Ah, someone who offers an actual argument, rather than just empty quotes, and personal attacks, a rarity these days! I suppose I owe your positions due respect.
It's not really pro-choice when most self-declared "pro-choice" advocates support having other people pay for that choice.
Aye, when the debate is over funding of abortion, perhaps those that argue in favor of such funding are taking a pro-abortion position, but that is not the main debate--the main debate is over the legality of abortion. In the latter context pro-choice is still more accurate. Personally, I would like to see as few abortions as possible, since women who abort are more likely to be aborting future Democrats. It is only their right to have it as a fall-back that I support. Safe, legal, and rare is the mantra.
It is true that perhaps these terms pro-life and pro-choice are not the best. Although if we are to switch terms, I would argue pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights are the most accurate. But either pair is better than pro-abortion or anti-abortion. In any case, I am happy to address pro-lifers as whichever one of the three they prefer, as it ought to be the perogative of the person holding the viewpoint to define their own view; just as you describe yourself as pro-abortion. Since most people on our side would prefer pro-choice, that's the respectful designation. Pro-abortion is simply wrong for most of us. It's as simple as that.
The difference is that not many people can get across the border and make a life over several years to begin with. And what is the point of having a law limiting the speed limit if, cars can just drive past it so long as other cars are doing the same, and get to their destination faster than cars that driving below it? Is there any difference between having no limit?
A man who has lived in this country for ten years, has his own business, has friends and family, removing him out to a different country would cause far more human pain and suffering--and for what? Who gains from his removal? That someone else can take his job? It would be easier just to create a new job. Jobs are not some fixed quantity that must be distributed among the people. It is the work itself creates wealth--a job is an opportunity to contribute, not a good to be distributed. This is the mistake of the deflationists during the Great Depression. They thought that they could increase their wealth by reducing their debts on paper, even if it resulted in fewer people working. Wrong! Not a zero sum game. As long as a person is working, they are contributing.
Maybe not, but the war started because there were rulers and entire establishments at the time who thought the war acceptable, and the people looked forward to it, cheering it on. On the contrary, no one, not even John McCain or the most hawkish politician in Russia, has advocated starting a war, and there aren't any people I've seen in the American public who wants one, but we all know it would be a disaster. I'm more worried about a war in East Asia because there are actually some people who seem to be seriously considering it, than a war with Russia.
