Liberal contradictions

ALL Democrat Senators in Congress that are anti Torture and enhanced methods of interrogations have a perfect record of support to use Taxpayers money for Late Term Abortions.

The contradiction: It is NOT OK to make the Mastermind of 9/11 THINK he is being drowned but it IS OK to stick a spike in the head of an 8 1/2 month old infant and suck it’s brain out.

Go figure

8 and a half month???? ...

Where are you getting your info...???

reply to post by Polynomial C


up to 8 1/2 mo from Conception

Congressional records

reply to post by Bejing


Yeah.. Us Liberals like to suck the brains of fetuses...

..But you Conservatives republicans like to blow kids (and innocents alike) up with bombs ...

reply to post by Polynomial C


Again, tell me who has been in control of congress for the last 3 years?

No obfuscations, just answer the fracking questions?

The wars just 1 year ago were bad things, yet now that Obamao is running things, ALL IS GOOD.

Hypocrite much? Answer the original OP and mine, if you dare.

OP, all politicians are hypocrites, and they are training the sheeple well.

reply to post by endisnighe


Hahaha .. Okay...

Bush's wars are/were illegal ..

... War still a bad thing .. and i blame Obama for not ending this madness .. but he did not started the fire.. is not his war ...

.. Liberals are pro-choice .. WE DO NOT WANT to kill random fetuses for no reason... but WE WANT a woman to have the choice of abortion if the circumstances requires one..

[edit on 21-11-2009 by Polynomial C]

I don't recall seeing anything about 8 1/2 month abortions in the CR recently. Care to link to a source? I could see such being the case only if the mother's life was threatened and other very selective caveats - but not as a standard operating practice. OP post reeks of sensationalism and misrepresentation.

I call troll thread.

The terrorists want to kill people, just like the pro-choice people do. SO they all agree with each other

reply to post by Lasheic


search LATE TERM ABORTION

reply to post by Bejing


This is sensationalism.

Can you make your point without using extremes to enhance it?

That being said, the reason you see what you consider contradictions is because people don't fit into the liberal conservative left/right paradigm as easily as you've been led to believe.

We are a multitude of ideals and persuasions existing under a complex system of governance.

reply to post by Polynomial C


Obama could end the war and pull the troops home tonight. The fact that he hasn't makes this his war.

Inherited? Sure. But he has all the power in the world to stop it.

Originally posted by Bejing
ALL Democrat Senators in Congress that are anti Torture and enhanced methods of interrogations have a perfect record of support to use Taxpayers money for Late Term Abortions.

The contradiction: It is NOT OK to make the Mastermind of 9/11 THINK he is being drowned but it IS OK to stick a spike in the head of an 8 1/2 month old infant and suck it’s brain out.

Go figure

1. An 8 1/2 month old infant has already been born. Do you mean an 8 1/2 month old fetus?

2. Liberals believe in universal healthcare and a woman's right to do with her body as she pleases. If you believe all women should carry a fetus to term, please volunteer to have all unwanted children delivered to your doorstep so that you may take care of them.

3. News Flash: Liberals, Conservatives, and Independents all believe the US should maintain a higher level of standard than terrorists. Neocon hacks are the ones who seem to think lowering ourselves to the level of Al-Qaeda terrorists is acceptable.

4. Torture won't get the truth out of a terrorist. It will get whatever confession the person believes will make the torture stop.

5. Third trimester abortions almost never happen. Fewer than 2% of abortions happen after 21 weeks. Even fewer happen at the 8 and a half month mark.

6. Until Politico broke the story, GOP officials' insurance covered abortions. How's that for contradiction?

The terrorists want to kill people, just like the pro-choice people do. SO they all agree with each other

7. How sad and small your world of logical fallacies and moral absolutes must be. I sincerely hope one day and with some real life experience you'll be able to branch out and see the forest for the trees. I truly pity you if you believe half the country and most women are essentially the same as terrorists.

reply to post by Bejing


Conservative contradiction:
Don't allow ANY abortions, and don't come to me for a hand out, you lazy loser.
Go to Irag and kill as many innocent men, women, and children as you can, that are non Christian.

Originally posted by 12GaugePermissionSlip
reply to post by Bejing

 

Conservative contradiction:
Don't allow ANY abortions, and don't come to me for a hand out, you lazy loser.
Go to Irag and kill as many innocent men, women, and children as you can, that are non Christian.

And giving free food to hungry children makes hungry children more hungry.

I had to argue that one last week

I have three children and ANOTHER ONE ON THE WAY

Well then, don't you have four children?

I personally don't support abortion, but I've yet to find a defensible argument for pushing my moral choice onto others.

I would honestly challenge any dogmatically pro-life (especially those who are pro-life at the behest of their dogma) supporters to define the moment in which a human cell becomes a human being without being utterly defeated by our knowledge of reproductive and developmental biology.

For instance, the moment of conception is often cited as the point at which a new human life is created. And this very well can be defended as true. However, this raises the question - if you got drunk and ran into another car, killing it's occupant who happened to be a chimera (fused twins), should you be charged with a double homicide? It's obviously only one person - but that one person is a compilation of two unique genetic profiles from two separate fertilized eggs. Further, what is the moral implications of not doing more to prevent miscarriage? Why would the morning after pill be murder, but too much caffeine is not?

And what of identical twins who are essentially clones? If a soul enters the body at the moment of conception, then an identical twin formed when the blastocyst splits into separate cultures is essentially in possession of only half a soul.

If the moment is when the brain starts to operate, then define the moment the brain is fully formed. Generally, this doesn't occur until the end of puberty. The brain isn't even basically formed into anything we would consider a brain by the time the first synapse begin to fire - and even afterward, the individual cognitive components of the brain are still in the process of separating and specializing. Finding such a moment would be like trying to figure out the precise moment when a child has become a man. Biologically, there is no such definable moment. Even so, what is the moral choice to make when dealing with conditions such as craniopagus parasiticus, or Parasitic Twins. Recall a recent famous case of an Egyptian woman who daughter was born with a parasitic twin attached at the head. The twin baby was completely and utter unformed aside from the head which contained a fully functioning brain. Should the living, thinking, feeling parasitic twin be sacrificed to ensure the survival of the fully formed twin? What of her rights to life?

What if the soul enters the body and it becomes human at birth... then what of premature babies or babies taken early purposefully via c-section? And in further regards to the brain - we are apparently only 10 years away from the complete emulation of the human brain according to the Blue Brain project. What is the intrinsic difference between a physical brain operating, and a virtual brain operating - emulated down to the cellular and even chemical level - at exactly the same capacity?



Recently, a man named Rom Houben was in the news as being a case of misdiagnosed coma - a man they were ready to pull the plug on for a time because by outside appearances, he was in a persistent vegetative state with no response to outside stimuli. By contrast, Terri Schiavo appeared awake and responsive to stimuli - but in no apparently meaningful manner. Without knowing what was going on under the hood of their minds, how would an outside observer judge who was brain dead and who was not? Thankfully, our ability to monitor brain activity has advanced to the point where scans of the brain showed that Houben was actually fully aware and conscious - while Schiavo's brain was largely liquefied and was dead to all that we consider a functioning human brain. Who was human, and who was the corpse on life support? And what, do you think, are the implications of that definition?


I think it's rather impossible to set any demonstrable and defined point at which a collection of cells becomes "human". So arguments against abortion based on defining this line are flawed and inapplicable. I think it's more of a cultural issue we have to agree upon based on shared morality - rather than biology or spirituality. We don't consider children to be adults until their 18th birthday - regardless of how mature or immature their mentality may be. In my state, you cannot get a drivers license until you are 16 years old - regardless of how well and responsibly you drive at 14 years old. Why 16? Simply because that is the point at which those in our state feel the safety and utility of having teens as a whole drive is accepted as being greater than the risks of immature and irresponsible behavior by those of that age.

I think that abortion should be a similar cultural decision... and for the most part, it is currently.

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip


So conservitives like to hunt. What's the problem