Q:

Regarding a priori propositions

How is "All bachelors are unmarried males" an a priori judgement?  For it to be a priori there has to be an innate concept of bachelor-ness which evidently man does not have.  In order to acquire this concept, the mind is exposed to a variety of stimuli in the forms of words or other didactic methods by which one learns the concept of bachelor-ness.  This would make this an a posteriori statement (derived from experience) rather than being a priori.  Indeed what I'm claiming is that why do we insist on calling this statement or any other statement 'a priori' when obviously the content of these statements is not known to us at birth. 

A:

'All bachelors are unmarried men' is not an a priori judgement.  It is (if post-Quine's 'Two Dogmas' we accept the concept of analyticity) an analytic judgement, i.e. a  judgement which is true by virtue of the meaning of words or (on Kantian lines) a judgement in which the predicate ('unmarried men') is contained in the subject ('bachelors'). 
The a priori is quite different.  An a priori judgement is one which is known prior to or independently of experience.  This agrees with your own characterisation of the a priori.  No-one could know prior to experience that all bachelors are unmarried men since, prior to or independently of experience, no-one would know that there are bachelors or what they are.  More than this, insofar as the judgement is formulated in English, no-one could even understand the judgement, let alone know that its truth, without the a posteriori and empirical process of learning the English language. 