The irrationality of Liberals

Many cells in the body have different DNA than original DNA in the mothers zygote or majority of cells, due to mutations. Cancer has different DNA than the rest of the body. Gametes have. Symbiotic bacterias have.

Are mutated cells or gametes different persons with rights? Is tumor a different person with rights? Are colon bacteria different persons?

Embryo has only a POTENTIAL to become different person in the future. But its not a person YET.

I disagree. Lets say there are five copies of a book and one contains a misprint on page 5. Its the same book but with a misprint. Likewise, a few mutated cells or a tumor are still part of the same DNA sequence. A fetus and a mother are separate entities connected by a cable. This is even more obviously true when you consider the sperm which makes the result not completely the product of one person..

Originally posted by 547000
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.

Unless the woman was on her way to an abortion clinic when she was killed, the life inside her WAS her child, according to her. SHE CHOSE to have a child and someone took that life from her without her consent.

Having said that, I think some anti-abortionist judges have an interest in setting precedent that says a fetus is a separate human being and so rule to reflect that desire.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

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)?

The law against murder is based on protecting a person's (the victim's) most basic right to life. The law is based on rights, not morality.

Laws are made for many reasons. One reason is to protect people from harm (murder, rape, theft). Another is to protect ourselves from harm (gun bans, smoking bans, drug laws). ONE reason laws are made is morality. But the law against murder is NOT a moral one. It's one of people's rights.

Why Laws Exist

The Morality Principle

Some laws are based not strictly on harm or self-harm concerns, but also on promoting the personal morality of the law's authors. These laws are usually, but not always, grounded in religious belief. Historically, most of these laws have something to do with sex--but some European laws against Holocaust denial and other forms of hate speech also appear to be motivated primarily by the Morality Principle.

Laws based on morality are nothing more than pushing an agenda on the people. That's what a law against abortion would be.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

We kill "intelligent" species all the time...it isn't considered murder.

It should be IMHO. Its only brutal and barbarian tradition that it is not.
Of course I am excluding cases when people do it for food, clothing or other legitimate needs. Then its either us or them, and thus it can be considered "killing in self-defense".

Like I said before, picking the nervous system is random...there is a definate start to LIFE...it can be pinpointed...it is conception. Are you going to argue that conception is NOT where the process of life begins?

"Life" should not be protected. Conscious entities should be protected, eiher carbon based or not.

You didn't answer the question...all I got out of what you just said is that you might want to consider an alien a human????

I told you what separates a virus from a human, both biologically (different species) and neuropsychologically (one is not conscious entity, the other is) - which is more relevat to our discussion. I dont know what other answer you await from me.

REALLY...is that the position you are going to take. It was a simple yes/no question...and you compare it to supercomputers....unbelievable. The queston was "Does a human fetus ever grow into some other than a human?".....care to try again...it is a yes/no question.

No.

And I have a question for you. Would you kill a human consciousness uploaded into a computer? Alien consciousness uploaded into a computer? Bacteria model uploaded into a computer?

I'm not confusing anything...but it sounds like you are ok with killing people who are in a vegatative state only surviving on life support...is that right?

Why not? We do it all the time. If a patient is brain-dead, we pull the plug even if the rest of the body could survive on life support till natural death of old age.

Mine is simple...from conception until death....end of story.

You will have to you have to make special cases, like sentient aliens, extropians or other non-human entities comparable to humans in intelligence. otherwise you will have to admit speciecism.

Mine is simple... Conscious intelligent entites are protected, simple unconscious life is not, regardles of potential.. end of story.

o POTENTIAL is not enough for this situation...but the POTENTIAL of RISK is enough in peoples opinion to justify abortion??? Seems hypocritical.

Potential to hurt or breach existing other persons rights is enough to justify action. Abortion, on the other hand, does not breach the rights of any other person - not mother (if its voluntary), not the rest of the society (they wont be affected), not the child (there is not a child yet, and prevention of future existence is not a murder, like anticonception). Simple libertarian principles are enough.

Originally posted by Hefficide
Just for the record I get labeled "liberal" and support a womans right to choose simply because I am not a woman and feel that telling a woman what she can and cannot do, when I am not "walking in her shoes" would be incorrect to the concept of freedom.

Suicide is illegal?
Do you disagree with that law?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Laws based on morality are nothing more than pushing an agenda on the people. That's what a law against abortion would be.

OK, let me rephrase that.
On what else would you build a law, if not on universal rights (we cannot kill a person) and science (for determining the time of the beginning of personhood)?

Law against late term abortions is also based on rights.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I addressed this earlier when someone tried to claim abortion is "self defense".

You are claiming that the POTENTIAL for risk justifies the ending of a human life?

Not by itself. But it is one factor a woman might take into consideration when deciding whether or not to continue with a pregnancy. If she was using protection (and it failed), can't afford to raise a child, already has enough children and doesn't want another, then the safety factor of a full-term pregnancy might be considered.

So, yes, the RISK (not "potential for risk", potential for death perhaps - carrying and having a baby is a risk) adds to the justification for terminating a pregnancy. It's probably not the only reason, but a valid one.

Originally posted by Maslo
On what else would you build a law, if not on universal rights (we cannot kill a person) and science (for determining the time of the beginning of personhood)?

It doesn't matter if you call it a "person" or not. "Person" is a subjective term. Science can only say whether it's alive, human, or the heart's beating, etc. They cannot say it's a person. "Personhood" is the stage at which people gain rights. That's a legal issue, not a scientific one.

Because pregnancy takes place within a woman's body, there is no way to assign to fetuses separate legal rights without depriving pregnant women of their rights. That is why the Supreme Court refused to accept the argument that fetuses are separate legal persons. To have done otherwise would have created unprecedented law depriving women, upon becoming pregnant, of their fundamental rights - to bodily integrity, informed medical decision-making, due process, liberty, and life itself.

Truth Out

SO...For argument's sake, let's call the fetus a person. Person A. The pregnant woman will be Person B.

Person A and Person B both have equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Person A's rights drastically INFRINGE upon Person B's rights.
Person B has the right to STOP the infringement.
If Person A wants to exercise their rights, they have to do it WITHOUT infringing on Person B's rights.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by intrepid

 

Yes, a fetus is a living organism.

I don't understand your confusion...

The developing Multiple Cell Being
True Dependable living Cells networking together with a fresh Unformatted Mind with a Pre Instinct Functions
Genetically Pre Programed from The Parents
just waiting for some INPUT when it goes through the Tunnel of Light AKA .. Birth Canal the Big question is when Does the Soul enter that Fetus ? ... ! and that's were the Confusion starts .. for some ...
The Upbringing of Religion ...

Speaking of that maybe we should All Have Natural Births Including the Complications.. Right ,

No C-section , No Detection of Birth Defects or Deformity's , No Help(by medical means) at all what so ever Just the Mother Pushing The Unborn Out.. maybe a Stick to bite down on too Abortion was back then Self Abortion by Self Torture Miscarriage.. Jumping Falling Etc..

Today's Birthing is a Big Business in the Medical Field.. Pay Pay Pay Visit Visit ,

My Descendants (Native American Indian) Did this type of thing it was a Give Birth or Die! Trying .. GODs Will . or The Creator's Will.. but we have Technology that can Detect & Prevent this Now before it was Natural Selection .. the Strong Healthy Survived Look at the Historical Spartans for Example.. any Slight of Deformity or Weakness the Child was Killed and Out of the Gene Pool ...

Our Population Today would be Less Numbered... If it was All Natural God Will Natural Selection ..
Just think what the Population of the Most Dense Countries like China & India Would be ..

My Child's Mother Would of Died .. as My Child is Living as a Emergency C-Section was Performed

So is this a Liberal Thread or a ANTI Abortion Thread ?? a Religious Rightful Against Will Thread..

Charlies Manson Mother was a Prostitute at a Very Young Age ! and Charlie was the Product of a Child having a Child from the Poorest of the Poor .Society .

Im with Choice to allow a Individual to be Executed to Prevent numerous Killing...

and Im A Liberal..

Thank a Liberal for

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d813ed4e8be7.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

SO...For argument's sake, let's call the fetus a person. Person A. The pregnant woman will be Person B.

Person A and Person B both have equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Person A's rights drastically INFRINGE upon Person B's rights.
Person B has the right to STOP the infringement.
If Person A wants to exercise their rights, they have to do it WITHOUT infringing on Person B's rights.

This goes the same way.

For Person B to want to exercise their rights, they have to do it WITHOUT infringing on Person A's rights.

In other words...they can't just kill the person because they are infringing on their "rights".

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


But Person B can stop the infringement. If Person A dies because of that, it's because they weren't really a person, but a parasite.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

But Person B can stop the infringement. If Person A dies because of that, it's because they weren't really a person, but a parasite.

Let me remind you of your OWN example.

SO...For argument's sake, let's call the fetus a person. Person A.

So no...in your example it is not a parasite (again...more attempts to make the baby seem inhuman)...in your example it is a PERSON.



So you are saying if someone is infringing on my rights...I can stop the infringement...and if they die...oh well????

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I say if you don't understand my position by now, you're not going to.

I get SO sick of "pro-choicers" acting like women are victims if they make the CHOICE to spread their legs and an (unwanted) pregnancy results from that decision. If you're not willing to have a child, either keep your legs shut or get your tubes tied. Women who have abortions as a result of consensual sex are irresponsible and cowardly. Be a woman and face up to the circumstances you have created for yourself. No civilized society would tolerate such a barbaric act as abortion, and especially wouldn't masquerade it as a woman's "right". It's unbelievable that anyone would even have the nerve to suggest that not allowing a woman to kill her child would be "controlling her body" or "forcing" her to have a child. The government took no part in impregnating the woman. You are only pregnant because of YOU yourself and the biological father. I've never come across such an illogical, asinine point of view as that of "pro-choicers".

I think abortion should be illegal (when resulting from consensual sex) and if a woman has an illegal abortion, she should be required by law to have her tubes tied. A woman who would abort her own child is not capable of giving a child the unconditional love and care that they need. It's ridiculous to even try to seperate sex and reproduction. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not against birth control, but don't try to act as if sex is for anything other than reproduction. Only an egotistical narcissist would think that their sexual pleasure (that they could just cause for themselves if they hate reproduction so much) is more important than continuing a species.

It's illogical to suggest that a fetus can "infringe" on their mother's rights when the fetus only exists BECAUSE of the woman and the father that she decided to let plant his seed in her. The woman brought it all upon herself. If the fetus makes her unhappy, then she has no one to blame but herself. SHE caused it. It's disturbing that anyone would refer to their own child as a "parasite" and other dehumanizing terms. Flat out psychopathic. Like my father said, probably 95% of pregnancies are "accidents", but as soon as you are made aware of the pregnancy, you have instant unconditional love for your child, and it would be devestating to lose them.

Someone made an example of a 15-year old girl "desperate for love" that gets pregnant. The reason for having sex is irrelevent. She still made the decision, fully aware of the consequences. It all comes down to personal responsibility. Be an adult and stop playing victim and blaming others for the circumstances you created for yourself. Reproduction is a natural life process. Every species experiences it. Stop acting as if it's some sort of punishment.

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?

Women who have an abortion without a threat to the life of themselves or the baby are murderers and are killing an innocent life that never asked to ever be conceived yet when what is classified as a murderer by legal standards kills a person they are opposed to the death penalty for a convicted murderer. What sense does this really make?

Claiming the right to murder is giving women a choice over their body is completely irrational. The freedom to murder is not freedom, it is despicable and abhorrent. Why can’t a mother kill her child when he/she is 2 or 15? What is the difference? Maybe the mother can no longer afford her child or recognizes that having the child was a mistake. She should be allowed to abort it should she not?

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?

Abortion = Good, Murder = Bad. Somehow they have missed the part that common sense should tell them, Abortion = Murder, Murder = Bad.

I am not understanding their reasoning here. As soon as a baby is conceived it is alive, how can that even be up for debate?

First of all.... Anyone who thinks in terms of good or bad, right or wrong is the delusional one.

Second off, in lieu of that, we seek that which is preferential to our sensibilities, knowing full well they are dependent upon our conditioning.

Some are conditioned to believe that a pregnant womans right to choose to be a mother or not exists even past conception, into the pregnancy.

Others like yourself, view this as murder, somehow distinguishing between the female and her fetus, though the latter has no ability to exist without the former.

In truth, we are all part of one dynamic ecology, though we assume a society in which individualism is relevant only as distinguished by consciousness....

It is because of this common delusion, that we talk in terms of "when is the baby conscious".

Honestly for me, the issue would be much more self reflective, and honestly not one whe i believe the law has any business. I personally would take issue with an abortion after having viewed the first ultra sound where there is movement which my animal nature would interpret as consciousness...

Once I had anthropormphized the fetus, i couldn't accept an abortion of that creature. However i also believe this is due to my conditioning... To others, if it was deformed, there would be no question about an abortion. This all depends on your conditioning according to your kind.

Because of this, i adopt the the belief that one who has not been born, cannot be murdered. However, I would still hate to see my own seed not allowed to be born... But that's just me, and i don't require anyone else to believe the same, or follow the same.

Please do not speak of these left wingers as "liberals". Liberalism is about freedom and small government. The liberals you speak of are social liberals (or,worse, socialists).

Read more here: en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

But Person B can stop the infringement. If Person A dies because of that, it's because they weren't really a person, but a parasite.

Let me remind you of your OWN example.

SO...For argument's sake, let's call the fetus a person. Person A.

So no...in your example it is not a parasite (again...more attempts to make the baby seem inhuman)...in your example it is a PERSON.



So you are saying if someone is infringing on my rights...I can stop the infringement...and if they die...oh well????

The fetus will become a person. It is not yet a person. There is a period within the pregnancy where this personhood is established. Prior to that period of fetal development abortions are legal. Therefore it isn't murder anymore than a dog receiving an abortion would be considered murder.

reply to post by Misoir


Another good one Mis.


It's like the recent row over the "gay agenda".

Just the disagreement with the "freaky" gays and bisexual/ transgenders and the way they are pushing the crap at all of us is enough to get "hackles" up here.

It all goes back to Saul Alinsky and his type. Take what is "traditional", "good", or DANGEROUS TO THE LIBS , marginalise it , make it seem "crazy" and turn the sheeple against it.

A good example of this ploy was Debra Medina here in Texas and McDonald up north. Debbie Medina was everything that the "tea party" should have been (so far as we know ). Beck chunked her under the bus while saying everything opposite to what he say's he believes. As far as McDonald, just her being christian they have turned her into a Torquemada in waiting. I guess since she decided she didnt want to be pagan any longer, that set them off .

Not that all pagans are wack job liberals. BTW, HAPPY SAMHAIN YALL AND BLESSED BE!!!

Liberals on both sides. R and D. Cant trust either side.

Originally posted by natlib
Please do not speak of these left wingers as "liberals". Liberalism is about freedom and small government. The liberals you speak of are social liberals (or,worse, socialists).

Read more here: en.wikipedia.org...

Thank you for the reminder and I agree entirely. Liberalism and Conservatism exist for each other so that one doesnt go too far either way. Mercy tempered by Strength and Strength tempered with Mercy.

Chesed and Geburah.

Strength without Mercy is tyrannical while Mercy without Strength is indolent and coddling.

Social Liberalism is merely an acid that destroys both.

reply to post by Misoir


There's the flaw in your logic. Just because someone got raped does that mean the child that was conceived is not the same as a child conceived by happier circumstances? By your logic that child should be saved too. Everybody is irrational, not just liberals. Children conceived by rape are no less special or valuable than children that are planned. The truth is not all life is sacred. Wouldn't it be great if hitlers mom chose abortion?

I have SOLVED this issue!

If you believe that a fetus or clump of cells is a person and abortion is "killing" it - just think of Buddhism - Buddha can just reincarnate it into somebody else!

PROBLEM SOLVED.