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

Why is it conservatives are pro life and want to force people to have babies, but are against any social programs that would help them raise those children?

IN that case, the fetus only has rights as long as it is not born.

That is also the double standard.

No one is pro abortion. No one is advocating people have them. But a woman who is forced to be pregnant, is accidently pregnant, and can't raise the child, and is put into a despairing position by having one, has the right to terminate if need be.

There are worse things then death, despite what the privelaged people in posh living circumstances understand.

If the boyfriend is a rapist, an abuser, and both are in poverty, that child will spend the rest of their life wishing they were never born, or become one of those people themselves.

And adoption isn't always a choice. You don't want stalker abusive boyfriend to find out your pregnant at all.

There are very little options for the poor. Yes there are food stamps and medical care, but not housing or daycare. Those programs are meant to get people by, not to live on. There are a few programs, most have a 3-4 year waiting list.

It is about the right of a person to decide. In either case, you are removing a persons personal right.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Not to insult anyone, but how is it that people who support their families limit the number of children they have to what they can afford. As opposed to some other people who cant.

I agree that we need to find better ways to help people get out of poverty, and some single parents need more help so they can work.

Where does the persons right to choose to have a baby end and the babies right to exist begin?





[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

Ok so we are off topic again but what the heck. I have ADD so it kinda works for me.
1. Afghanistan/Taliban could have avoided invasion if they just handed over Bin Laden, which they said they would not do. So thus you get invaded.

2. Even though Bush used 911 as a pretense for Iraq this was wrong. I agree they were not a threat in that way. He did have grounds to invade which he didnt really use, I assume because he is slightly stupid. Those grounds are that Iraq was in constant violation of the cease first agreement from the first Gulf War from the moment they signed it.

Oh and the seed analogy I understand where you are going I just dont agree with the logic of it, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

You do realize that the Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden to the USA if they showed proof he was behind the 9/11 attacks!Yeahh thats right,they wanted proof he was involved and if it was shown they would have handed him over.Of course the good old US of A couldnt show any!lol
Disgusting realy!

As for Iraq-Shame on all you americans who voted Bush in for the 2nd term.The blood of many in Iraq stain your souls,and no amount of scrubbing is going to get you past your pearly gates you clearly believe will open up for you.

ok-on topic

Good thread realy,I can see the logic behind both sides stated above by the many posters here.When push comes to shove I would have to say its the choice of the woman to take.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

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]

There's the expected 9-month term, but births also happen prematurely. The fetus can indeed survive outside the woman's body well before 9 months. Babies can be born extremely premature and survive. Do you mean that a fetus at 6, 7, 8 months is not yet a homosapien due to its present state of symbiosis when it could, at this point, be birthed and survive?

Very early-term abortions might be more palatable to pro-lifers but certainly not a fully-formed baby. The ethical dilemma is deciding where to draw the line. Some would argue that since development is a gradual process any "cut-off date" for abortion would be arbitrary.

I don't have an easy answer.

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?

How is it that "Pro Lifers" are often rabid supporters of the death penalty?

How is it that 'Pro Lifers" will support the killing / assasination of clinic workers yet wear those tiny feet on thier lapel?

and on and on and on and on

Originally posted by nasdack24k

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by justsomeboreddude

 

If you are equating liberals with " a woman's right to control her own body" and "reproductive rights," then how do you explain liberals' outcry against and mockery of a single woman who decides to have 14 children while out of work on "disability?"

Because that lady(if you really want to call her that) is a huge strain on the balance of our fragile socialist welfare system - on purpose. Even liberals know that.

So is it "a woman who can afford it has the right to control her body;" and "reproductive rights " diminish in inverse proportion to wealth?

Then how do liberals justify state-funded abortions, or state-funded anything, if your ability to enjoy your freedom is tied to how much your lifestyle costs?

I don't see where you draw the line.

What am I missing here?

jw

Originally posted by FredT

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?

How is it that "Pro Lifers" are often rabid supporters of the death penalty?

How is it that 'Pro Lifers" will support the killing / assasination of clinic workers yet wear those tiny feet on thier lapel?

and on and on and on and on

Thanks for posting. I am not sure why pro lifers are supporters of the death penalty, because I am not in support of it. Also, I do not support killing clinic workers either. So I cant really justify either.

It is actually the Republicans who love abortion because it's been estimated that it brings out two million single issue voters. That has won them many elections and will continue to win elections. They are the last people who want Roe vs Wade overturn. Ever wonder why they never got laws changed? They controlled Congress for 26 years. They really never even tried, suckahs.

2,000,000 suckers.

Originally posted by spaznational

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

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]

There's the expected 9-month term, but births also happen prematurely. The fetus can indeed survive outside the woman's body well before 9 months. Babies can be born extremely premature and survive. Do you mean that a fetus at 6, 7, 8 months is not yet a homosapien due to its present state of symbiosis when it could, at this point, be birthed and survive?

Very early-term abortions might be more palatable to pro-lifers but certainly not a fully-formed baby. The ethical dilemma is deciding where to draw the line. Some would argue that since development is a gradual process any "cut-off date" for abortion would be arbitrary.

I don't have an easy answer.

Again, nobody is talking about aborting fetuses. Perhaps you should do a bit of research re: zygote/embryo vs. fetus.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

 

I am not sure that it is scientific fact to say a human fetus is not going to become a baby under normal circumstances, barring any complications. Is a human fetus going to become a baby under normal circumstances or not?



[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Either you are a troll, or you arent very bright. I am not tryinig to be rude, but come on. I didnt say that a fetus wouldnt become a baby. I said it was scientific fact that a zygote or an embryo is not a living thing, and is definitely not a human being.

THIS IS FACT. Not a matter of opinion.

Women have had extremely premature babies that have lived to become normal people. These premature babies were born within the range for what is acceptable for abortion.

I dont think I said an embryo was life. I said an embryo will become a life given the things it needs. I guess a baby is not life,because if you stop feeding it or giving it air its going to die. It cant sustain life on its own.

This is true. HOWEVER, not once in the HISTORY OF MANKIND has a zygote been birthed and lived. You know why? A ZYGOTE IS A FORM OF CELLULAR GROWTH, NOT A VIABLE LIVING THING.

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


That's actually a good point, there seems to be some Cognitive Dissonance in both parties since many republicans are anti-abortion but pro-capitol punishment and many Democrats are pro-abortion but against capital punishment/torture, etc... Seems ignorance exists on both sides of the coin.

The easiest explanation is that political parties are a farce designed to divide us on fringe issues. My stance, abortion, torture, capital punishment, all wrong or at least not issues the Federal government need be involved in. Really those issues should be up to the individual people in each state, if a large enough majority (say 2/3) support it then it should be legal...

I've always been against abortion, and it gets me wrongfully labeled a Conservative, and then I'm against the death penalty, pro-gay marriage and anti-war and that gets me wrongfully labeled a Liberal. Just goes to show you how shallow and illogical the platforms are and how we'd all be better off forming educated opinions instead of letting the PTB keep us divided...

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

This is true. HOWEVER, not once in the HISTORY OF MANKIND has a zygote been birthed and lived. You know why? A ZYGOTE IS A FORM OF CELLULAR GROWTH, NOT A VIABLE LIVING THING.

The answer is that a human zygote, embryo, or fetus has been birthed as a human baby whenever it has remained in the womb long enough to develop, excluding complications, abortion, etc. Can you dispute that?

Plus to my understanding, it is only considered pre-fetal for rougly the first month of pregnancy. So then are you saying you only support abortion in the first month. because after that it is considered a fetus?


[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by breakingdradles

So in conclusion, I believe liberals feel that way because they are anti-over population (eco friendly), and because they are so anti-war that it spills over into the prisoner category.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by breakingdradles]

Is it in any way possible that it is because they can't control their sexual urges, don't have the common sense to use a contraceptive or device and want and easy out? What people say and their real reasons are not always the same are they.

After all babies are not really human are they

This is a never ending argument. Pro-Life people believe it is Infanticide and Pro-Choice people want it as a contraceptive option and don't believe babies have the right to live. Why even bother with the discussion because we are never going to concede that murdering your own child for convenience is right. The government should not be involved either.

Originally posted by FredT

How is it that 'Pro Lifers" will support the killing / assasination of clinic workers yet wear those tiny feet on thier lapel?

Awe come on Fred. You know most Pro-Lifers are good people and have nothing to do with the half dozen cases a decade that involve insane people.

Ok Liberals here is the facts .... We have killed over 80+ million innocent children due to abortion. We have a aging population that is soon to enter retirement. We can't work forever so whom is going to take care of me in twenty years? You and all Your high and mighty collectivist BS and You can't even answer that question. No civilized society kills the unborn and expects to be around in 100 years. So I guess the Liberals will be all for taking the seniors and putting them in the FEMA camps when they are no longer useful to society and become a bother. Oh You think thats a stretch well what about that child growing in the mothers womb it became a bother so You had to live its life.... Here is a news flash people no one is ready for their FIRST child. You can't get ready for it because its something that has to be built up. You don't even produce the right maternal hormones till You are well along in Your pregnancy.

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

This is true. HOWEVER, not once in the HISTORY OF MANKIND has a zygote been birthed and lived. You know why? A ZYGOTE IS A FORM OF CELLULAR GROWTH, NOT A VIABLE LIVING THING.

The answer is that a human zygote, embryo, or fetus has been birthed as a human baby whenever it has remained in the womb long enough to develop, excluding complications, abortion, etc. Can you dispute that?

Plus to my understanding, it is only considered pre-fetal for rougly the first month of pregnancy. So then are you saying you only support abortion in the first month. because after that it is considered a fetus?


[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

For the second time-no zygote HASA EVER BEEN BIRTHED AND LIVED. It cannot happen. Period. It is not viable life.

An embryo becomes a fetus at 10 weeks. 90% of all abortions take place in the zygote/embryo stages, which are 2 months or less into pregnancy.

Originally posted by spaznational
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.

That's the difference. Some of us(or at least me anyway) don't consider a clump of cells to be a human being. I won't change your mind(and I don't want to) and you won't change my mind(more scientific data is need to solve this in my mind once and for all). So there it is.

btw, although most people who somewhat know me would call me a liberal the truth is I'm far, far to radical to be called a liberal.

Vas

Originally posted by jkm1864
Ok Liberals here is the facts .... We have killed over 80+ million innocent children due to abortion. We have a aging population that is soon to enter retirement. We can't work forever so whom is going to take care of me in twenty years? You and all Your high and mighty collectivist BS and You can't even answer that question. No civilized society kills the unborn and expects to be around in 100 years. So I guess the Liberals will be all for taking the seniors and putting them in the FEMA camps when they are no longer useful to society and become a bother. Oh You think thats a stretch well what about that child growing in the mothers womb it became a bother so You had to live its life.... Here is a news flash people no one is ready for their FIRST child. You can't get ready for it because its something that has to be built up. You don't even produce the right maternal hormones till You are well along in Your pregnancy.

Lying rhetoric. No baby has EVER been aborted. It cant happen, as there is no such thing as a baby until the fetus is born.

I love that your reasons for being anti-choice is so that there is someone there to take care of you in old age. Classic narcissism.

When did liberals categorically become pro-abortion and conservatives categorically become pro-torture? Did I miss something???????

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic


So are you saying if you let a human zygote develop inside a womans body for the next nine months and give her all the things it needs that it will never develop into a baby?