A valid political point - How are liberals pro-abortion but anti-torture?

reply to post by audas


LOL, they dont become parasites until about the age of 2.

Anyway thanks to everyone for posting. Sorry if I offended anyone by saying it was just liberals that have that view. Sometimes you need a good shocking title to get interest, but it was a poor choice

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
How is it that liberals are against torture but pro abortion? So its not ok to torture your enemy but it is ok to end your childs life? Can someone please explain?

ok...the difference is....the fetus is IN A WOMANS BODY AND PART OF HER BODY....it's none of your business!!! ...what is INSIDE of her body is not the governments business, not the churches business, and not a conservatives business. she controls her own body.

what's wrong with you, i thought you guys want the government out of your own lives. if that is NOT the case, i think the government should have the right to control everything you do with YOUR body.

and it's not pro abortion...why don't you learn how to express yourself without using words that don't make sense? pro-choice women have kids...my wife is one of those, as are millions of other women.

and as far as torture...it does not work, period...all the 3 letter agency spooks have said so, listen to them, not JACK BAUER ON 24. that's why it was outlawed worldwide...and if you think it works, show me an official piece of evidence that it has.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by jimmyx]

Why all the anger? I just asked a simple question to try to understand the logic. I figured it might help to calm everyone down if I explained my view point.

First of all I have never been against abortion on religious grounds, but more on the grounds of what I view as common sense. If something has the likelihood to become a certain thing then it is in essence that certain thing. Like if a certain type of caterpillar always turns into a certain type of butterfly they are basically the same thing. This is why I view a human fetus as a human life.

Furthermore, I have 2 adopted children who could have easily been aborted. When I look at them and think they could have been aborted then I find it sad that children are being aborted all the time. I just look at all the hope and promise in my children and think they make the world a better place. To me, it would have been a tragedy if they were aborted.

That is where I am coming from. To me I have way less of an issue with torture then I do with abortion so I was just trying to understand the other side.

I am all for government not interferring in peoples lives, but I do see one of the roles of government as protecting life. I have never complained about the government arresting a person who committed murder or abuse of someone, as I see that as one of their primary roles.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

reply to post by audas


I think you pretty much nailed it. This goes back to the fundamental questions: when does human life begin; and what makes us human?

If you think that human life begins at conception (and this viewpoint can cite the fact that an embryo does have the human DNA right at conception) then you probably think that abortion is murder.

If you think that human life begins when the being develops consciousness, then abortion -- up to a certain stage of development -- seems like a pretty trivial issue.

This is why some people in this thread mention killing animals, and other posters are appalled by the comparison. It's a philosophical debate that simply can't be settled, which is why -- unless the debate is settled -- I'm going to side with the court rulings and continue to defend Roe vs. Wade. If the courts had ruled in the other direction, I'd still side with them.

So, to summarize, the "Pro Choice" crowd simply doesn't view that little critter as human. It's like stepping on an ant.

Oh, justsomeboreddude, cool that you adopted. I've always wanted to do that, but the timing was never right.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by theWCH]

Originally posted by theWCH
reply to post by audas

 

I think you pretty much nailed it. This goes back to the fundamental questions: when does human life begin; and what makes us human?

If you think that human life begins at conception (and this viewpoint can cite the fact that an embryo does have the human DNA right at conception) then you probably think that abortion is murder.

If you think that human life begins when the being develops consciousness, then abortion -- up to a certain stage of development -- seems like a pretty trivial issue.

This is why some people in this thread mention killing animals, and other posters are appalled by the comparison. It's a philosophical debate that simply can't be settled, which is why -- unless the debate is settled -- I'm going to side with the court rulings and continue to defend Roe vs. Wade. If the courts had ruled in the other direction, I'd still side with them.

So, to summarize, the "Pro Choice" crowd simply doesn't view that little critter as human. It's like stepping on an ant.

Oh, justsomeboreddude, cool that you adopted. I've always wanted to do that, but the timing was never right.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by theWCH]

ok...so to take your logic farther...since every sperm is life, since it swims and moves and carries the father's genes...you have been destroying life for along time...probably in the millions and leaving it in some disgusting place to dry up and die.

and as a side note..if you looked back in history, abortions have been preformed for along time...the ones that were done for the wealthy were safer for the woman involved, the ones done on the poor often resulted in death for the woman. but, who cares for the evil woman that dares to have an abortion right? and if you actually go and talk to these women that have had an abortion...it was a heart-wrenching decision to make, and it lives in their mind all of their lives.

Originally posted by mental modulator


WERD

Just like it is usually the kootery recknecks who push the bible and are pro death penalty, pro war, pro gun and anti social programs...

I would love to see JC in line with any of the things mentioned above - messed up ideology.

I do not like to speak on behalf of JC, but I do not think a jew of his time would support War, abortion, rabid bible thumping with no knowledge of contents or context. I beleive that he held human life above all else. I don't think he would approve of a whorish woman or young lady snuffing out her unborn baby because she couldnt keep her priorities straight. And don't say "what about rape victims", although that is a most difficult case it is a miniscule minority compared to the great average. Now, as far as the government telling you what to do, if it is in fact murder, the government has the right to bring the hammer down on you, if its just some goo in a womb then the Govt should mind its own damn business.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by dashen]

I agree with your logic, and to put it in a woman's perspective:

Every month I am killing a potential baby by not becoming inseminated and instead having my menstrual cycle.

Now do you pro-lifers really want us women to have a baby every 9 months? Seriously.

Until men can somehow take on the ability to carry an embryo in the womb, they really just need to *cough* keep quiet.

If a man and woman are legally married, then yes, it is not fair that only the woman can decide if the baby goes to term.

But if a man is having sex unmarried with a woman and she gets pregnant, he has no rights. Period.

Ok so let me pose this to you...


A woman leaving work after dark walks into a man who is intent on raping her. Which he does. He is caught and thrown in jail for, lets say, 2 years. The woman finds out she is pregnant is forced (if we had pro-life) to keep the child. Rapist gets out of jail... and sues her for the custody of a child thats half his...


Does that sound right to you??? Does a woman not have sovernty of her OWN body? Shouldnt she be able to decide if she wants that PAIN forever?? And yes being raped is a pain that doesnt go away. Then to be forced to keep a child that is created from a horrible thing that someone else FORCES her to do.. that would be torture.. would it not? So it seems to me maybe the 'pro-lifers' are the pro-tortures.


I am pro-choice for this very reason. Keep your laws off of my body!

♥
Dax

Originally posted by ImzadiDax
Ok so let me pose this to you...


A woman leaving work after dark walks into a man who is intent on raping her. Which he does. He is caught and thrown in jail for, lets say, 2 years. The woman finds out she is pregnant is forced (if we had pro-life) to keep the child. Rapist gets out of jail... and sues her for the custody of a child thats half his...


Does that sound right to you??? Does a woman not have sovernty of her OWN body? Shouldnt she be able to decide if she wants that PAIN forever?? And yes being raped is a pain that doesnt go away. Then to be forced to keep a child that is created from a horrible thing that someone else FORCES her to do.. that would be torture.. would it not? So it seems to me maybe the 'pro-lifers' are the pro-tortures.


I am pro-choice for this very reason. Keep your laws off of my body!

♥
Dax

For whatever freak of nature reason, I happen to know 2 people that were raped and were impregnated and the had the baby and raised the child. One of those babies is a good friend of mine that I met through my ex-wife. He is a fine man who is now a missionary. The rape thing though is a tough call.

No disrespect to anyone but I think the logic of a sperm or egg being equal to life is possibly wrong. A sperm alone is not life. An egg alone is not life. They need to be joined together to become life. A sperm or an egg alone without human intervention in a lab are never going to become life on their own. But once they are joined together then they represent life.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Could someone provide a valid, universally accepted definition of a "liberal"? Or are they just the boogyman for half the country...this thread is a perfect example of the political machine's distraction mechanism.

You're either pro or anti liberty. Nothing else matters.

Not pro-abortion. Pro choice. Very big difference.

Here's a question for YOU though:

How can you be pro-war, but also pro-life?

Beyond that, I am not getting involved in this, as it will be just another thread of round and round, rhetoric, propaganda and name-calling.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


You can be pro-war because you believe that sometimes you must fight to keep your freedom and safety. You can be pro-life (anti abortion) because you believe that someones child should have a chance to live and experience life.

Originally posted by spaznational

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

same way conservatives are pro-life and pro-hunting.

your question is pretty flawed. yes there is a contradiction. welcome to human beliefs.

plus i dont think either ones are really contradiction.
they aren't pro-abortion. thats a slanted way to phrase it. they are pro-choice. they want women to be able to choose what to do with their bodies.

pro-abortion tends to imply that liberals absolutely love abortions.

You've just equated a human life with an animal life. So, are you saying that killing a baby human is the same as shooting a deer? Is nothing sacred to you?

It isn't about women choosing what to do with their bodies... it is the body of a new human being inside them, not a cancer cell.

Unfortuantely, a human being is a homosapien after they are born. So you are wrong.

An zygote, a fetus, are symbiotic organisms. They are not viable life.

[edit on 5/7/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
An embryo, a fetus, are symbiotic organisms. They are not viable life.

I am pretty sure the lives of everyone on ATS came from being a fetus first unless the PTB have come up with something new that I havent heard of.

So according to that line of thinking I could abort it legally as long as it hasnt left the womb. So if I wanted I could reach up during birth and kill it as long as it hadnt left her womb and had the umbilical cord cut. Is that what you are saying?

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

You can be pro-war because you believe that sometimes you must fight to keep your freedom and safety. You can be pro-life (anti abortion) because you believe that someones child should have a chance to live and experience life.

HAHAHA I'm sorry, but I love this. You can justify killing in war, but not the termination of a symbiote. You are arguing for human life(which it is not) on the one hand, and advocating the killing of ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS in the other.

Do you not see the hypocrisy?

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
An embryo, a fetus, are symbiotic organisms. They are not viable life.

I am pretty sure the lives of everyone on ATS came from being a fetus first unless the PTB have come up with something new that I havent heard of.

Okay, and your point is? Is a seed the same as a plant, just because a plant comes from a seed?

Bottom line, all you anti-choicers want to make up your own science on the matter, when, bottom line, a zygote or an embryo is not a viable being. They are not human. They are cellular stages of growth.

[edit on 5/7/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
An embryo, a fetus, are symbiotic organisms. They are not viable life.

I am pretty sure the lives of everyone on ATS came from being a fetus first unless the PTB have come up with something new that I havent heard of.

So according to that line of thinking I could abort it legally as long as it hasnt left the womb. So if I wanted I could reach up during birth and kill it as long as it hadnt left her womb and had the umbilical cord cut. Is that what you are saying?

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

First off, I mispoke, I meant zygote, not fetus. And second, just because you can senasationalize things, does not mean you have a point.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

You can be pro-war because you believe that sometimes you must fight to keep your freedom and safety. You can be pro-life (anti abortion) because you believe that someones child should have a chance to live and experience life.

HAHAHA I'm sorry, but I love this. You can justify killing in war, but not the termination of a symbiote. You are arguing for human life(which it is not) on the one hand, and advocating the killing of ACTUAL HUMAN BEINGS in the other.

Do you not see the hypocrisy?

Honestly I cannot seee the hypocrisy. I dont want there to be war but I dont see any other solution when people cant resolve differences through diplomacy and when one group of people are a threat to the lives of another group. Even you have to admit at some point in the womb that thing is human. It looks like a human. It has feelings and probably consciousness like a human. You cant really believe that thing doesnt gain any sense of being until it has left the womb and been smacked on the bottom can you?

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]