The irrationality of Liberals

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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.

Simple logic

- Every part of your body has the same DNA.
- The "fetus" has its own unique DNA sequence.

Therefore It is not a part of the mother.

Originally posted by technical difficulties

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. . .

What do you mean?

Are you referring to me? If so, why are you pretending to know my political views?


*Anyhow, if the birth of statists can be prevented, we would all benefit.

If people were told by the doctor, 'sure he'll be healthy, but when he gets older he will contribute to the loss of freedoms and he will help the state grow - it is in his genes'.

That might be reason to abort.

Originally posted by kingofmd
How is a child that was conceived during a rape any less of a human?

I actually agree with this. Placing this exception on abortion completely ruins the conservative argument. They're not willing to force a woman to bear an innocent child who is the result of rape, but they WOULD force a woman to bear a child who is the result of a bad decision on her part or a broken condom, failed birth control or misplaced IUD.

It's ridiculous!

Originally posted by kingofmd
- Every part of your body has the same DNA.
- The "fetus" has its own unique DNA sequence.

Therefore It is not a part of the mother.

If it's not part of the woman, then it can be removed and brought to term by the medical community. THat solves the problem, doesn't it?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Hey Benevolent,

I've been reading your posts and there is a quick video I would like your you to watch. I think you will find it of interest as it concerns a third argument, in the whole abortion debate. It is called 'evictionism' and it is based on libertarian principles. The stuff he talks about is going to be possible in the future and it is an interesting option which most people are not aware of, due to it being hypothetical - but only for now:



If it piques your interest and you want to hear more, here is the full lecture:

mises.org...

reply to post by Exuberant1


I would totally support the evictionist position. Once the woman decides she doesn't want this entity growing in her body, she can evict it and have NO CLAIM over it. If the medical community can support the fetus and bring it to term and then adopt it out to someone who WANTS a child, then I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

Interesting. I didn't know anyone was talking about this option. Thanks for the vid.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

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.

I was not talking about a non-personal fetus, but about child which is already a person (has developed consciousness), since original poster probably spoke about that case (conscious, but externally non-viable child). Of course, till the fetus does not become a person (develoment of NS), its a part of a woman, and its a THING.

Originally posted by Maslo
I was not talking about a non-personal fetus, but about child which is already a person (has developed consciousness),

Did you read my external quote about a fetus being a person under LAW? Here is it again:

Historically, under both English Common Law and U.S. law, the fetus has not been recognized as a person with full rights.

A fetus is NOT a person under LAW.

reply to post by Exuberant1

*Anyhow, if the birth of statists can be prevented, we would all benefit. If people were told by the doctor, 'sure he'll be healthy, but when he gets older he will contribute to the loss of freedoms and he will help the state grow - it is in his genes'. That might be reason to abort.

If you adhere to such faulty logic, it is your right to have your embryos checked and aborted if you want to. But dont force it on others, since:
1. who will become a statist and who dont cannot be determined with sufficient probability from the genes, societal factors influencing the individual are far far more important.
2. there is no consensus that statists, as you define them (liberals), are bad for the society.

While I don't really consider myself a "Liberal" per se... I do favor the Liberal side of things a bit more than the Conservative side, both in mainstream and radical politics.

Since I've already lengthily answered the question on why I'm pro-choice, I'll quote myself from another thread...

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
While abortion is quite understandably a very controversial/emotional issue, I am personally PRO-CHOICE.

We must consider the real nature and possible necessity of abortion biologically, historically, socio-economically, and ecologically.

1. Biologically:
If the birth of a baby endangers the mother's or its own life, or is the result of rape/incest, or is similarly undesirable to that extreme extent, then we must provide for the choice to abort a pregnancy. On a separate note- humans are born DRIVEN to reproduce (i.e. have sex) and we cannot (nor should we) deny that urge in humans. The best solution is to use contraception. Simple fact is- people (including teenagers) will always have sex... there's no use in trying to stop it, as it's exactly what keeps a species alive.

2. Historically:
Throughout human history (and the history of other species) mothers practiced infanticide if they could not properly raise a child within their environment and/or community. The cold/simple truth is that we cannot always sustain extra people in conditions of limited resources or desperation/scarcity. The most humane thing to do when times are scarce/desperate or in need of balancing is to maintain sustainable populations. There is no sense in endangering an entire community, family, or species in the name of raising every single baby that is conceived. If every human/animal throughout history ALWAYS raised their child and never practiced selective infanticide then many species might not be alive today, or certain families/cultures/communities may have died out. We MUST look at abortion as an extremely favorable/humane alternative to infanticide. Infanticide is an extreme act (at least to us in modern/western times) but abortion is essentially a medically/scientifically-enabled humane version of infanticide which may sometimes be necessary, albeit controversial/difficult. The people it most harms are the baby and the mother, and since the majority of mothers are inherently/automatically loving of their children, it should be their choice/burden to have and nobody else's (especially if they are complete strangers to the mother).

3. Socio-economically:
This follows along the same vein of mothers not being able to raise/support a child due to desperate conditions such as- scarcity of resources, harsh environments, or in modern times, lack of financial support, family/community support, unsafe/unhealthy living environment, etc. Sometimes it's less humane to bring a child into a bad/lacking environment than to have an abortion.

4. Ecologically:
Let's face it, the planet is FILLED with humans and is past the point of being overpopulated. Now I'm sure some of you dont believe this and attribute it to some NWO conspiracy. However, the VAST realm of science is untouched by any such conspiracies, regardless of how theorists propose certain science will be perverted to tyrannical ends. Scientists are largely very humble, intelligent, honest, and curious/truth-seeking people. They are composed of thousands of worldwide researchers/experts and related institutions which can and should be respected for their work. If indeed NWO conspiracies are true, then they will represent a PERVERSION of the science (as Eugenics did) and not necessarily proper use. I digress... in a planet that is overpopulated, we must also make extra considerations for increasing population of the national/world community (since we are all consumers of national/world resources). With this issue in mind, we must add an extra variable to the decision to raise children or not. Though this may seem a strange logic- in times like this we CANNOT be "greedy" about adding human lives. Certainly it feels rewarding to save peoples' lives and bring more humans into the world to (hopefully) enjoy life, I too feel this same empathy and love for my fellow humans. However, by the same token, that very same empathy/love can be used to argue the opposite- which is that overpopulation makes CURRENTLY LIVING people (and ecosystems) suffer more than they need to, and that adding more people due to some naive religious/ideological/moral belief is dangerous and counter-productive to lessening human suffering. Some people use the cop-out argument, "But what if that baby was gonna be the next Gandhi or Einstein?!?" My answer to that is that for every FAMOUS Gandhi/Einstein there are a million others who did not gain public notoriety. In essence... they already exist, and to some extent exist in everyone.


Once again, this is an understandably CONTROVERSIAL and MESSY issue that is not easy to figure out. I remember looking at pictures of abortions (certainly sensationalist shock value is involved) and actually becoming more confused on where I stand. It's a harsh/cold reality, but is arguably necessary and far more humane than similar/necessary practices throughout history and amongst many species.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I know the law, and you are right in current law, but I consider it not moral and bad. From the scientific POV, beginning of a person should not be determined by external viability, birth, or conception, but appearance of consciousness (brain waves in the neural network). Law that does not reflect that should be changed IMHO. We are no longer in 18th century and should not use faulty historic law which stemmed from lack of knowledge of neurology, for things which can be easily decided by modern science.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

*Anyhow, if the birth of statists can be prevented, we would all benefit. If people were told by the doctor, 'sure he'll be healthy, but when he gets older he will contribute to the loss of freedoms and he will help the state grow - it is in his genes'. That might be reason to abort.

If you adhere to such faulty logic, it is your right to have your embryos checked and aborted if you want to. But dont force it on others, since...

Why are you pretending that you know I would force anything on anyone else?

Currently women have the right to abort babies, thus they have the right to abort genetic statists. No one said they should be forced, so please don't pretend that is the case.


*Do you imagine I would use force because you would use force in other things? Perhaps you are projecting, yes?

I have never seen a baby kill someone and be put on trial for murder...
You are giving a baby a death sentence. It is the same sentence that we apply to CRIMINALS!

I agree with the OP. The twisted logic of a Liberal is incredible... If you even want to call it "logic'.

Sometimes I wish we could abort certain people. (Genocide! Genocide! That's what he means!) No, get over yourself. I am kidding. I just think that thinning the heard from the Tofu Eating wussies would be a good thing!

reply to post by Misoir


I find your slogan/tag amusing: "Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.
Member"

I think you'll find it's the republicans and right-winged groups that have corrupted our western civilisation with drugs and gangs due to their own laws no less.

I'll be a liberal til i die, when we educate our young, have an equal distribution of wealth, we can aim to have our liberty, we won't let you guys destroy our planet with your fachist opressive regimes.

reply to post by Whiffer Nippets


Thanks for sharing. My heart aches for your pain. I hope you find peace one day peace and love to you my friend.

For the topic at hand,
Most conservatives supported, rooted for, the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They spouted that if you weren't with the president and supported the troops to shut up (Bill O'Really) or to get out of America. I wonder how many pregnant women were killed during our "Shock and Awe" campaign? Not a single complaint from the anti-abortion crowd (right wing, Bible-thumping, God fearing conservatives) instead it was kill em all, turn Iraq into a parking lot,(nuke em) as well as Iran. Seems murder is okay to these anti-abortionist once outside of the womb and you do not hold there convictions. Same for the death penalty, they are all for it. I was taught two wrongs do not make right. Hypocrisy IMO...

Originally posted by Maslo
I know the law, and you are right in current law, but I consider it not moral and bad.

Some people are into legislating morality. I'm not one of them.

reply to post by Ptah-Hotep


If someone claims be a liberal, but is not one then that claim does not make them a liberal.

Same for conservatives, yes?

So if someone says they are a conservative but is not - then perhaps they are not a good example to use as conservatives.

Did Ron Paul cheer for the war with Iraq?

He is the only conservative there, so you should use him as an example.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Some judges didn't get the memo then. If you kill a pregnant woman you get tried for double homicide.

reply to post by Misoir


I would consider myself to be a liberal... yet I do not in the least think that abortion is right.

In fact, I completely agree with your view that considers it murder.

Abortion is not a political ideology issue; it is a moral issue.

Is it okay to kill a Jew if we define them to not be humans? What about owning slaves: suppose we found a way to reclassify them into not being humans is it okay to be their owner?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Some people are into legislating morality. I'm not one of them.

Legislating morality.. On what else would you build a law, if not on universal morality (we cannot kill a person) and science (for determining the time of the beginning of personhood)?