The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat

[sirs]

They don't run from the word.

Yes they do.....which is why you have the misdirecting effort at pro-choice, as if it were an arguement between pro-choice vs anti-choice.

It is merely inaccurate.

It's spot on....the issue is ABORTION, not choice.  One is either pro-abortion or anti-abortion.  Inaccurate would be trying to claim that a "fetus" isn't really a person to be counted, when in nearly every court case involving the murder of a pregnant woman and her "fetus", results in 2 counts of murder

I am sorry that you can't understand the logic involved, but I am giving up on you.

The irony of a "professor", either unable to grasp logic or merely a coward in embracing the issue as it is, is truely astounding.  Run off then.  Go find some other strawman to pull up, in some other thread

[Xavier_Onassis]

Being in favor of something is not the same as being in favor of someone else choosing something.

I can be in favor of allowing stores to sell horsemeat, even though I do not eat horsemeat.

If I like to eat horsemeat, I am "pro horsemeat". If I simply think people should have the right to eat horsemeat, that does not make me "pro horsemeat".


I can be in favor of people having the right to ride a ferris whel, even though I do not want to ride one.

[sirs]

Deflection alert.......Deflection alert.  Yes, if you eat horsemeat, you are pro-horsemeat.  If you support the idea of people eating horsemeat, you are pro-horsemeat.  It sure as hell doesn't mean you're against it, nor is it demanding that people must eat horsemeat either.  You merely support it as an option 

It's about abortion.  Either embrace it or run for the hills and hide under your PC blanket

[Xavier_Onassis]

If you are in favor of people being able to ride Ferris wheel, that does not make you pro-Ferris wheel.

To be pro Ferris wheel, you would also have to ride the fool thing.

The only way to be pro-abortion is to give abortions or to have abortions performed on one, perhaps to favor abortions as a method of birth control.

Simply saying that every woman has the right to choose on her own is not being "pro-abortion".

[sirs]

If you are in favor of people being able to ride Ferris wheel, that does not make you pro-Ferris wheel.

Sure it does

To be pro Ferris wheel, you would also have to ride the fool thing.

Under that fool hearty irrational logic, to be anti-abortion, you can't have had one.  So those who have had one, who are now staunchly against it, because they came to the realization of their error......can't be??

The only way to be pro-abortion is to give abortions or to have abortions performed on one, perhaps to favor abortions as a method of birth control.

OR to simply support the option of abortion

Which brings us full circle, yet again, that this is about ABORTION, not some non-existant PC reference to choice, as anti-abortionists are also pro-choice..........EXCEPT ABORTION

Simply saying that every woman has the right to choose on her own is not being "pro-abortion".

Sure it is, it's just a politically correct, albeit cowardly attempt, to remove the abortion spotlight off someone who otherwise supports it 

[BT]

Could someone explain to me how having a governmental involvement against the choice of  a currently legal elective surgery could possibly be construed as part of any small government conservative philosophy as currently understood.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I would imagine that the last thing a small government should stuck its nose into would be a person's right to reproduce themselves or not according to their own desires.

[BT]

I would imagine that the last thing a small government should stuck its nose into would be a person's right to reproduce themselves or not according to their own desires.

Right. For example i do not believe that China would be considered small Government. And they have the one child rule.

[Plane]

They don't run from the word.

It is merely inaccurate.

I am sorry that you can't understand the logic involved, but I am giving up on you.

You can't teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

The inaccuracy is very hard to see.

[sirs]

Could someone explain to me how having a governmental involvement against the choice of  a currently legal elective surgery could possibly be construed as part of any small government conservative philosophy as currently understood.

Already referenced that earlier

[BT]

Could someone explain to me how having a governmental involvement against the choice of  a currently legal elective surgery could possibly be construed as part of any small government conservative philosophy as currently understood.

Already referenced that earlier

Must have missed your pearls of wisdom. Could you provide a link to where you did that?

[sirs]

Did you not click on it above, when provided?  Here, try again

The funny thing is, here you seem to be arguing how being anti-abortion (to the Xo's of the world, pro-abortion stance) is somehow not small government conservative, when the whole notion of Government not paying/sponsoring/supporting organizations like PP is entirely small government in nature

[BT]

Did you not click on it above, when provided?  Here, try again

The funny thing is, here you seem to be arguing how being anti-abortion (to the Xo's of the world, pro-abortion stance) is somehow not small government conservative, when the whole notion of Government not paying/sponsoring/supporting organizations like PP is entirely small government in nature

Perhaps you are misconstruing my argument.

It is really quite simple. I don't believe the government has jurisdiction in the abortion debate. If, as defined currently by Scotus, abortion is elective surgery, that the fetus is not a citizen with rights, then for the government to outlaw abortions at the point of a gun, does not seem to fit in with small government philosophy. No where do i say that you can not hold different views about abortion and the rights of the unborn, nor do i say that you can not advocate among your peers that abortions really should not be considered an option, because that would definitely be counter to the whole idea of free speech.

So my argument pretty much says that government should remain neutral. It should not pay for abortions, and by extension offset organizational costs for organizations that perform abortions.

At the same time i don't see how those who argue for small government could want the government to intrude further into our lives.

[sirs]

Not misconstruing anything.

And my argument, which you have yet to refute, is that one of the primary functions, (if not THE primary function) of government is the protection of its citizenry.  You appeared to not even disagree, much less present any function greater than that.  Just kind of pushed it to the side

Unless you're going on record as claiming that unborn child isn't a person....just a bunch of cells, all rolled up into 1....nonperson?  Which then begs the question, that Xo had to keep ignoring as well, those laws, all across the country, charging someone with 2 counts of murder, when a pregnant woman is killed.  What's up with that??

So my position, happens to be both constitutional in nature, and by not funding or supporting any organizations like PP, is also small government

[Xavier_Onassis]

charging someone with 2 counts of murder, when a pregnant woman is killed.  What's up with that??

Some people are really, really stupid. Some of them elect other really, really stupid people likew themselves to state legislatures, and they pass really, really stupid laws.