The Democrat record is indefensible. Vote. Them. All. Out.

And an ad hominem argument, and a strawman. Wow, you and logical fallacies are like Pokemon- gotta catch 'em all!

"But regardless, it is still your opinion"

How is it opinion when it's a fact?

"I said Democrats, including in the 1860s, were on the left, which is true"

Democrats in the 1860s held very strong conservative values. If you think they were on the left, what liberal values did they hold?

"You literally just said it was"

No, I said it was developing, not that it was an actual child

"OMG I just walked you through what your definitions mean, the "actual definitions" of your definition, and you still are being obtuse."

You're trying to steer it towards a certain outcome, and the definitions don't lead to that outcome.

Very strong conservative values... well, yes and no. Conservative is not really a good term to use because those meanings change. But as for your question of liberal values, plenty. Here are a few examples:

1. Jacksonians often used anti-elite rhetoric against the "aristocracy." He often asserted that "yeoman farmers" and hillbillies" were the ideal representation of America. I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty similar to what many socialists nowadays say- just change "aristocracy" for "bourgeoisie" and "yeoman farmer/hillbilly" for "proletariat." Once he had popular support, he would instill his supporters.

2. Though there are some notable exceptions- most notable Grover Cleveland- many Democrats (W. J. Bryan in particular) ran on a sort of left-wing populist platform. Although there were many rich and upper class Democrats (the "Bourbon Democrats"), Many more Dems like Bryan often complained about "Eastern monied interests,"i.e., big businessmen and bankers.

3. Attractive to immigrants- the Democrat Party has always been attractive to new immigrants, such as Germans and Irish Catholics. Slightly later they would expand their scope of activities to Latin American immigrants. Pretty much the only immigrants they despised (and no, conservatives today don't despise immigrants, we just want to end illegal immigration) were Chinese- which carries over to today, where "affirmative-action" laws actually RAISE admission standards in college for Asians, in an effort to keep more of them out of college.

4. Direct democracy- this idea is that each new territory would hold a vote to decide whether slavery would be legal in that particular new state. This is comparable to the movement to abolish the Electoral College and establish a national popular vote.

5. This came later, but it's still before the supposed "Party Switch" happened in the sixties. I don't know if you've ever heard of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but he instituted numerous government funded welfare programs, a pretty neoliberal idea. It was called the "New Deal" and its backers re-elected Roosevelt four times. It's also where the term "Green New Deal" comes from.

There are plenty more, but I'll stop here. Regardless, I don't think you've been paying attention to what I've said. The Republicans at that point were classical liberals, which are quite similar to the "conservatives" of today. They were not leftists, however desperately you try to paint them as such.

"Jacksonians often used anti-elite rhetoric"

Sounds like many conservatives today who complain about "liberal elites" and "Hollywood elites"

"many Democrats (W. J. Bryan in particular) ran on a sort of left-wing populist platform"

That sounds like politicians in general

"Attractive to immigrants- the Democrat Party has always been attractive to new immigrants, such as Germans and Irish Catholics"

I don't know if that's true one way or the other, but many conservatives back then (and many today) are very anti-immigrant

"Direct democracy- this idea is that each new territory would hold a vote to decide whether slavery would be legal in that particular new state"

That isn't direct democracy, it's just each state deciding for itself if it would allow slavery or not

"(FDR) instituted numerous government funded welfare programs, a pretty neoliberal idea"

Yes. And the parties were already switching some policies by then.

"The Republicans at that point were classical liberals, which are quite similar to the "conservatives" of today. They were not leftists, however desperately you try to paint them as such"

I never said they were leftists. I almost never even use that word.

"Okay, so according to you, when does it become a child? You still haven't answered that question"

After it reaches a certain level of development.

"the definitions DID lead to that outcome, you just don't want to admit it"

In my view, they didn't

Sounds also like socialists who complain about the "top 1%"...

All politicians are left-wing populists? Really?

Go check it out then. Yeah, ald like I said, we're NOT anti-immigrant, we're anti ILLEGAL-immigration.

It's not national direct democracy, but it is a statewide popular democracy. Like I said, they always have been screaming about "mUh DemOcRacY!!!"

AAAND THERE IT IS!!! The "Party Switch" BS!!!

Yes, actually you kinda have...

Okay, WHAT level of development? Surely you can give me a number?

Well that's YOUR view.

Okay, so according to you, when does it become a child? You still haven't answered that question.

"You're trying to steer it towards a certain outcome, and the definitions don't lead to that outcome."

It? I don't know of any killer clowns in this debate.... But no, the definitions DID lead to that outcome, you just don't want to admit it.

"That's what the Democrats said to the Republicans when they worked to end slavery"

When liberals fought to end slavery and got pushback from conservatives? I agree

"Okay, let's define out terms- what is a pregnancy?"

The dictionary says "the condition or period of being pregnant"

Conservatives like... LBJ? No, it's just a hunch, but something tells me he wasn't a conservative.

You see, there's a misconception about conservative thinking. They think we're against all progress. We're not. That is the classical liberal POV, the one sported by the Founders (who we honor and respect, even in the face of leftists), so in a way we are liberals. We're not Any other kind of liberal, especially neoliberal. Classical liberalism is on the right, everything else, (to include Democrats, even in the 1850s and '60s) is on the left. You see, we want to CONSERVE the principles of the American Revolution. THAT'S what we're conserving.But besides, this isn't what we're arguing about.

No sh*t. What does it MEAN though?

Correct, albeit unintentionally.
Conservatives are very much like the Founders/neu-Aristocrats, who sought to set themselves up as the overlords with the regular citizenry/lower classes beneath them, ruled by those they (the elite) appoint, including the almost crowned Washington. Very legit fears of the aspect of post-war militias well versed in killing setting their sights on their puffy asses changed that.

Neoliberals are those who favor free-market capitalism, deregulation, and reduced gov't spending.

"Conservatives like... LBJ?"

I mean conservatives like the ones in the 1860s fighting to conserve slavery

"You see, there's a misconception about conservative thinking. They think we're against all progress"

I'm not sure who you mean by "they"

"That is the classical liberal POV, the one sported by the Founders...so in a way we are liberals"

Not all conservatives fit the definition of classical liberal

"everything else, (to include Democrats, even in the 1850s and '60s) is on the left"

Democrats in the 1860s weren't on the left 😂

Also, "everything else" that isn't classical liberalism is on the left? So people on the far right are on the left?

"You see, we want to CONSERVE the principles of the American Revolution. THAT'S what we're conserving"

That's what it means to you. That's not what it means to all conservatives.

"No sh*t. What does it MEAN though?"

It means "having a child or young developing in the uterus"

"I'm not sure who you mean by "they""

You're right. I mean YOU.

"Not all conservatives fit the definition of classical liberal"

Never said they did. Obviously there are going to be exceptions, on both the right and left.

"Democrats in the 1860s weren't on the left 😂"

Putting a laughing emoji next to something doesn't make it true 😂

"That's what it means to you. That's not what it means to all conservatives."

Again, no sh*t. Creating a social equity is not what liberalism means to some libs, but that's what it means to most. OBVIOUSLY there are going to be exceptions.

"It means 'having a child or young developing in the uterus' "

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. And what does "terminate" mean?

"You're right. I mean YOU"

I believe that many conservatives are opposed to progress. But not all conservatives.

"Putting a laughing emoji next to something doesn't make it true"

Never said it did. But saying that conservatives were on the left doesn't make it true

"Ah, now we're getting somewhere. And what does "terminate" mean?"

To end or stop something

"I believe that many conservatives are opposed to progress. But not all conservatives."

Well, us conservatives believe that you are entitled to your opinion...

"But saying that conservatives were on the left doesn't make it true"

When did I say conservatives were on the left?! Please, I'd like to know so I can correct it. Unless, of course, you are using a bait-and-switch tactic...

Okay, so- If you're ending (Terminating) the development of a child in the womb (pregnancy), what happens to the child?

Even by your own definitions, abortion is still exactly what pro-lifers assert it is- killing a baby.

"Well, us conservatives believe that you are entitled to your opinion"

It's not my opinion, it's a fact that some conservatives are opposed to progress

"When did I say conservatives were on the left?!"

You said "everything else, (to include Democrats, even in the 1850s and '60s) is on the left". Democrats in the 1800s weren't on the left. They were on the right.

"Okay, so- If you're ending (Terminating) the development of a child in the womb (pregnancy), what happens to the child?"

That's a nonsensical question, because it's not a child yet.

"Even by your own definitions, abortion is still exactly what pro-lifers assert it is- killing a baby."

No, it's terminating a pregnancy. That's the actual definition

This is how simple it is, Manfattan. Abortion is murder of the most innocent among us.

"Because the trauma of rape is not enough punishment, lets give the poor the girl a life sentence of financial responsibility for a bastard and constant reminder of the rape."

A "life sentence"? What are you talking about? Obviously nobody is arguing in favor of rapists (In fact I think there needs to be stronger punishments for them, SCOTUS would do good to strike down Kennedy vs. Louisiana), but the assertion also assumes that the child is also a purveyor of the act of rape. That's simply not true. The child conceived in rape is just as much a victim as the mother. We should do all we can to help both. In cases like that, I'd actually support social spending, as I'm sure you would. But regardless, just because a child was conceived through rape doesn't mean you have right to kill it, before or after birth.
Let me ask you something. Suppose a mother has voluntary sexual intercourse with her husband. Then next day, she is raped. She gets tested and learns that the father is her husband. She carries the pregnancy to term, and gives birth to a healthy baby. Three months later, the lab calls her and informs her that they had made a mistake- that the father was actually the rapist. The woman is shocked. Does that give her the right to kill the baby as he slept in the crib?

" bastard "

That's a very bigoted and demeaning term... "Party of acceptance and kindness", obviously ;)

"are you a woman? then you should stfu its none of your business how she handles it."

So unless an issue affects you directly, you can't comment on it? Okay, I don't want to hear another word from leftists who are white about racism, or who are men about sexism, or who live in Maine about illegal immigration.

"Its not a person."

Hmm, making a claim? Let's see if you can provide appropriate evidence and reasoning to back it up.

"They are called "embreyos" for a reason.."

Nope! That actually proves nothing. "Embryo" is just a term used to describe a certain stage of human development. It doesn't make sense. It's like saying, "It's not a person. They are called adolescents for a reason..."

Does a person at a different developmental level as another person have the same right to live as another person? Gee, I don't know.... That's a real tough question you pose... ;D

Are we though? Are we REALLY?

"Me, and every other pro-life person.
They have the same amount of rights. Both have an intrinsic right to live."

You're entitled to your opinion. Doesn't mean they actually have rights.

"How so?"

Abortion means terminating a pregnancy. Infanticide is killing an infant. They are not the same thing.

"You're entitled to your opinion. Doesn't mean they actually have rights."

That's what the Democrats said to the Republicans when they worked to end slavery... :)

Okay, let's define out terms- what is a pregnancy?

Who says fetuses have rights? And again, if they do, do they have more rights than a pregnant woman?

Yes, you are. Abortion and infanticide are two very different things.

Me, and every other pro-life person.
They have the same amount of rights. Both have an intrinsic right to live.

How so? (This oughta be good!)

Who says fetuses have rights? I do.

And neither you, nor the US Supreme Court, nor the Congress, nor whoever you place in a large mansion on Pennsylvania Avenue, can alter that opinion.

Abortion is not a replacement for using prevention. It is an euphemism for "infanticide".

Who says anyone has rights, some neu-Aristocrat guys in the 1770s who bestowed them upon WASP male landowners, and that only after considering the fact that fairly recently minted rebels might turn their (musket) sights on them, having just practiced the craft on British soldiers, if they make themselves the new overlords of the commoner masses?

Abortion and infanticide are two very different words.
Both, however, refer to killing offspring at different stages of development. Age does not change the termination of life into something else.

"Its [sic] not a person. They are called "embreyos"[sic] for a reason.. and if you follow the bible, its [sic] not even a person (soul) till first breath."

It's always lovely when a fool regurgitates something from the Bible, something he or she does not even begin to understand.

Life begins at conception- this is what the Bible teaches. This notion that you have to be breathing to have a soul is as ignorant as it gets.

So, my imgflip biblical scholar™, precisely how many human beings are born the same way that Adam was "born"? Let me help you out, my scripturally challenged lib- precisely ZERO.

Misusing the Scriptures is serious business as far as God is concerned. You can be forgiven since you are ignorant, but you have to ask for that forgiveness nonetheless.

And they are called "embryos", not "embreyos" because scientists decided to come up with words that define different stages of *development*, not personhood, nor personal value.

https://freedomtoons.com/episodes/pelosi-denied-communion-atheists-become-theologians/

Liberals: "The bible isn't really the word of god because god doesn't exist!!"

Also liberals: "The bible says blahblahblah!!!"

then *the* next day. Didn't catch that until after I posted.

Also, do remind manfatman that rape counts for less than 1% of the abortions. The large majority is for convenience.

"and if you follow the bible, its not even a person (soul) till first breath.

Genesis 2:7,"

Well, if you had actually READ that part of the Bible (instead of Googling "best pro-abortion arguments 2022" and copy-and-pasting the first thing you saw), you would have noticed that that passage was referring to Adam, the first man, so it would only make sense that God would give him his soul directly. He didn't have a mother- everyone else (including you!) did. So that argument goes out the window.

And while we're quoting Scripture... Matthew 25:40 and Deuteronomy 5:17.

It doesn't actually matter. I'm pointing out his error in reading comprehension.

Just as I'm pointing out your red herring.

The Bible was literally part of your comment

It's part of your, too- In much the same way as it was mine.

I wasn't using the Bible as my argument. I was correcting his error in reading comprehension.

What red herring? I'm just asking a question.

What red herring?

Gee, I don't know... maybe the one where you try to distract from the issue at hand by asking me what I thought about the Bible?

https://freedomtoons.com/episodes/democrats-make-desperate-midterm-ads/

Also, there's this thing called "grammar." Please try to use it.

LOL, that's some serious TDS.

But while we're on the topic... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Slm5bvO-_5I

Perhaps you should STFU... you know what "STFU" means, right? And "TDS"? Or do I need to clarify anything for you? ;)

freetoons? lol.... good luck in life kid, you are too young to bother with.

Attacking the medium? lol... good luck in life, bro- you are too naive to bother with, and clearly don't know what an ad hominem argument is.

This is just too much.
FOX? AleXED Jones? QAnon? No, an actual cartoon!

Yup.

YOU.

https://freedomtoons.com/episodes/if-the-media-were-honest-about-january-6th/

Rare exception. Get a clue