Democrats Willing to Fund Pro-Life Candidates to Win Back Congress

[Gravitycollapse]

73. I'm going to make this really easy for you by setting it out bit by bit.

You don't seem to understand the difference between title and action. When we are speaking about someone who is pro-life, the presumption is that this title leads to action; their beliefs have consequence on their actions. In other words, someone who is pro-life supports pro-life causes and acts in a way that is detrimental to women.

You seem obsessed with the idea that there can be someone who is pro-life but acts pro-choice. While possible, that indicates that the person is either lying or confused about their beliefs. A politician who supports pro-choice causes IS pro-choice, regardless of their personal beliefs. Does that make sense? When politicians speak about being pro-life or pro-choice, they are speaking about how they will act in official capacity as a representative of their constituents.

Now, there are people who personally identify as pro-life but do not support legal restrictions on abortion. I consider them pro-choice because the debate between pro-life and pro-choice is an issue of law and women's rights. Someone who wouldn't participate in a gay marriage but supports gay marriage is pro-gay marriage.

Someone who is a Christian without being a biblical literalist is perfectly capable of escaping the misogyny embedded in scripture. But someone who subscribes to biblical literalism, who truly believes we should interpret the Bible exactly as it is written, is a misogynist and I would never vote for them ever.

I ascribe an identity to someone based on their actions. In that context, someone who is pro-life is a misogynist and someone who is pro-choice but claims to be pro-life is confused or lying.