• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Do Republicans Hate The Troops?

Without even checking the accuracy of your statement I'll agree it rings true and I will accept it on face value as a sign of good faith and hope that we can at least agree on this much: a secular government in Iraq helped prevent the entire region from being monopolized/annexed/made subservient to Iran and it's Jihadist goals.

Okay we can agree here, however you must keep in mind that the Shah was still in power during Saddam's rise through the ranks. Meaning the Ba'ath party took power while the Shah ruled. It's true that there was no way we were going to let an anti-west, radical Islamic theocracy spread through the most oil rich region in the world. But Saddam didn't attack Iran at our bidding, he attacked Iran because they were trying to dispose of him. Saddam hated the Persians from way back anyway. They may have been Muslims, but they weren't Arabs.

This one you can't fudge on. You can't prove it WASN'T about containing terrorism (as I can't definitively prove that it was). But a look at the facts gives MORE reason to assume that containing terrorism WAS a factor in the decision to invade than for denying it as a reason.

I have already said it was about getting a close operational position next to Iran. Iran is an exporter of terror, I would even go so far as to say the largest exporter of terror in the world. But I'm guessing you have never really researched your own cults policy history. The NeoCon's have had a plan in the works to assert our nation economically and militarily since the just after the mid nineties. They laid out the plan before Bush ever took office and had actively begun strategizing about invading Iraq as soon as they took the Presidency. Further, the NeoCon's host party, the Republicans, never took terrorism seriously. Neither did Bush Sr. GWB's administration didn't give it much thought either until 9/11. Which the automatically tried to link to Iraq. GWB never told the people this was about containing Iranian terrorism. At the time it would have been a hard sale because the Iranians, while glad that 9/11 happened, weren't directly linked to it. Nobody had ever done a very good job on informing the public of the very real threat that radical Islamic terrorism posed to the U.S. 9/11 was an opportunity. Without it Bush would have pushed the WMD line. So prove the invasion was about containing terrorism? I'll agree it was in part about addressing Iran, but even that was more of an economical goal than a counter-terrorism goal.

I am constantly perplexed by seemingly intelligent people who will rest their case about the reasons for invasion with only one or two factors. It's as if they think the rest of the world isn't as smart as they.

Lol...don't confuse my concise posting as "one or two factors." I have said in other posts on this forum that there were dozens of reasons. But the most important ones were the ones we weren't told about. The economic reasons. The reasons Bush said this war wasn't about...you know when he said to his critics that this wasn't a war about oil? When it was.

And the reality is that most of the bright fellows who criticize the President are galled to think the President might just have a better grasp of things than they have. Sorry, but it's true. The President probably has close to a dozen reasons for the invasion and most critics can barely come up with three. And even those three are fudged.

See the above post.

WMD's is a B.S. criticism and most of you know it.

The fact is that nothing was found. We have an air force general who defected that claims WMD material was flown to Syria on specially modified jumbo jets but we can't verify this single man's story. We have a few piles of decades old artillery shells that were probably inert. We have some dual use equipment that made in country, but no nefarious use of it yet. And we have the infamous mobile labs. Now those I'll admit are interesting. But we have no actual stockpiles of WMD's as we were told. While I'll say Saddam was certainly interested in resuming his program, I'll also content that this is what we should have been told...not "Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's and we are going to get them." It wasn't a slam dunk.


You have a gun and you point it at a cop and he tells you to drop it and you don't and he fires and takes you out and then it's found that the gun was empty, the cop goes free. Justified shooting. He couldn't tell. The risk was too great to not take action.

Period.

In this case there was only a rumor that the bad guy had a gun. We know he may have been trying to buy a gun, we know he wanted a gun, but he had no gun in his hand. After the cop shot him we searched his body and found maybe a couple of bullets, a firing pin, a set of handgrips. But no actual gun. Your analogy is weak.

Are you normally a cheap shot artist?

No and I haven't taken a cheap shot yet.

The phrase, "spreading U.S. influence" gives a malevolent characterization to what is actually a great thing.

I'll agree that as an American, it's good for us. I even understand why we did it. I can't argue it. So stop trying to associate me with a position I have not taken. My position is that Bush lied to the people, that and he in incompetent based upon the occupation fumbling and horrible domestic policies he has pushed.

If you had a region where Iran was exporting terrorism and has imperialistic designs...

A region where every terrorist group and nation can gain power, riches and defeat their greatest enemy by controlling or denying oil...

I'm tracking you here. Again, I understand your logic. However, the invasion of Iraq was not about containing the terrorism as it was about containing the flow of oil to the west. In this case you are saying Bush's main priority was containing the terrorism. The problem is that the entire NeoCon agenda loudly proclaims otherwise. The oil, and subsequently the U.S. economy, is the number one priority. Countering radical Islam is an secondary issue. Bush's policy has proven this. Just take a look at how he has ****ed up the situation in Afghanistan.

A region where a former ally was now a rogue dictator and a loose cannon threatening parts of Europe and Israel and any number of it's other neighbors with attack or intimidation with WMD's which he had developed before and had been caught in time...

Saddam was NEVER an ally. He was the lesser of two evils. There is a difference. Iran was an enemy and Iraq was a Soviet military client state. So they were also an enemy. However Iran was the worse of the two.

A secular dictator who was supporting Islamic terrorism and encouraging terrorism and trying to make deals with terrorists and planning acts of terrorism...

A dictator who was using WMD's on his own people and committing the very worst human rights violations possible...

A dictator who was boldly contemptuous of the treaties he signed and international resolutions lodged against his regime...

A region where fights and wars and armed conflict was an ongoing reality of life every few months...

A region where many deserving people were fighting to be free against the overwhelming force and intimidation of fundamentalist religious zealots in government and in groups which sought to overthrow moderate governments...

And a region from where we have accepted increasingly greater numbers of immigrants but still can't save them all by bringing them here to the United States, but where if we helped them achieve a secular government, prosperity and freedom that they wouldn't NEED to come here. They could stay there and find the peace, stability, freedom and prosperity without overburdening the US infrastructure...

A region where their home grown freedom fighters could be counted on to oppose radical jihadists if only they were helped to break free from the yoke of tyranny...

That was a mouthful huh? You need to learn to separate some of your rhetoric though. You are crossing situational timelines in order to justify Bush's invasion and it kind of exposes your agenda. I know the kool aide tastes good, but it's not necessarily healthy.

I'll break down my thoughts on some of your points later...I have to get to the office. I agree with a couple of them.
 
Repubs are "followers" not leaders. So that makes Bush sort of like their God and like the little sheep they are they will follow and agree with Bush no matter what. No questions asked.
I would like to get inside the Repubs heads to hear what they really think of Bush.
Probably something like this:
"It seems like 20 years Bush has been in office. I can't wait for him to leave."
_________
Repubs HATE our troops? Well I do say that often but I have come to the conclusion that they don't really HATE our Troops, they just don't mind them being in harms way because Bush said "its ok.":roll:


What a base statement Stinger...you stereotyped the majority of our country. LOL! do away with the electoral college and you would hate life huh? Another thing...Repubs get ALOT of votes from conservative christians...so to say he is our God is incorrect. As for following whatever he says..not so..watch the new. Alot of conservatives are quite angry that there is a chance that illegal leeches might actually get a freebie...me being one..there goes the "follow whatever he says" theory. Give it 15 years and I GUARANTEE people will talk good about W. Hell they talk good about Carter sometimes HAHA! Now i can say...its only been since Jan. but I CANT WAIT FOR REID MURTHA AND PELOSI TO LOSE POWER! GOD!
 
Sargeant Stinger1 your incorrect there Im afraid. Conjobs do not hate the troops, they just have little regard fo them.
What they hate is everyone else.
 
Sargeant Stinger1 your incorrect there Im afraid. Conjobs do not hate the troops, they just have little regard fo them.
What they hate is everyone else.

HAHA i love the Conjob tag everytime i see it. so what truly makes a person crazy is: 1. not agreeing with homosexuality 2. being pro-life 3. guns guns guns 4. lower taxes 5. smaller government 6. less handouts to lazy people and 7. NOT "Clintoning" our military..oh dont forget secular progression..lord forbid we involve god in anything...even though this country WAS founded on religion.....hmm i know each person has different stances on each individual issue but thats my general view on a few stances of conservatives. US CRAZY PPL!
 
I think we just love our children and want for them NOT to grow up in a world of gay, atheist pacifists that work for the government *shrug*
 
HAHA i love the Conjob tag everytime i see it. so what truly makes a person crazy is: 1. not agreeing with homosexuality 2. being pro-life 3. guns guns guns 4. lower taxes 5. smaller government 6. less handouts to lazy people and 7. NOT "Clintoning" our military..oh dont forget secular progression..lord forbid we involve god in anything...even though this country WAS founded on religion.....hmm i know each person has different stances on each individual issue but thats my general view on a few stances of conservatives. US CRAZY PPL!

:mrgreen: :lol: :mrgreen:

I don't think I've ever met anyone as stereotypically conservative as you are, and believe me I've met a lot of conservatives. It's ridiculous how someone can completely lack independent thought to such a huge extent.

First, you can't "disagree" with homosexuality. It's not a political issue; it's a sexual orientation. It's like saying you disagree with tomato soup. It makes no sense.

Second, you're not "pro-life"; you're anti-choice.

Third, guns are awesome (just not in the hands of people like you).

Fourth, this country was founded on slavery and sexism, too. Do you think we should still have slavery?

I think we just love our children and want for them NOT to grow up in a world of gay, atheist pacifists that work for the government *shrug*

What's wrong with gay people and atheists?
 
I don't think I've ever met anyone as stereotypically conservative as you are, and believe me I've met a lot of conservatives. It's ridiculous how someone can completely lack independent thought to such a huge extent.

Lacking independent thought because that is what I believe? How in the HELL does that mean that I lack independent thought? I dont believe in something because i heard about it on the news like alot of people. And further more, your profile reads you are communist...id rather be a cookie cutter con than a believer of a failed government. I mean really, at least being conservative doesnt look good on paper and suck in reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Book_of_Communism said:
The introduction, by editor Stéphane Courtois, maintains that "...Communist regimes...turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government". Using unofficial estimates he cites a death toll which totals 94 million. The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows: 20 million in the Soviet Union, 65 million in the People's Republic of China, 1 million in Vietnam, 2 million in North Korea, 2 million in Cambodia, 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe, 150,000 in Latin America, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan and 10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international communist movement and communist parties not in power" The authors explicitly claim that Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including fascism.

A more detailed catalogue (from the introduction) of some of the crimes described in the book includes:

Soviet Union: executions of hostages, prisoners, rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922; the famine of 1922; the deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920; the use of the Gulag system in the period between 1918 and 1930; the Great Purge; the deportation of kulaks from 1930 to 1932; the deaths of 4 million Ukrainians (Holodomor) and 2 million others during the famine of 1932 and 1933; the deportations of Poles, Ukrainians, Balts, Moldavians and Bessarabians from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1945; the deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941; the deportation of the Crimean Tatars on 18 May 1944; the deportation of the Chechens in 1944; the deportation of the Ingush in 1944.
Cambodia: deportation and extermination of the urban population of Cambodia.
China: the destruction of Tibetan culture.
The book, among other sources, used material from the (then) recently opened KGB files and other Soviet archives.

The authors, or a selection of them, claim to be leftists, and offer the motivation of their work as being that they do not want to give "the extreme right the privilege to alone tell the truth" (pp. 14 and 50, Finnish edition of the book, WSOY, 2001).

Two of the other authors, Nicolas Werth and Jean-Louis Margolin, sparked a debate in France when they publicly disassociated themselves from Courtois's opinions about the scale of Communist terror. They felt that he was being obsessed with arriving at a total of 100 million victims. They instead estimated that communism has claimed between 65 and 93 million lives[2]. They rejected his equation of Soviet repression with Nazi genocide. Werth, a well-regarded French specialist on the Soviet Union whose sections in the Black Book on the Soviet Communists are sober and damning, said there was still a qualitative difference between Nazism and Communism. He told Le Monde, "Death camps did not exist in the Soviet Union" [3], and "The more you compare communism and nazism, the more the differences are obvious."


First, you can't "disagree" with homosexuality. It's not a political issue; it's a sexual orientation. It's like saying you disagree with tomato soup. It makes no sense.

How doesnt it make sense...I dont agree that its right, I dont agree that is natural, I dont agree they should be granted the same rights as married men and women, I dont agree they should be able to adopt, etc.

Second, you're not "pro-life"; you're anti-choice.

Not true the way i see it from your comment, to be anti-choice sounds like you dont really give a **** about the kid...you just wanna apply a communist thought to a serious issue. I happen to think that ONLY in certain situations..it shouldnt be considered COLD BLOODED MURDER to have an abortion. NOT because I hate ppl that do it more than I love the life of everything and think that as soon as that cell divides it is a living creature.

Third, guns are awesome (just not in the hands of people like you).

RIGHT.......well dont worry darling I have enough..and I had one too while I was deployed to: Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi and Djibouti Africa in the last 6 years. Im one of those miljobs as im sure you have em tagged for being crazy.

Fourth, this country was founded on slavery and sexism, too. Do you think we should still have slavery?

slavery and sexism..hmm...well sexism was around A LONG time before this country was founded so was a part of all society. As well as slavery, but i dont know if you missed that lil thing where we tried to right that called the CIVIL WAR. Good one.



What's wrong with gay people and atheists?

Dont mind atheists except that some want to strip us of rights to say Christ in Christmas, and In God We Trust on my Indiana license plate, etc. but i have enough atheist friends to know they are horrible people. Now gay people...you can keep em and maybe form a core of your communist gov. there Khay.
 
Lacking independent thought because that is what I believe? How in the HELL does that mean that I lack independent thought? I dont believe in something because i heard about it on the news like alot of people. And further more, your profile reads you are communist...id rather be a cookie cutter con than a believer of a failed government. I mean really, at least being conservative doesnt look good on paper and suck in reality.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You would quote from the Black Book.

How doesnt it make sense...

Because homosexuality is an objective reality. It exists, just like any other physical attribute exists. Saying you "disagree with homosexuality" makes as much sense as saying you disagree with green eyes or red hair.

I dont agree that its right, I dont agree that is natural, I dont agree they should be granted the same rights as married men and women, I dont agree they should be able to adopt, etc.

And these are completely different issues than "disagreeing with homosexuality". You can either recognize homosexuality exists or deny it, but you can't agree or disagree with it.

Not true the way i see it

Are you for or against the woman's right to choose?

I happen to think that ONLY in certain situations..it shouldnt be considered COLD BLOODED MURDER to have an abortion. NOT because I hate ppl that do it more than I love the life of everything and think that as soon as that cell divides it is a living creature.

First, it's either murder or it isn't. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You either think that abortion is murder, and justifiable in some cases, or that it isn't. You can't claim that it's only "murder in some cases".

And as an aside, sperm are living creatures. Are you against masturbation and nocturnal emission? Ants are living creatures. Are you against stepping on them? I assume that you didn't imply it in such a way, and that what you meant is that once the cell divides it's a living human, but I could be wrong and would like for you to clarify this point.

slavery and sexism..hmm...well sexism was around A LONG time before this country was founded so was a part of all society. As well as slavery, but i dont know if you missed that lil thing where we tried to right that called the CIVIL WAR. Good one.

Apparently my point went right over your head. First, religion was also "around A LONG time before this country was founded so was part of all society [sic]." Second, I threw in slavery because you were trying to justify the permeation of contemporary society by religion by saying that that's what the country was founded on. I countered with slavery to imply that just because the United States was religious when it was founded doesn't mean that that justifies the permeation of society by religion today, just as because the United States was a slave country when it was founded doesn't mean that it justifies the use of slavery today.

Dont mind atheists except that some want to strip us of rights to say Christ in Christmas

Who's doing that? I don't think I've ever heard even the most militant of atheists make such a statement. Of course, taking Christ out of Christmas would be more historically accurate, considering the fact that Christmas was originally a pagan holiday that was co opted by the church and that Christ certainly wasn't born in the winter, if he even existed. But then again I don't really care what people call it.

and In God We Trust on my Indiana license plate, etc.

That's not stripping you of your right. The state should never sponsor religious messages, even if they're as vague as the one you've provided. I think the problem with most people with regards to this issue is that they link this kind of thing with the growth of atheism in the country, and regard the fight for a secular government as an attack on religion, which it clearly isn't.

but i have enough atheist friends to know they are horrible people.

You must not be good with people then, or everyone hates you, if you can only manage to get friends you think are "horrible".:mrgreen:

Now gay people...you can keep em and maybe form a core of your communist gov. there Khay.

Oh, cmon. Let's hear what you really think!
 
:mrgreen: :lol: :mrgreen:

I don't think I've ever met anyone as stereotypically conservative as you are, and believe me I've met a lot of conservatives. It's ridiculous how someone can completely lack independent thought to such a huge extent.

First, you can't "disagree" with homosexuality. It's not a political issue; it's a sexual orientation. It's like saying you disagree with tomato soup. It makes no sense.

Second, you're not "pro-life"; you're anti-choice.

Third, guns are awesome (just not in the hands of people like you).

Fourth, this country was founded on slavery and sexism, too. Do you think we should still have slavery?



What's wrong with gay people and atheists?

I have been reading many of your posts and I find this to be most humorous. While I am not a conservative, I think that you are the one taking party lines and text book talking points and applying them in some attempt to be clever. It's old and tired bullshit no matter how many times you regurgitate it.

Next thing you will be calling him a sheep or a lemming.
 
I think that you are the one taking party lines and text book talking points and applying them in some attempt to be clever.

Then the attempt has been at least partially successful.
I find Khayembii Communique to be manifestly clever.


It's old and tired bullshit no matter how many times you regurgitate it.

A matter of opinion; I found it to be cogent, fresh, and compelling.
 
Then the attempt has been at least partially successful.
I find Khayembii Communique to be manifestly clever.




A matter of opinion; I found it to be cogent, fresh, and compelling.

So are you asking me out on a date or what?
 
I have been reading many of your posts

I'm flattered that you're a fan of my work.

While I am not a conservative, I think that you are the one taking party lines and text book talking points and applying them in some attempt to be clever. It's old and tired bullshit no matter how many times you regurgitate it.

If you'd like to turn this rant into a valid post regarding what you've quoted I'd be more than happy to respond to it.

Next thing you will be calling him a sheep or a lemming.

I think that would be an insult to sheep and lemmings.

Then the attempt has been at least partially successful.
I find Khayembii Communique to be manifestly clever.

A matter of opinion; I found it to be cogent, fresh, and compelling.

Why thank you, 1069; it's great to hear that there's at least a few people here that are capable of independent thought and critical reasoning.
 
If you'd like to turn this rant into a valid post regarding what you've quoted I'd be more than happy to respond to it.
Accusing your opponent of being devoid of independent thought? Typically used as some sort of lame jab at someone who takes what appears to be taking a party line. Sorry I thought you were capable of picking that out, especially with my "sheep and lemmings" comment.

Why thank you, 1069; it's great to hear that there's at least a few people here that are capable of independent thought and critical reasoning.
And here you are again. "Oh I can't believe I'm afloat in a sea of ignorant people..." Sure thing Sparky.

Anyway getting back to the topic at hand....
 
Anyway getting back to the topic at hand....

Crossing timelines between the first Iraq war, the second, the gassing of the Kurds, and our occupation in one burst of points is not a good strategy. I'll address this second part now.

A secular dictator who was supporting Islamic terrorism and encouraging terrorism and trying to make deals with terrorists and planning acts of terrorism...
Yes...we have been down this road. This is where I was cautioning you to stop crossing timelines in order to validate your point. We addressed this in 1993 with a missile strike on the Iraqi intelligence headquarters. After that there is little evidence to support Iraq continued on in the role as a terror sponsor or operational player. Saddam may have offered OBL sanctuary, but the offer was never accepted. Nor was there ever proven any kind of substantial link between Iraq and AQ. Further, you are going down a slippery slope when you cite "terrorism" as a validation for invading Iraq in 2003. You need to cough up some proof here.

A dictator who was using WMD's on his own people and committing the very worst human rights violations possible...
Who did use them years prior to our first invasion. Again, you can only go back so far in time if you are going to realistically justify GWB's decision to go to war. That was back in 1988, fifteen years before the invasion. And the chemical weapons stockpiles bit is old anyway. It wasn't there.

A dictator who was boldly contemptuous of the treaties he signed and international resolutions lodged against his regime...
I agree here.

A region where fights and wars and armed conflict was an ongoing reality of life every few months...
Hmmm....you are treading dangerous water here. There are a lot worse situations throughout the world where the U.S. simply chooses not to get involved. I would stay away from this point. You will get crucified.

A region where many deserving people were fighting to be free against the overwhelming force and intimidation of fundamentalist religious zealots in government and in groups which sought to overthrow moderate governments...
I appreciate this point, but it alone means little when you look at the very same category of struggle in other regions of the world which we choose to ignore. It's paints us as opportunistic and placing a monetary value potential on Iraqi civilians as opposed to say any number of Africans.

And a region from where we have accepted increasingly greater numbers of immigrants but still can't save them all by bringing them here to the United States, but where if we helped them achieve a secular government, prosperity and freedom that they wouldn't NEED to come here. They could stay there and find the peace, stability, freedom and prosperity without overburdening the US infrastructure...
Well they had a secular government prior to our invasion, you realize this right? He may have been a brutal dictator, but he was not running a fundamental Islamic theocracy. I do agree with you fully that it is imperative that we help them establish some level of economic viability and security. It's best for everyone, not just the U.S. and the Iraqi's. And whether you can see this or not, the very core U.S. economic infrastructure (read: taxpayer) is heavily over burdened by this disaster already.

A region where their home grown freedom fighters could be counted on to oppose radical jihadists if only they were helped to break free from the yoke of tyranny...
Ahhhh...now this is a great sentiment. Is it really tyranny or terrorism? I mean we freed them from Saddam's tyranny, and the current Iraqi government is far from tyrannical. The secular infighting has some elements that can be associated with tyrannical behavior I suppose, but not in the sense that they are under a "yoke of tyranny." The interests are not centralized or focused enough to say a particular group has tyrannical control over a populace. Maybe I misunderstood what you are getting at.
 
And you're not pro-choice you're pro-death.

Wouldn't I be anti-life? I don't think I've ever met anyone that's anti-life. Wouldn't they be dead? Anyways, the issue is about a woman's right to choose, not whether or not life is cool. You can either be for a woman's right to choose (pro-choice), or against it (anti-choice). Pro-life is a loaded term used by anti-choice conservatives to gain sympathy for their movement as a "humanitarian" movement and implies that those who support pro-choice are anti-life, which is obviously a false dichotomy.
 
You guys crack me up. Pro-choice and pro-life are both complete misnomers. The issue is abortion. If you are against abortion you are anti-abortion if you are for it, you are pro-abortion.

Unless by pro-life you mean you are against the death penalty, and you are a vegan and animal rights activist, and you don't use antibiotics, etc...

Similarly, someone who is pro-choice should be for assault rifle ownership to be a choice that is up to the individual, as well as whether or not folks choose to pay taxes, whether or not employers choose to pay they workers more than $3.00/hr etc...

Arguing over the terms is almost as silly as the terms themselves.
 
You guys crack me up. Pro-choice and pro-life are both complete misnomers. The issue is abortion. If you are against abortion you are anti-abortion if you are for it, you are pro-abortion.

No, a pro-abortion/anti-abortion dichotomy implies that someone supports and encourages or rejects and condemns the act of abortion itself. The majority of the people that are pro-choice are so because they feel that the woman should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion; they don't actively support and encourage women to get them.

Similarly, someone who is pro-choice should be for assault rifle ownership to be a choice that is up to the individual, as well as whether or not folks choose to pay taxes, whether or not employers choose to pay they workers more than $3.00/hr etc...

This is about a specific issue, not a generality.
 
No, a pro-abortion/anti-abortion dichotomy implies that someone supports and encourages or rejects and condemns the act of abortion itself. The majority of the people that are pro-choice are so because they feel that the woman should have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion; they don't actively support and encourage women to get them.

Hogswash. When dealing with any political issue, the legal implications are implied. Anti-abortion means you are opposed to the legality of abortion. Pro-abortion means you are in favor of the legality of abortion. Its just that simple.
 
Back
Top Bottom