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

Could you give me an example of which innocent lives "pro-life" does NOT consider are worth protecting?

 

Yeah. The reason is they don't want to put something into their body against their will. Bodily autonomy. Same reason given for abortion. Same reason given against the draft. Same reason given against prostitution bans. That's simple and straightforward. We can discuss how each of these situations is different, but they all regard bodily autonomy of people. So you can acknowledge that and go from there.

Then you can weigh it against the competing concern. With the vaccines thats the health of others due to your risk of speading the virus. With abortion it is the direct killing of the unborn. The latter will matter if you see the unborn as people. I ask you to acknowledge that.

No, I'm not. I'm just attempting to show you and the readers that the other side of the issue sees things differently and as very dire. To you aborting a fetus is just aborting a fetus, but to them it is the taking of a human life, which they see as a person, equal to you and I. I don't agree with them, but in understanding that they see it this way, I can understand where much of the rest of what they say comes from and don't need to project false motives onto them.

 

Pro life people (in regard to abortion) can be pro-war, not wanting to protect the lives of enemy soliders

Pro life people (in regard to abortion) can support the death penalty for convicted felons.

Pro life (in regard to abortion) people are often not vegetarians, and therefore not in support of defending the lives of animals they eat for food.

The list goes on and on. Same for the Pro Choice (in regard to abortion) people. There are many choices they want to prohibit others from having. As somebody wrote above what we are really talking about is anti-abortion and not anti-abortion. Pro-Choice and Pro-Life are just fanciful labels people attach to make each side sound more virtuous. Notice neither calls themselves "Anti-Choice" or "Pro-Death".

 

Enemy soldiers, convicted felons and animals are NOT "innocent people".

Looks like you can't come up with an example. I provided several in the OP.

 

Why do you demand it be "innocent" people?

Pro-Life can be against social programs that support the poor, and the poor may die as a result. They can be anti-vax, which can be said to be negligence putting others at risk. They can drive drunk too, etc.

I'm sure there are other cases.

That's not what I was talking about though. I was talking about the odd blanket claim I saw in this thread that if you aren't pro-all-life then you can't be called "pro-life" on abortion. But of course you can, just like you can be called "Pro-choice" without being always for choice.

 

If it doesn't, then it just means "anti-abortion". And that's the point the OP was intended to prove.

So the question becomes WHY are Republicans anti-abortion? I say the Republican Party (ideologically) is against abortion because they believe that women should only have sex to procreate (men can do it for...whatever). And if they do have sex for ANY other reason (including rape or incest), the woman AND the child should be punished (because they ARE). That's very typical of religious right-wing extremism all over the world.

What the reason each individual Republican has is a different matter, but not what this thread is about. It's a topic that has the potential of landing me in hot water with the mods. So I'm trying to stay away from it.

 

Where did you get a stupid idea like that?

 

If you are concerned with the Party leadership etc and not with Pro-Life people generally (which the other fellow definitely derailed your thread into, which prompted my responses), why don't I see more evidence from you about the particular party leaders and what they think. Maybe you are right. Maybe not. It probably varies from leader to leader. I doubt they all think the same. And why try to read minds anyway?

I think the Republican Party platform mostly says what it does because they know people will vote for it. Same goes for Democrat Party. Why try to read in more than that?

 

Their argument is specious.
I can take into account their thinking an abortion is taking a life but I cannot compare it to being vaccinated.
Nor can I accept that banning abortion has anything to compare to bodily autonomy. Are they then going to ban vaccinations? If for civid do you then also ban vaxes for smallpox, yellow fever, denge fever? Do they ban blood donors? Anaesthetics? Anti-inflammatories?
These states who ban abortion on the grounds of autonomy are not being honest.
Bodily autonomy means choice.

As for banning killing, they should ban guns, cars, knives, in fact any object capable of killing someone.

Both their arguments do not follow through. They are the result of religion getting in the way of autonomy, of the breach of secularity and the invasion of one group of people dominating the will of another.

 

I got it from many Republicans including the poster I responded to.

So you tell me, why IS the Republican Party against abortion? And do read the OP before you respond, please

 

Well they seem to sleep tight having adopted their right to control the lives of millions of women.
And then consider themselves to be anti- authoritarian.

 

Why not? In the one case you are killing somebody directly. In the other you are failing to take a precaution to keep others safe, and may spread disease to somebody that kills them.

I'm not aware of anybody saying vaccination should be banned. Where is that being called for? No. The it isn't about banning vaccination. It is about madating vaccination.

Do you support forcing people to get vaccinated against their will. If you are, then you are violating their bodily autonomy, forcing something into their body that they do not want. The comparison wouldn't be banning abortion. It would be the opposite, forcing women to carry the unborn to term, which also violates their bodily autonomy. I would argue that the carrying a baby to term violates it a lot more and would argue based on the degree of violation of the autonomy, while counter weighing the health risks to others, etc.

Nobody bans abortion on the grounds of autonomy. People allow abortion on grounds of autonomy. Autonomy means your body means your choice. Its the freedom of doing what you want with your own body. It is infringed upon in both vaccine mandats, abortion, as well as bans on prostitution and mandatory military drafts, etc.

That would include all objects. Argumentum ad absurdum.

 

Perhaps. But you won't get anywhere simply making such accusations.

To refute them properly, you need to address the actual argument and not simply project motive.

Showing the science that shows most abortions happen before the unborn can feel pain, is self aware, is a much better line of argument.

Get them to admit that they see a merely fertilized cell as a "human being", and a person equal to you and me, and then they won't be able to support that on anything other than religous grounds.

And once they admit that its all about their religion, then you've got your argument that they are violating church/state separation and push for theocracy. You're on much stronger ground at that point, and haven't excluded the pro-life folks (who DO exist) who are not religion based.

 

If you don't know your own party's platform, I can't help you. I do MY research, I don't do YOURS. Read my sig!

 

You have completely misread my post.
And yes both sides go on about autonomy.
Indeed my final argument was absurd. It was meant to be so.
If pro life people want to save lives the logical conclusion is to ban all possible causes of death.
I personally object strongly to someone telling me what I can and can't do concerning my own body including suicide.
But if I rejected taking a vaccine I would have to object to having to take all vaccines on principle.
And further, do I have the right to have my child vaccinated if I chose not to vaccinate myself?
The two issues are only loosely connected if at all. Personal autonomy without caring about anyone else is dangerous. Personal choice about abortion only concerns a tiny number of people who have a vested interest. They are not comparable.

 

For me and I suspect for many others it is because we are against destroying innocent human life. Simple as that. .

 

Please dont tell me how to frame my arguments.
I am not making an accusation. I am making an argument.
They are not the same.

 

No it is most certainly not that simple.
Please read the thread to understand why it is a moral and practical minefield of inconsistencies emotional persuasion and the relationship of the individual to the state not to mention freedom of choice/the pursuit of happiness.

 

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the Republican Party's policies.

If you are against destroying innocent human life like the ones on the OP that Republicans policy seeks to destroy, then that's fine.

 

How can you say "Republican policies" seek to destroy innocent life?

 

Why do you keep declaring Republicans to be my party when I already told you I am both liberal and not American? This itself shows that your mind reading is faulty. So I see little reason to think you can read the minds of these Republican anti-abortion people as you claim to.

 

Really? Do you take all vaccines regardless of which and for what? Why?

Sure. It's a balance of concerns. Your personal autonomy to control your own body and get an abortion is very dangerous, in fact deadly to occupant of your womb.

If you don't see that occupant as a person to care about, that's you. That's also me until late in pregnancy. But pro life folks see the unborn as a person equal to you and I.

 

What argument? You have made no argument. You have merely claimed to mind read people and tell us what they really secretly think, and how you think they should think.

That's pure accusation and personal attack against their character and honesty etc. As the other fellow showed, they can do the same to you and declare your real thoughts aren't what you say. In neither case does it It do anything to further the debate of if abortion should actually be banned or not.

 

I value my ability to choose more than having to do what faceless politicians tell me to do.

THAT DOES NOT MEAN I WOULD ALWAYS ABORT A FETUS..
It does mean I want a choice.

I get tired of those who assume that pro choice advocates always make the same choice. This is sloppy propaganda.

Again. I want a CHOICE.
You really don't know what would choose. But I want you to know that being FORCED to keep a child is no better than those who have repeated abortions of who dont care.

 

So does everyone who wants to be allowed to do anything you don't want to allow them to do. But we still have laws and regulations, many of which are meant to protect others from our actions.