Also, what about the Armenian genocide and the new Star Wars movies? Just awful stuff

It's something of a shame that most republicans feel that the right to life starts at conception and ends at birth.

Oh right, mothers' lives don't count.

Which mothers are being murdered exactly?

If you don't have any idea about how women's lives are threatened by pregnancy, you should shut the hell up about abortion.

Well, once you accept that elective abortions are life-sustaining, then suddenly anything is possible.

Zero “babies” are killed in wombs. I don’t care at all how many women choose to remove groups of cells from their bodies every year, nor do I think that you or I have any right to tell them what they should or shouldn’t do.

But that’s obviously a debate you should have in another thread.

Please document that "most Republicans" believe that.

Since I am not a Republican, I don't have a vested interest in that being true or not.

If you don't have any idea about how abortion is murder, then you should shut up about ANYTHING that has a moral component.

Defend or criticize: "I don't care at all how many women choose to wear masks in public, nor do I think that you or I have any right to tell them what they should or shouldn't do."

From the website WebMD:

"At this moment [at conception] the genetic makeup is complete, including the sex of the baby. ". (Emphasis added)

While I don't really wish to get dragged in to your asinine little crusade about fetus murder, I feel that this is a teaching moment about sentence formation and basic logic.

The sentence above is easily (and, IMO, correctly) interpreted to mean "future baby". Contrast: "at the time of laying the foundation, certain design aspects have to be taken into account, including the height of the building".

Just off the top of my head - Republicans:

1. Support the death penalty
2. Oppose socialised healthcare
3. Oppose restrictions on access to firearms (Note to certain readers: the main purpose of firearms is to kill people, not to hunt deer)

Not sure if you need me to elaborate on the above, so I'll let that stand as the response to your enquiry for now.

According to Dictionary dot com, one of the definitions of BABY is "a human fetus."

So you've rendered your own point moot, then.

How so? There are many valid usages of the word "baby."

I think it was Slighted who claimed that "No babies are killed in the womb. ". I was showing that there is a legit definition of "baby" that would show that his statement isn't categorically true.

Baby or fetus are both fine. Fetuses get killed. Babies get viewed on ultrasound. Same thing.

As someone who quoted "1984" not so long ago, you should be all too familiar with the power of suggestive or restrictive language. I suspect from the juxtaposition in the second and third sentences that you are, though.

Well said.

You're technically right, but my point was that the example you used did nothing to demonstrate that. And you know as well as I do that there is a reason why the specific language in this case matters, and it's not just pedantry.

Quite so! Good enough for me!

I agree that "language matters", which is why I use the word "baby", which is perfectly fine. "Fetus" also "technically right."

Infecting people with The Virus probably more worthy of outrage than any of the above.

1. Regarding the death penalty (which I personally believe should be abolished in America), the "right to life" isn't absolute. Any "right" can be forfeited if willfully abused. One's "right" to free speech doesn't include the right to slander someone. If our criminal justice system wasn't so corrupt, racist and biased against the poor, I believe a case can be made for killing some murderers.

2. I don't see how "right to life" necessarily entails socialized healthcare. Healthcare has to be provided by someone, so even though I personally have a "right to life", doesn't necessarily mean that a third-party is obligated to extend my life. "Right to life" WOULD entail not prohibiting me from seeking healthcare.

3. Shooting someone trying to take your property would be wrong, but shooting someone about to kill your wife and three kids should be fine.

Summary: "Right to life" contingent on respecting others " right to life. "

Violence/aggression wrong EXCEPT to combat violence/aggression.

Having said all that, I'm pretty much a pacifist and probably would only use aggression to protect someone other than myself.

I mean, you can say what you want, but these three issues (along with abortion) are pretty much "solved problems" in every other first world country (as far as I know), and not the hot topic items they seem to be in the US. Make of that what you will. I might answer you point-by-point later.

Pro-fascists in general tend to be anti women's rights. They're devious mother ****ers when operating in the land of the free, so they camouflage their fascist anti-women agendas in lies and all sorts of deceptions.

Take the anti-abortion-rights anti-freedom posts to the abortion-rights thread.