pass that the law is modified. So the real issue of pro choice is not about choice for the mother, but of choice for society. Are we going to chose to have a secular society in which the religious belief of a majority does not become state religion or not. Is a secular state a better state for people who want to chose what they believe? Are we going to leave religion out of our laws so that out laws do not ban all religion or establish just one.

On the other supposedly choice issues, should we legislate sugar content of soft drinks, their size etc. the issue is whether we will allow the cunning to feed off weaknesses in human nature, especially weaknesses that are exploited and magnified by advertising to manipulate people for the profit of very smart and cunning, but sociopathic people? Conservatives, containing a high proportion of just that very sort of people, as well as males still trying out their newly won hairy testicles for the first time and anxious to stand up to their Mommies, tend to say no. Mature, thinking adults, parental and nurturing, by nature, that is to say folk with good judgment, say yes. What is the point of a society that for the sake of money destroys its national security, increases the cost of health care, shortens the life and sexual attractiveness of its own people. We are our brother's and our children's keepers. We tell people what they can and can't do all the time. Every adult knows lots of other mature idiots who have children's level minds. You can't just let these folk kill themselves because of some abstraction called freedom of choice. If you are going to let people die because they were so destroyed as children that they can't exercise common sense, why shouldn't somebody kill you? If you refuse to save such people, aren't you murdering them.

So the issue of choice isn't whether we should or shouldn't have choice, but what is the right way to manage a secular society full of people of every level of evolution and every level of concern of disregard for the lives of all of us. It's all about the exercise of judgment.

But the cunning, the sociopathic who want money, don't like their feeding on the weak prevented, so they propagandize against common sense and infect all kinds of angry little minds with the notion that Big Brother is controlling them. They stir up the terror of a helpless childhood in which we were all terrorized and destroyed. And we live in and create that nightmare today.

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.

 

[SheHateMe]

So what you are saying is you do not trust women to make choices about their body.

Funny that you mention underage prostitution as in many states underage girls can consent to abortions.

Basically you are a massive hypocrite. Taking away women's choices is not pro-choice.

I never said that. Given the abusive nature of Prostitution, I'd say that most of the women involved in it did not "choose" to be prostitutes. Sex trafficking is a huge problem, so is the sexual exploitation/abuse of young girls/women. If you think a child chooses to be a prostitute, I question your sanity.

Go and ask a prostitute how she got into the business. I can't promise you her pimp won't come out of nowhere and beat the shit outta you.

Equating abortion to prostitution is pretty terrible.

 

[nehalem256]

I never said that. Given the abusive nature of Prostitution, I'd say that most of the women involved in it did not "choose" to be prostitutes. Sex trafficking is a huge problem, so is the sexual exploitation/abuse of young girls/women. If you think a child chooses to be a prostitute, I question your sanity.

Receiving money for services rendered is not "exploitation"

Go and ask a prostitute how she got into the business. I can't promise you her pimp won't come out of nowhere and beat the shit outta you.

She wanted money (possibly for crack) and prostitution was a convenient way to get it.

Equating abortion to prostitution is pretty terrible.

They are both about trusting a woman to make choices about her body.

 

[diesbudt]

Receiving money for services rendered is not "exploitation"



She wanted money (possibly for crack) and prostitution was a convenient way to get it.



They are both about trusting a woman to make choices about her body.

So is sex w/o money. The only difference between unmarital sex (non-rape) and prostitution is the money exchange.

1 is legal, the other isn't. So it isn't because of the womans body that it is not allowed, but the acquiring of money to do so.

 

[SheHateMe]

So is sex w/o money. The only difference between unmarital sex (non-rape) and prostitution is the money exchange.

1 is legal, the other isn't. So it isn't because of the womans body that it is not allowed, but the acquiring of money to do so.

Nehalem seems to think its impossible for a woman to end up as a prostitute without making a choice to do so.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally Posted by feralkid
The term "pro-choice" in modern parlance refers to a woman's choice over her reproductive system.


Idiot.

Orignally posted by diesbudt
Incorrect. The term pro-choice, means directly that a person is all for a person having their own choice when it comes to anything with their body. Not just abortions.

This includes but is not limited to:

Junk food
Alcohol
Drugs
Piercings
Body mutilations
Abortions
etc.

Abortion is just always such a big topic that is where it is most used. But pro-choice is not an abortion only term.

You are half right and half wrong... You did not read what feralkid posted....he uses the words -- modern parlance....the term pro-choice in political circles...especially presidential elections is almost always is referring the the abortion issue.....

 

[Juror No. 8]

It's a mistake to think this is just a Democrat issue. It's not. It's a Republican issue as well. Americans, in general, want freedom for themselves, but they don't want freedom for their neighbors. They would never in a million years feel comfortable pointing a gun at their neighbors, but they are ecstatic to point the millions of government guns at their neighbors to force them to live as they demand.

This is what a divided and conquered people looks like.

 

[nehalem256]

So is sex w/o money. The only difference between unmarital sex (non-rape) and prostitution is the money exchange.

1 is legal, the other isn't. So it isn't because of the womans body that it is not allowed, but the acquiring of money to do so.

And giving a woman money is legal. The only difference between giving a woman money without sex and giving a woman money for sex is the consensual use of her body.

EDIT: Either you believe women should be able to make choices about their body or you do not.

 

[momeNt]

And giving a woman money is legal. The only difference between giving a woman money without sex and giving a woman money for sex is the consensual use of her body.

It's illegal because of out-dated moral reasons. There are weak arguments that attempt to put a new rationalization on it, but they are all false and weak.

The fact is that consensual sex for any reason should be legal, for money, drugs, love, whatever.

Also, the woman's domain over her body should also be respected, a woman should be able to remove the fetus from her body, even if it results in the death of the fetus, her will should not be compelled for some other interest other than her own.

Lastly, taxation is immoral, so any taxation that goes anywhere is wrong, it doesn't matter where it goes.

Yet somehow in light of this, you seem to have a laser focus on women. Broaden your focus and see the bigger picture, lest you be thought a bigot.

 

[Juror No. 8]

But these people are engaging in semantic games reminiscent of those who claim "anti-Semitism doesn't really mean anti-Jewish because Arabs are also Semites". Yawn.

In other words, facts don't actually matter to you.

Roger that.

 

[Moonbeam]

momeNt: Ridiculous on every level.

That hurts my feelings. I want now naturally to defend myself but I just don't know how many levels you see. You don't say.

m: 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.

M: You said something before. I didn't know nor did I know that having said something before would make it true. And you have to understand that I don't really know anything. When you use words like libertarian evictionism I quickly run to the toilet to throw up because I have no idea what such a term means and nothing I say came from anywhere else than from me. So those words could mean something terribly dirty and I told you only what I think, not what somebody told me was the truth.

m: Your soda argument is simply using government to create an immoral externality.

M: WOW, that's amazing. Just say it and it's so? Immorality is something you create in your mind, no?

m: 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?

M: Yup, either that of shoot up sugar illegally. I know life will be terribly hard for some having less sugar in their drink. Fucking sugar Nazis. I am more concerned about the guy who will die from it. As I said, you are worried about pretending to have issues because you aren't yet feeling like a real man. You lack mature judgment. For example, I made a couple of old fashions last night and added my own sugar. You could try that if your drink isn't sweet enough to your satisfaction. Just don't add any corn syrup. It's not good for you.

m: Letting people do what they want and not harming the life or liberty or others is the only moral option.

M: No it's not. That's just ridiculous at all levels. It's not moral to allow a young healthy person commit suicide. It's not moral to allow somebody to harm themselves because they are ignorant, like letting them drive down a road when you know the bridge is out. Your morality is passive. That's not good enough. You live by prescriptions, absolutes, imbecilic ivory tower bull shit. I do what I want and if I want to stop somebody from harming themselves I will. I am my own morality.

m: You have a lot of moral based reasoning for the rules you wish to impose.

M: Common sense

m: Your fatal flaw is that you want state level compulsion to seek out those moral ends.

M: I am alive. No fatal flaw found. You want me to be compelled not to compel. I win. I live in a compelling state.

m: You can't seek out moral ends through immoral means.

M: Of course you can, in the real world, of course, which often offers limited options.

m: 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.

M: I will leave that far flung future to you. I will be telling you what to do today. I will vote for less sugar in my drinks. I will vote to have ingredient labels put of my food. I will tell you lots and lots of things.

Remember, anything you can claim I can claim better. You are simply expressing your opinions and mine are of better value to me. You can't prove one damn thing you say. You are saying that your truth is better than mine, that I am not entitled to my truth and should live by yours. Nope, we are going to have a contest and I will try to make you live by mine, and as you can see, I am wining, naturally because my truth appeals to more people. I have a secular consensus, but nice try. Now be nice and I will try not to be too big of a dictator. You fear me but I do not. I have no ambition.

 

[Incorruptible]

Pro-choice is used for the abortion issue BUT isn't it a bit hypocritical to say your for choice on abortion but not these other issues?

 

[Moonbeam]

In other words, facts don't actually matter to you.

Roger that.

Careful with that word 'facts'. You have no idea what those are or that some facts are irrelevant to some issues such as that the notion if one is pro choice on abortion means hypocrisy if one isn't pro choice on sniffing glue. This is motivational thinking, the invention of hypocrisy claims to rationalize away the arguments of liberals that conservatives are idiots. You are an idiot, but it's just a brain defect you can't help you have. You just look stupid because you can't use your brains to think but only to defend your egotistically help moral beliefs. You are a religious nut not a secular thinker but you can't see it. You crave being taken seriously but nobody who can think will credit you with that, sorry.

 

[Moonbeam]

Pro-choice is used for the abortion issue BUT isn't it a bit hypocritical to say your for choice on abortion but not these other issues?

You finally got it even though you still really have no idea.

 

[zinfamous]

The real answer is that Democrats are not pro-choice, but pro-female-power.

Giving women complete control over reproduction and then using children as a way to extort money for women is the most logical way to advance this agenda.

Yes, woman having no political control over their bodies is a grand idea.


...how fundamentally backwards you are.

 

[zinfamous]

They are both about trusting a woman to make choices about her body.

Agreed.

It is high time we turn this choice over to the exclusive purview of the aged and morally bankrupt WASP males of this country.

No woman may ever again be trusted to make choices about herself without the exclusive approval of the "Old White Man's Club," as data indicates an extremely small percentage of women can't be trusted to act with dignity in a world where the devil frolics.

/official republican platform

 

[zinfamous]

Funny thing. The most retarded of republicans still refuse to accept that this recent election, among many things, was a rather clear mandate that the American People don't accept their attempt to legislate morality, to reserve rights for the selected few, to allow dominion over a chosen list of freedoms to the entitled class.

May great fuck be upon you if you do not extract yourselves from the rejected bin of history, and chose to join modern society.

I don't know if you guys are still hungover by this rather profound rejection over what you are (no one seems to like to mention the historically woeful approval rating of this last Congressional term), but please note that there is no Doc Brown to time travel your ass out of the 50s.

You're on your own to wake up and rejoin the living.

 

[Atreus21]

Pro-choice is used for the abortion issue BUT isn't it a bit hypocritical to say your for choice on abortion but not these other issues?

Yes, but that's a shallow victory, and pro-lifers are equally guilty of it. They're just names of the two factions.

 

[Atreus21]

Funny thing. The most retarded of republicans still refuse to accept that this recent election, among many things, was a rather clear mandate that the American People don't accept their attempt to legislate morality, to reserve rights for the selected few, to allow dominion over a chosen list of freedoms to the entitled class.

May great fuck be upon you if you do not extract yourselves from the rejected bin of history, and chose to join modern society.

I don't know if you guys are still hungover by this rather profound rejection over what you are (no one seems to like to mention the historically woeful approval rating of this last Congressional term), but please note that there is no Doc Brown to time travel your ass out of the 50s.

You're on your own to wake up and rejoin the living.

What mandate did the 2004 election illustrate?

 

[Athena]

Pro-choice is used for the abortion issue BUT isn't it a bit hypocritical to say your for choice on abortion but not these other issues?

Dunno...is it any more hypocritical to claim to be "pro-life" and support the death penalty? What is pro-life about insisting that a woman bear a child then oppose a life-sustaining, social support system that will allow that child to be adequately fed and sheltered so that he/she can become a contributing adult in society?

I guess this is as good a place as any for me to ask why it matters so much to you. Why is it not good enough to say I believe it is a mortal sin and will lead my life accordingly? Why does everyone else have to do as you say? That is so antithetical to what most of us were taught about the basic tenets of the US that many wonder how this ever got to be a major political issue.

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, woman having no political control over their bodies is a grand idea.


...how fundamentally backwards you are.

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?

Agreed.

It is high time we turn this choice over to the exclusive purview of the aged and morally bankrupt WASP males of this country.

No woman may ever again be trusted to make choices about herself without the exclusive approval of the "Old White Man's Club," as data indicates an extremely small percentage of women can't be trusted to act with dignity in a world where the devil frolics.

/official republican platform

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