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

[Anonymous]

Pro-life liberal here. Yes, we do exist. I hate that stupid saying from the OP, along with the majority of the rhetoric by the pro-life moment. It means nothing and is a pitiful attempt to instill guilt in the heart of pro-choicers. Major fail.

I agree with those who promote the causes of reduced poverty, better sex education, and better parental leave policies as ways to reduce abortions. I bet if we had paid maternity leave even half as awesome as Canada's there would be a reduction in abortions, since many are from women who are married and already have kids and probably work. Oh but that's socialist and we all know socialism is evil.

I don't support criminalizing abortion, because I believe that ignores the root causes of it and unfairly penalizes women who may be victims themselves. I am holding out for science to triumph with an artificial womb of some sort that will make abortion as the end of a life a nonissue. I realize I may be dreaming with that one.

[Anonymous]

PP. You must have felt wonderful typing your littlr Ms Purfect missal. What a conflict avoiding,rationalizing basket case you must be in real life. OMG have you ever disagreed with anything ?
Life as a passive aggressive fantasy loving idiot must be a trip. An Artificial womb to grow a just sucked out fetus that neither mom nor dad wants brought into the world to be saved by your Orwellian never never land displays a level of arrogance in ignorance thatdefies comprehension. Maybe by age 15or16 the real world will whack you into reality.
Wake up pro life means being anti everything you're for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP. You must have felt wonderful typing your littlr Ms Purfect missal. What a conflict avoiding,rationalizing basket case you must be in real life. OMG have you ever disagreed with anything ?
Life as a passive aggressive fantasy loving idiot must be a trip. An Artificial womb to grow a just sucked out fetus that neither mom nor dad wants brought into the world to be saved by your Orwellian never never land displays a level of arrogance in ignorance thatdefies comprehension. Maybe by age 15or16 the real world will whack you into reality.
Wake up pro life means being anti everything you're for.

I don't think I follow...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who the hell is Larry Sabato, and does it take some "expert" to see that the Republican Party is still too much of a men's club? By the numbers, the Republican party is failing with women. Failing at the polls and failing in Congress. If you want to deny it, be my guest. I'm happy knowing that you are working your way to permanent minority status.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP. You must have felt wonderful typing your littlr Ms Purfect missal. What a conflict avoiding,rationalizing basket case you must be in real life. OMG have you ever disagreed with anything ?
Life as a passive aggressive fantasy loving idiot must be a trip. An Artificial womb to grow a just sucked out fetus that neither mom nor dad wants brought into the world to be saved by your Orwellian never never land displays a level of arrogance in ignorance thatdefies comprehension. Maybe by age 15or16 the real world will whack you into reality.
Wake up pro life means being anti everything you're for.

np here- you sound like an jerk pp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro-life liberal here. Yes, we do exist. I hate that stupid saying from the OP, along with the majority of the rhetoric by the pro-life moment. It means nothing and is a pitiful attempt to instill guilt in the heart of pro-choicers. Major fail.

I agree with those who promote the causes of reduced poverty, better sex education, and better parental leave policies as ways to reduce abortions. I bet if we had paid maternity leave even half as awesome as Canada's there would be a reduction in abortions, since many are from women who are married and already have kids and probably work. Oh but that's socialist and we all know socialism is evil.

I don't support criminalizing abortion, because I believe that ignores the root causes of it and unfairly penalizes women who may be victims themselves. I am holding out for science to triumph with an artificial womb of some sort that will make abortion as the end of a life a nonissue. I realize I may be dreaming with that one.

Dumbest post ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who the hell is Larry Sabato, and does it take some "expert" to see that the Republican Party is still too much of a men's club? By the numbers, the Republican party is failing with women. Failing at the polls and failing in Congress. If you want to deny it, be my guest. I'm happy knowing that you are working your way to permanent minority status.

You seem to really try hard to be convincing, but it's just not working. And you're a schmuck for not knowing who Sabato is. But unlike yourself or another hypocritical liberal here, I wouldn't suggest you have no business posting here, like was done to me.

Other than holding the House and coming within one or two of retaking the Senate, what's your definition of permanent minority status?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who the hell is Larry Sabato, and does it take some "expert" to see that the Republican Party is still too much of a men's club? By the numbers, the Republican party is failing with women. Failing at the polls and failing in Congress. If you want to deny it, be my guest. I'm happy knowing that you are working your way to permanent minority status.

You seem to really try hard to be convincing, but it's just not working. And you're a schmuck for not knowing who Sabato is. But unlike yourself or another hypocritical liberal here, I wouldn't suggest you have no business posting here, like was done to me.

Other than holding the House and coming within one or two of retaking the Senate, what's your definition of permanent minority status?

Really I am supposed to know every College prof / turned talking head? That is what qualifies as informed? I can read. Tv news is second rate.

As for your question about what I mean about permanent minority status, I will let Republicans explain it to you. And I'll cite the Blaze so you know it's not trickery.
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/08/27/jeb-bush-dan-quayle-inclusion-republican-party/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

What sort of comment are you looking for? The official Republican platform is much more strongly controlled by the far right wing of the party that includes a large contingent of hard-core Christians including evangelicals. It's unfortunate, and yet a reality that everyone is aware of.

I'm a Catholic and pro-life. While my Church opposes birth control and sex ed, as a practical matter, I support them since I think they are critical if we are ever to reduce the number of abortions and unplanned pregnancies occurring in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

What sort of comment are you looking for? The official Republican platform is much more strongly controlled by the far right wing of the party that includes a large contingent of hard-core Christians including evangelicals. It's unfortunate, and yet a reality that everyone is aware of.

I'm a Catholic and pro-life. While my Church opposes birth control and sex ed, as a practical matter, I support them since I think they are critical if we are ever to reduce the number of abortions and unplanned pregnancies occurring in this country.

When you say "I support them" - how do you support them? Do you vote for leadership which will actively encourage sex ed in your local schools? Do you vote for candidates who will protect birth control as part of a health care package? Do you vote for "entitlement" programs such as WIC which feeds women, infants and children? Or do you support Republicans who would teach creationism, allow employers to opt out of birth control under a "conscience" clause, and cut welfare for that lazy 47%?

What I am saying is that it's easy for a pro lifer to SAY that you are supporting programs which discourage abortion. But if you are voting pro-life, you are NOT addressing the underlying issues that could prevent unwanted pregnancy. You're just voting for people who will try to make it harder to get abortions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

What sort of comment are you looking for? The official Republican platform is much more strongly controlled by the far right wing of the party that includes a large contingent of hard-core Christians including evangelicals. It's unfortunate, and yet a reality that everyone is aware of.

I'm a Catholic and pro-life. While my Church opposes birth control and sex ed, as a practical matter, I support them since I think they are critical if we are ever to reduce the number of abortions and unplanned pregnancies occurring in this country.

When you say "I support them" - how do you support them? Do you vote for leadership which will actively encourage sex ed in your local schools? Do you vote for candidates who will protect birth control as part of a health care package? Do you vote for "entitlement" programs such as WIC which feeds women, infants and children? Or do you support Republicans who would teach creationism, allow employers to opt out of birth control under a "conscience" clause, and cut welfare for that lazy 47%?

What I am saying is that it's easy for a pro lifer to SAY that you are supporting programs which discourage abortion. But if you are voting pro-life, you are NOT addressing the underlying issues that could prevent unwanted pregnancy. You're just voting for people who will try to make it harder to get abortions.

I'm the PP you were questioning. I vote for the candidate that overall I think is best for the country in any given election, and in the five Presidential elections in which I have participated, I have voted for Democrats and for Republicans. I am not a single-issue voter.