The irrationality of Liberals

reply to post by Misoir


You cant be serious, why the liberals lol, i dont get that remark more and more, aint got nothing to do with behing liberal, its a womens right to decide for herself, saying that she decides how her life can be affected by child birth, not all women are ready, willing or able to raise children for so many reasons. I personaly am againts any type of violence on anybody, so abortion aint one of my favorite topics, but who am i, or who are we to judge by our standars or morals what others can do, Plz if ya dont like it, good on ya, but stop pointing a finger at a certain groupd in general, cause you dont like them lol. Im sure that not all liberals are for abortion lol.

Oh and arent we tired of hearing or seeing, horrible stories that kids go through, maybe has human behings, we should work on that instead of labeling each other.

just my 2 cents

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by intrepid

 

How come everyone forgets about the option of giving their baby up for adoption? Every mother has that choice. There are plenty of orphanages that will take these children that are not wanted by their irresponsible parents. With so many options available I don’t see how murder is at the top!?

There are plenty of couples that literally wait years to adopt a baby and give it the wonderful life that its biological mother is incapable of giving it. No need for orphanages.

Because when a "child" is COMPLETELY dependent on another person for its very breath (before it's viable), the woman's human rights must be taken into account. Forcing a woman to carry and bear an unwanted child is violating HER rights. When two people occupy the same body, we have to pick one's rights to trump the others'. The one that's viable wins.

This argument smacks of might makes right, because she's bigger and more capable of breathing, eating farting, etc, and therefore her 'rights' trump her baby's rights.
Also the last time I looked, the average two year old is pretty much completely dependent on someone else caring for them.. I mean its not like they can cook for and feed themselves.

Lets hope you are never in a physical state where you can't breath for yourself.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Shall we start to decide if all humans are "viable" enough to be granted human rights?

Viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus without artificial aid. People ARE viable. Not all fetuses are.

So if someone is no longer able to breath on their own then I guess we should just kill them too right?
Wrong!

What you all not seem to get is THE FACTS....


To use a rubber is not killing children, OKEY POPE?!

reply to post by FunSized

Because when a "child" is COMPLETELY dependent on another person for its very breath (before it's viable), the woman's human rights must be taken into account. Forcing a woman to carry and bear an unwanted child is violating HER rights. When two people occupy the same body, we have to pick one's rights to trump the others'. The one that's viable wins.

Why should viability be relevant?

Forcing the mother to go through a few months of discomfort vs. killing a human being.

Id say childs right to live trumps mothers right to control her body.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Hey Fellas, you heard about the liberal gene being detected right?

Well get this - that means there is a chance that liberals can be aborted in utero, once their presence is detected.


Your move liberals.

edit on 30-10-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)

But I thought conservatives were against abortion. Surely, they wouldn't be such hypocrites in this regard? I'm just saying, you should probably find a better reason to abort child other than the chance that it will grow up to be reasonable, intelligent people? Well then again, if there were more intelligent, reasonable people, conservatives wouldn't get as many votes.

Originally posted by Maslo
Why should viability be relevant?

Forcing the mother to go through a few months of discomfort vs. killing a human being.

Id say childs right to live trumps mothers right to control her body.

Pregnancy can be a killer so why should the mother risk her life and health for the sake of an unborn collection of cells? We're not talking about killing a living, thinking human being, and actually i will take the mothers rights as a real human over a lump of cells that has no conciousness.

reply to post by Misoir


The same argument can be made for conservatives. They're pro-life yet they're pro-war and believe in capital punishment. Pro-life means you don't accept taking a life no matter what. You can't pick and choose when you're allowed to take a life. This is also hypocrisy. Conservatives also go on to say they don't like government funding for health care, but yet their the first to complain when their are cuts to medicare. Conservatives pride themselves on wanting less government involvement, but yet they want to decide on personal issues like abortion, morality, and gay issues. If they want to follow their own bible preachings such as, "vengeance is mine says the Lord" than allow our creator to judge the personal choice of man not man himself. Don't point your finger at another party when your own party has numerous flaws. Political parties are nothing more than pushing their own agendas no matter what the majority wants. The sheepish root these parties on like their football teams! Take the blinders off and see how self serving these parties are!

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Pregnancy can be a killer so why should the mother risk her life and health for the sake of an unborn collection of cells? We're not talking about killing a living, thinking human being, and actually i will take the mothers rights as a real human over a lump of cells that has no conciousness.

I agree with you. But you are saying that "lump of cells that has no consciousness" should not be taken over mothers rights. So the deciding factor is apparently the appearance of consciousness, NOT viability outside the womb. These are two distinct things. I was replying to this post (post quoted there), which said we should take the latter (viability) as our criterion for the beginning of personhood, instead of appearance of consciousness, or awareness (brain waves). I dont agree with that.

Originally posted by Misoir
Liberals (not all Liberals fit into one group mind you) are very irrational in their beliefs on Social issues. Why do Liberals support murderers yet oppose the death penalty?

Since murder and killing is a part of nature.

Yet prisons are abhorrent to freedom of movement.

The freedom to murder is not freedom, it is despicable and abhorrent.

no, it's natural.
All animals kill to sustain themselves.
Murder of fellow specie members is required for natural selection.

For instance if there are too many people in an area,
then they can battle it out, to see who can keep that territory,
other people can either move elsewhere or die.
That's the natural way of the world.

Why can’t a mother kill her child when he/she is 2 or 15? What is the difference?

she could, but that would be a lot of effort down the drain.
It's okay though, since those kind of mothers would die out,
since they wouldn't have any progeny to carry on that trait.

Liberals oppose the Death Penalty for serial killers and other murderers on the grounds it is a violation of human rights. Can they not see the absolute hypocrisy of their thoughts?

none at all.

Liberals support Freedom and Generosity.

Prisons violate Freedom of Movement.


Serial killers are simply carnivores,
and can be treated like any predator.
Police and military are also carnivorous predators.

If you have a well secured community,
one that's small enough you know everyone,
then you should be safe in your territory.

Before any new people join,
can have a resume-interview process.

Originally posted by Maslo
I agree with you. But you are saying that "lump of cells that has no consciousness" should not be taken over mothers rights. So the deciding factor is apparently the appearance of consciousness, NOT viability outside the womb. These are two distinct things. I was replying to this post (post quoted there), which said we should take the latter (viability) as our criterion for the beginning of personhood, instead of appearance of consciousness, or awareness (brain waves). I dont agree with that.

edit on 30/10/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

I would agree that viability outside the womb is a poor argument as there are plenty of children born full term who need extra help on ventilators and such things. For me it really is about consciousness, once the fetus can show signs of that then abortion should only be used if the mothers life is in danger.

reply to post by Misoir


Humans are contradictory, its in our nature because our intellect allows us to see many sides of a subject. Liberals understand the conservative point of view, they have choosen not to share it. My point of view is this...If you don't want an abortion and its against your beliefs-then don't get one. Follow the dictates of your beliefs. However do not demand that your beliefs must extend beyond your own little shell of contradictory beliefs.

Originally posted by lowki
If you have a well secured community,
one that's small enough you know everyone,
then you should be safe in your territory.

Before any new people join,
can have a resume-interview process.

edit on 30/10/10 by lowki because: liberals support freedom and generosity

That is so utterly ridiculous it's sad. Ed Gein, arguably one of the most frightening serial killers of modern times was a part of a small community, everyone knew him and yet he was killing people pretty often. Simply being in a small community doesn't protect you.

I'm rather amazed at this thread because people seem to be slotting themselves into the narrow gaps the media has invented, liberal or conservative, forgetting the moderate position.

reply to post by lowki

Since murder and killing is a part of nature. Yet prisons are abhorrent to freedom of movement.

Since when is right and wrong determined by being part of nature?

Last time I checked, computers were not part of nature. What are you doing behind one then?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
You clearly don't get my point, otherwise you wouldn't have replied in the above manner.

I think I do get your point:

If abortion was illegal, then those who tried to get an abortion AND the people who attempted to perform them would be criminals. Instead of thinking of the potential "mother" as a poor, 15-year-old who exercises her rights and options and needs a guiding hand from caring adults, we could think of her as a dirty criminal and potential murderer... and slap her in jail... That'll teach her!

I think that's what you're saying.

What did I miss?

Originally posted by Misoir
Condoms, Birth Control, etc... Does not kill living things so they are 100% fine.

You don't think sperm are living things???

The life span of sperm after ejaculation depends on the environmental conditions. Sperm ejaculated into a woman's vagina can live in a woman's reproductive tract for up to five days or perhaps even longer. Fertilization is possible as long as the sperm remain alive. Sperm ejaculated outside the body may survive only minutes to a few hours.

Mayo Clinic

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I've never seen you argue so illogically BH...

I think it's because you refuse to see the government making something illegal as making the choice for us.

Here's an example. At one time, liquor was legal. People could CHOOSE whether or not to consume it. Then the government made it ILLEGAL. They took that choice away from the people. But then they gave it back again, making alcohol consumption legal. Then the people chose once more.

I am not surprised you won't entertain this idea (and keep calling it illogical) because you don't want to admit that you want the government making this reproductive choice for women, but you don't want women making it either. I would not be willing to admit to wanting more government in our lives either.

Once again here is a post that smacks of our inability as a spicies to find the "will" or the intellect to find a solution to killing each other.

Bravo people,you can not even (or your to affarid to admit you know when life starts)agree on how to keep from killing an unborn child as opposed to killing a murder on death row.How do you ever expect to stop the inhumanity to humankind when it is so hard to figure out how to keep from killing an innocent child or a murder.??

Not being a liberal I still have to speak in there defence and wonder how the OP put the imcompetent human race on one group of people.But then again thats what we do as a spicies is point fingers rather then use a little common sence and reasoning.

Take responsibility for yourself,man or woman.
When you kill another human outside the laws of the land you forfit your own life.We are predators without laws we would kill each other over anything and walk away to do it another day.

Originally posted by Maslo
Id say childs right to live trumps mothers right to control her body.

You'd be wrong. A fetus is NOT a person. It's a part of a woman. It's a fetus. And is not granted human rights until it IS a person.

Historically, under both English Common Law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person with full rights. Instead, legal rights have centered on the mother, with the fetus treated as a part of her.

Dictionary

We have to consider if we want to give the fetus rights at the expense of the woman's rights. When two entities' rights clash, one has to win out. In this case, since the woman is a person and the fetus is not, the woman's rights are the ones that count. SHE decides whether or not she wants this fetus to continue to grow as part of her body.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Hefficide

 

Abortion is acceptable in the event of a threat to the mother’s and/or babies life or rape, other than that no exceptions.

I was with you right up to there. How is a child that was conceived during a rape any less of a human? The case of the mother's life is the only acceptable, because if the mother dies, the child will die also. I guess the logic is 1 death is better than 2 deaths.

As for the liberal's argument that pro lifers are hypocritical because they support the death penalty: if they would like to place an infant on trial, and they are found guilty of capital murder, then by all means they may kill them. But keep in mind the baby is given the right to an appeal, and they may not be killed for up to 10 years later, due to our legal system.

My favorite is the: "it's a religious argument" defense. Did the Creator really have to tell us that killing your children is unacceptable? How morally bankrupt has this society become to think that the right to murder your child is a religious matter? Despite the fact that life is sacred and God given, even if you care to ignore God, self preservation/preservation of the species is pre-programmed into all creatures. Religious belief has absolutely nothing to do with it.