Most importantly, you're completely ignoring the main point of everything I've said. I'm arguing for better dialogue from both sides. But you ignore that and latch on to certain things I've said and force me to adopt the right-leaning platform. You're insisting that this be an issue of "liberal vs. conservative", despite my attempts to remain in the center.
That is exactly what polarization is. That is exactly the kind of approach I've been denouncing. Exactly why, as a culture, we're no better today than we were a century ago. We still haven't learned to stop the false dichotomies, to stop the "good vs. evil" mindset, and to stop the "us vs them" psychology.

Indeed. So maybe that little boy in the picture up above is in the wrong country too?
Unless freedom of speech shouldn't apply to Mexico?
Seriously though, you completely miss the point. What you and abel did when you attacked the labels of "pro-life" and "pro-family" was take them out of their intended context and pointed out that they don't make sense given another circumstance.
e.g. How can you be "pro-family" when you don't support a homosexual family?
The answer is: because you're extending the label to situations it was not intended to cover.
Taking that exact same fallacious approach to "pro-choice", one would point out that you can't call yourself "pro-choice" if you don't want allow someone the choice to, for example, own a gun, burn coal, or any of the other things I mentioned in my "rant."

abel raised a point about labels, and my point was that labels are deceptive and very rarely perfect. That's what I was talking about, and that's what I put up. A "rant", as you say, demonstrating that pro-choice people are only selectively "pro-choice", just as abel and you argued that "pro-life" or "pro-family" allegedly don't hold up.
That's why I don't like labels. I don't like "pro-life", "pro-choice", "liberal", "conservative", and especially labels like "progressive", "homophobic", "bigoted", "baby-killer", etc.
Our culture uses words as weapons rather than as tools of understanding. We burn bridges instead of build them. Posts like this are evidence that we have learned very little in the past century about how to come together in harmony. Posts like this explain why MLK Jr.'s dream remains just a dream.

I'm not sure you're following the conversation.
I responded to a rant with a rant, perhaps. But abel's initial rant against "pro-life" was what I was responding to when you asked me to put up.
What else were you expecting?

Sure you didn't. "Go ahead. Put up or shut up."
I must've imagined that.
[rolls eyes]
I wasn't even the one who brought it up initially; I was responding to abel's comment. Then nightshade picked up on it. Then you did.
Any bells ringing?

I know, right? Wasn't my choice to come that far. They literally asked for it.

Again, this good vs. evil, us vs. them bull**** has GOT to stop.
Do you know how a man as divisive and dangerous as Donald Trump gets nominated as one of two candidates for the most powerful political office in the world?
Because our culture allows him to. Our culture of "I'm right, and you can just go f*** yourself." The same culture that you guys are directly contributing to in your mistreatment of anyone who dares disagree with you.

Didn't want to get too far off-topic, but I guess if you ask for it, I have to let you have it, huh?
Firstly because "pro-choice" implies that the opposition is against choice, which they are not. They are just in favor of a more responsible use of choice. In fact you could say they are equally if not more in favor of personal freedom, because they don't want a woman to find herself unprepared in a situation where her only options are childbirth or abortion in the first place.
Also, "pro-choice"... except when it comes to someone's CHOICE to do any of the following:
- Own guns.
- Encourage birth instead of abortion.
- Burn coal.
- Use an incandescent light bulb.
- Share their religious beliefs (especially with their young, impressionable children).
- Engage in free market practices.
- Advocate traditional family values. A parade or protest, for example (*cough, cough*).
Don't like or agree with any of the above? Good. Then stop doing it to your opponents.

Just pointing out a double-standard. You're all taking pro-choice to refer to what pro-choice people want it to mean and nothing more, but you're scrutinizing "pro-life" and demonizing them for perceived weaknesses in their ranks. I could easily do the same for "pro-choice" people.
I repeat: this demonization and lack of empathy only proves my point. This outdated "us vs. them," "good vs. evil" viewpoint has got to stop. We're not learning anything.

Also about as true as "pro-choice," huh?
You're right that people are imperfect. People have prejudices. But guess what? So do you. You've made that obvious. The difference is that I don't hate you or think you're evil, destructive people just because you aren't perfect.
That's normal human thought. Our brains are wired toward stereotype and bias. We're great at recognizing such failings in others, but it takes a lot of honesty and introspection to recognize it in ourselves.
What you guys need to learn is empathy. Learn what people really believe, and what they are really trying to accomplish. Not some imagined progressive talking points version of them that makes them out to be evil or ridiculous. That's got self-preservation psychology written all over it. If that's the best you can do, you're just contributing to the problem you say you're trying to overcome.

None of the arguments make sense. From conception onward, a person is a self-determining, genetically unique, complete organism that can survive as long as its environment can provide what it needs. That remains true for all people at all stages of life. There is no fundamental change or magic threshold that makes the fetus into something else, namely a "human being." Its development process is seamless and continuous, from the point of conception until s/he dies of old age.
That is the objective truth. But if we choose to use labels and pigeon-holing to justify our subjective discrimination, we can. And since that is easiest, we often do. But that doesn't make it right.

As I said before, you can't prove that. There is no objectively "right" answer that is within our grasp. "Human being" is a label that we choose to apply however we want.
I could respond with all kinds pf reasons why I think a fetus is a human being.
It can't survive on its own? Neither can an infant. Neother can any of us without a suitable environment and nutrition -- the same needs a fetus has.
It can't feel pain? Neither can a paralytic, or a comatose person.
It might die on its own anyway? Well heck, I thought we all had that chance.

Bull. They call it "pro-family", not "anti-gay".
I don't deny that in many of them there is unnecessary and inappropriate hostility and disempathy, but that is not their foundation.
They mean well. If you don't understand that you prove my point that history is rewritten by the winner so that the loser is marginalized and demonized.
You guys talk about love and understanding toward LGBT people, but you deny it for anyone who disagrees with you.

I can't tell if I should be flattered or disappointed that you thought I didn't know anything about how reproduction works.
Did you have anything helpful to add? Or is it easier to just carry on pretending I don't know what I'm talking about?

Is this crowd not celebrating? Celebrating tradition and family values?
They're standing up for what they believe is right, and trying to make their society a better place. Just like anyone else.

Nope. Its a label that only means what we want it to mean. One person's choice to define it one way is not inherently better than any other's
But scientifically, morally, politically, culturally, and in virtually all other ways, abortion is an easily objectionable practice.
Oops, I mean "reproductive health."

Can't prove otherwise, can you?

Or conflicting findings.
My paleontology professor led a team of graduate students to develop a new theory about dinosaur skeletons that disproved and replaced an existing one. When presenting the theory at a conference, nearly everyone there happily accepted the new findings.
Guess who was the one scientist that didn't?
The guy whose theory just got one-upped.
Coincidence?

Because it's not accurate. It's a misrepresentation of their beliefs and intentions.