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

They appear to sense pleasure. When the mother is eating something pleasurable, they sometimes smile.

 

From the moment of conception a fetus is a unique sacred human life.

 

The sentience of Pre 24 week fetuses is disputed.

 

As the father of the child
Would you be willing to assume full responsibility for its welfare, education, upbringing and costs if you already had a family or were struggling just to keep bread on your own table?
I already asked you once but you didn't reply.
Good. Then if more men did that there would be fewer abortions.

 

You don't understand vaccines.
The vaccinated can still pass the virus on.
But they themselves will be less ill , not free from illness. The unvaccinated may well die.

 

But we truly don't know. I find the whole thing horrifying.

 

That's my question for Republicans. To list the innocent lives that they don't deem are worth protecting. At least to those who say that "pro-life" doesn't mean ALL innocent life.

Abortion! Are you not reading?

 

Yes, I would assume responsibility for any child I fathered. I would also expect the mother to assume her share of responsibility. But, I wouldn't be fathering any children out of wedlock.

 

All innocent life is worth protecting. Whatever we can do we should do.

 

So you disagree with the Republican platform described on the OP. That's good to hear.

 

As described in the OP? That was just your biased interpretation of the Republican platform.

 

You've been told now it's my question to you

What life are you saying it is?

Then why hide behind the "choice" general term and get specific about it. I am more than willing to start using pro-abortion and anti-abortion and then there is no confusion. I asked you earlier and you did not answer.

 

By law the father HAS that responsibilty. Are you for not allowing women to bring children into this world without holding the father fully responsible and involved in its welfare, education, upbringing and costs? If so good if more did there would be fewer abortions and possible fewer out of wedlock pregnancies.

 

The OP didn't refer to the Republican platform. The only thing in the OP is unsubstantiated opinions.

 

Saving life is a valid reason for abortion. Usual legal codes set mother lives above the future life of the unborn. I agree with that but reject any other false argument to kill people in advance.

Yes, I'm a true pro-Lifer. A little bit religiously motivated but no member of the republican party.

 

Who told you that? Link, please.

A fetus may look like it's having an emotional response to stimuli, but it's really just twitching its developing muscles randomly. There is no "being" behind it.

 

I appreciate that, but strongly disagree. No government should be given control over our bodies. Pregnancy is a medical condition, one that carries considerable risks. Why should government even be informed of a pregnancy? How is it their business?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I can think of no more unreasonable search than that of a living woman's uterus.

 

However this frequently happens, which is another reason to protect women who choose abortion.
See, reality isn't nearly as simple as grand authoritarians seem to think it is.

 

What are you talking about? I'm not limiting the right to choose. I'm explaining what the expression "pro-choice" refers to. Other choices are on a case by case basis. Just like, to Republicans, protecting innocent life is only on a case by case basis.... which doesn't really make any logical sense but... that's what the party they support believes. Logical sense, of course, is also not something their base requires from their leaders anyway....

 

So you are saying Republicans have never tried to repeal Obamacare with no plan whatsoever to deal with a child who is born with pre-existing conditions? Or with children whose life their parents were trying to save when they bring him here? Which, of course, is only a minority of illegal immigrants. But I have never seen a Republican saying "yeah! Let's allocate more funds to immigration judges so we can more quickly determine who really IS a refugee, and who is just hoping to live off of welfare"

Amazing how easy it is for Republicans to deny reality.

 

None! It has nothing to do with saving any "life". "Pro-life" is just a meaningless bumper-sticker. The real reason they oppose abortion is because they believe a mother who has sex for any reason other than procreation should be punished. And so should the "fruit" of their sin. They aren't really "pro-life", but the label sounds better than "anti-choice"

As for your other question, NOBODY is pro-abortion. I am against abortion. But it's not my choice. It's the choice of the women who will carry the fetus and will later have to raise a child. And thank God for that, because it's likely the most difficult choice that a woman will have to make in her life. I'll never have to make that choice. Anti-abortionists would FORCE her to carry a fetus and have a baby against her will. And then they turn around and try to lecture us about "individual freedoms". Give me a break!

 

Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human life. That is not just a woman's issue, it's an issue for every person, male or female, who values the sanctity of human life.

 

The OP is specific. If you can rebut it, rebut the specifics. Tell us that the Republican Party has never attempted to repeal the law that saves the life of babies who are born with a pre-existing condition and die because children can't afford the treatment. Or that there is anything in the Republican platform that would save the life of children who come to this country escaping from drug cartels or mafias that would kill them if they stayed in their own country. Which, as I said to another poster, are a minority of immigrants. But where in the Republican agenda is there a call for more immigration judges to differentiate these from those whose parents came here just to they could live off of welfare?

If you plan to make any meaningful contribution to anything your read in this forum, your "you're wrong!" leitmotiv only makes it more evident that you have nothing to contribute.

 

Still having trouble with the English language? You said as described in the OP. It is not in the OP.

 

That's a good idea. Let's change the legal definition of abortion to THAT. That way there would be no problem interrupting a pregnancy (for lack of a better term) BEFORE the embryo becomes a human being.

So it's not an issue for the Republicans who carry out policies that don't value human life, like repealing Obamacare, or not allowing refugees to enter the country.