Explain to me this portion of the pro-choice/pro-life argument

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the person who asked about reconciling the belief of when life begins with abortion: I am rabidly pro choice. I am *personally" anti abortion. As in I had an unwanted pregnancy that I knew would totally f*ck up my life (birth control failure while married). But I had and kept the baby anyway and am still wrestling with the consequences today. I personally couldn't look at the child I already had and destroy what in my mind was another copy of her in the making. I knew I would not be able to live with that ghost on my conscience. But I am glad I had a choice and glad my daughters will have a choice.

I believe that life is present from conception and that a zygote, a fetus, grows into a BABY. I don't think a zygote is the same thing as a baby, or that a fetus is a baby. I think a zygote or fetus has life, is a potential person, but is not a person YET. When that line is crossed, I have to leave to science, theologians, and law. I think that limiting abortion to the first trimester is fine. I DON'T want the Arizona legislature passing laws about when my pregnancy begins (two weeks from last period..... It's a miracle! I'm pregnant RIGHT NOW!). That determination should be left to a woman and her doctor. Some women can be OK with (or feel forced to) end that emerging life. Others like me, couldn't. But I don't think MY beliefs shoudl dictate other women's choices.

I believe abortion should be legal but discouraged as much as possible by providing alternatives to women. By increasing availability of birth control, sex ed, and economic alternatives that encourage life instead of abortion. Basically, everything Republicans don't want to pay for.

I am rabidly pro-life and I completely agree with increasing availability of birth control, sex ed (including emotional aspects, not just mechanics) and any other alternative that prevents unwanted pregnancies and promotes life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the person who asked about reconciling the belief of when life begins with abortion: I am rabidly pro choice. I am *personally" anti abortion. As in I had an unwanted pregnancy that I knew would totally f*ck up my life (birth control failure while married). But I had and kept the baby anyway and am still wrestling with the consequences today. I personally couldn't look at the child I already had and destroy what in my mind was another copy of her in the making. I knew I would not be able to live with that ghost on my conscience. But I am glad I had a choice and glad my daughters will have a choice.

I believe that life is present from conception and that a zygote, a fetus, grows into a BABY. I don't think a zygote is the same thing as a baby, or that a fetus is a baby. I think a zygote or fetus has life, is a potential person, but is not a person YET. When that line is crossed, I have to leave to science, theologians, and law. I think that limiting abortion to the first trimester is fine. I DON'T want the Arizona legislature passing laws about when my pregnancy begins (two weeks from last period..... It's a miracle! I'm pregnant RIGHT NOW!). That determination should be left to a woman and her doctor. Some women can be OK with (or feel forced to) end that emerging life. Others like me, couldn't. But I don't think MY beliefs shoudl dictate other women's choices.

I believe abortion should be legal but discouraged as much as possible by providing alternatives to women. By increasing availability of birth control, sex ed, and economic alternatives that encourage life instead of abortion. Basically, everything Republicans don't want to pay for.

I am rabidly pro-life and I completely agree with increasing availability of birth control, sex ed (including emotional aspects, not just mechanics) and any other alternative that prevents unwanted pregnancies and promotes life.

I am rabidly pro-life too and I completely agree with what the PP right above me wrote.

[Anonymous]

pro choice supporter in terms of public policy, but vehemently pro-life in terms of my personal/family policy (i.e. any woman in my family/extended family I would try to persuade to my best abilities to not have an abortion).

[Anonymous]

The last few postings point at the large middle ground, that we should work to keep abortion rare.

Not to forget the original question, one could equally well remember that the world might be much better off if Hitler's mother had chosen to have an abortion. Who knows how many similar catastrophes have been averted by abortion.

[Anonymous]

Agree with many of the PP's, and you're right there is middle ground here. I personally would like to see much less "war on women" bombs continually coming from the ladies of the DNC, because there truly isn't one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with many of the PP's, and you're right there is middle ground here. I personally would like to see much less "war on women" bombs continually coming from the ladies of the DNC, because there truly isn't one.

I understand your preference not to use the word "war", but as long as the GOP accuses the Dems of "class warfare" for objecting to GOP welfare for the rich, they can't expect to gain traction by quibbling over Dems using the term as a label for GOP policies on women. However, I certainly have no objection to both parties de-escalating their terminology. If they can't immediately get to cooperation, they could at least replace warfare with competition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree with many of the PP's, and you're right there is middle ground here. I personally would like to see much less "war on women" bombs continually coming from the ladies of the DNC, because there truly isn't one.

As a rhetorical point you may be right. It is not a real war.

And I realize that the party would like to attract women.

But face facts: the party actively seeks legislation reducing rights of women. It opposes legislation meant to redress histnissan bias against women in the workplace. Only 10% of house republicans are women.

So when the party is behind by 20% among women in a key state like Florida, it is not because of the attractiveness of the Democratic party. It is because they have been alienated by the GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with many of the PP's, and you're right there is middle ground here. I personally would like to see much less "war on women" bombs continually coming from the ladies of the DNC, because there truly isn't one.

As a rhetorical point you may be right. It is not a real war.

And I realize that the party would like to attract women.

But face facts: the party actively seeks legislation reducing rights of women. It opposes legislation meant to redress histnissan bias against women in the workplace. Only 10% of house republicans are women.

So when the party is behind by 20% among women in a key state like Florida, it is not because of the attractiveness of the Democratic party. It is because they have been alienated by the GOP.

There's presently six female governors...two are Democrats. Oh and for what it's worth, those two are "just" white. Why can't you be more inclusive to minorities like we Republicans? Just curious.

[Anonymous]

8 58 again. I think it's great that pro lifers are saying you support birth control, sex Ed, and economic policies that Discourage abortion. Alas it seems to me that political parties that claim to be pro life do not support those things. Can you comment on that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with many of the PP's, and you're right there is middle ground here. I personally would like to see much less "war on women" bombs continually coming from the ladies of the DNC, because there truly isn't one.

As a rhetorical point you may be right. It is not a real war.

And I realize that the party would like to attract women.

But face facts: the party actively seeks legislation reducing rights of women. It opposes legislation meant to redress histnissan bias against women in the workplace. Only 10% of house republicans are women.

So when the party is behind by 20% among women in a key state like Florida, it is not because of the attractiveness of the Democratic party. It is because they have been alienated by the GOP.

There's presently six female governors...two are Democrats. Oh and for what it's worth, those two are "just" white. Why can't you be more inclusive to minorities like we Republicans? Just curious.

Ooh, 4 vs. 2. That's really significant. There are 241 Republicans in the House. 10% is pitiful.

[Anonymous]

I am totally, rapidly, severely fervently bored by this relentless jousting of windmills.
Pro Life zealots will never agree with pro choice crusaders- whatever happened to mind your own business and separation of church & state. Enough with the mental masturbation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with many of the PP's, and you're right there is middle ground here. I personally would like to see much less "war on women" bombs continually coming from the ladies of the DNC, because there truly isn't one.

As a rhetorical point you may be right. It is not a real war.

And I realize that the party would like to attract women.

But face facts: the party actively seeks legislation reducing rights of women. It opposes legislation meant to redress histnissan bias against women in the workplace. Only 10% of house republicans are women.

So when the party is behind by 20% among women in a key state like Florida, it is not because of the attractiveness of the Democratic party. It is because they have been alienated by the GOP.

There's presently six female governors...two are Democrats. Oh and for what it's worth, those two are "just" white. Why can't you be more inclusive to minorities like we Republicans? Just curious.

Ooh, 4 vs. 2. That's really significant. There are 241 Republicans in the House. 10% is pitiful.

That's totally significant, really it is. Republicans still hold the House, so until we start using token demographics to rule the first branch of government, then it's actually just the opposite....pretty insignificant. You guys are so obsessed with tokenism, you'll clear the field for a moron like Carol Shea Porter just to increase these meaningless statistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with many of the PP's, and you're right there is middle ground here. I personally would like to see much less "war on women" bombs continually coming from the ladies of the DNC, because there truly isn't one.

As a rhetorical point you may be right. It is not a real war.

And I realize that the party would like to attract women.

But face facts: the party actively seeks legislation reducing rights of women. It opposes legislation meant to redress histnissan bias against women in the workplace. Only 10% of house republicans are women.

So when the party is behind by 20% among women in a key state like Florida, it is not because of the attractiveness of the Democratic party. It is because they have been alienated by the GOP.

There's presently six female governors...two are Democrats. Oh and for what it's worth, those two are "just" white. Why can't you be more inclusive to minorities like we Republicans? Just curious.

Ooh, 4 vs. 2. That's really significant. There are 241 Republicans in the House. 10% is pitiful.

Seriously? You lost one race and one another, get over yourself. You see zero value in a female, daughter of immigrants as a role model simply because she's got an R after her name. Get it together, you simply cannot qualify a woman in power's status on your ideology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with many of the PP's, and you're right there is middle ground here. I personally would like to see much less "war on women" bombs continually coming from the ladies of the DNC, because there truly isn't one.

As a rhetorical point you may be right. It is not a real war.

And I realize that the party would like to attract women.

But face facts: the party actively seeks legislation reducing rights of women. It opposes legislation meant to redress histnissan bias against women in the workplace. Only 10% of house republicans are women.

So when the party is behind by 20% among women in a key state like Florida, it is not because of the attractiveness of the Democratic party. It is because they have been alienated by the GOP.

There's presently six female governors...two are Democrats. Oh and for what it's worth, those two are "just" white. Why can't you be more inclusive to minorities like we Republicans? Just curious.

Ooh, 4 vs. 2. That's really significant. There are 241 Republicans in the House. 10% is pitiful.

Seriously? You lost one race and one another, get over yourself. You see zero value in a female, daughter of immigrants as a role model simply because she's got an R after her name. Get it together, you simply cannot qualify a woman in power's status on your ideology.

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding a race we won or lost. I am saying that there are too few female Republicans in the party. I am inferring that it is because women are not comfortable in the party. Yes, you have a few governors, maybe even 20-some in the house. It's not enough. You should have at least double that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with many of the PP's, and you're right there is middle ground here. I personally would like to see much less "war on women" bombs continually coming from the ladies of the DNC, because there truly isn't one.

As a rhetorical point you may be right. It is not a real war.

And I realize that the party would like to attract women.

But face facts: the party actively seeks legislation reducing rights of women. It opposes legislation meant to redress histnissan bias against women in the workplace. Only 10% of house republicans are women.

So when the party is behind by 20% among women in a key state like Florida, it is not because of the attractiveness of the Democratic party. It is because they have been alienated by the GOP.

There's presently six female governors...two are Democrats. Oh and for what it's worth, those two are "just" white. Why can't you be more inclusive to minorities like we Republicans? Just curious.

Ooh, 4 vs. 2. That's really significant. There are 241 Republicans in the House. 10% is pitiful.

Seriously? You lost one race and one another, get over yourself. You see zero value in a female, daughter of immigrants as a role model simply because she's got an R after her name. Get it together, you simply cannot qualify a woman in power's status on your ideology.

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding a race we won or lost. I am saying that there are too few female Republicans in the party. I am inferring that it is because women are not comfortable in the party. Yes, you have a few governors, maybe even 20-some in the house. It's not enough. You should have at least double that.[/

Thanks, I didn't realize Larry Sabato was on here.