The irrationality of Liberals

Originally posted by earthdude
Today I learned that the Tea Party wants to eliminate intellectualism. Just like they did in China durring the cultural revolution and in Cambodia under the Camire Rouge. They want to go after the professors first, use poll taxes and tests for voters, and shut down public schooling. This seems very unamerican. So yeah, I'm a proud liberal.

That would be the Khmer Rouge. So much for "intellectualism".

reply to post by Misoir


Interesting post, I have not read through this whole thread so maybe someone has already asked this. Why are republicans for the death penalty but against abortion?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I don't know how many women have. And I think it would be a tragic thing for a man to deal with, having no control over the situation. But I can tell you that I was pregnant once and it was ectopic, so had to be taken immediately. So, I think I know what it's like to think about the death of my unborn child. I know what it's like to experience it with no chance of another child. So, regardless how many women think about it, I have.

And yet even you have this attitude that Men should just STFU if someone wants to kill their offspring... I don't get it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Most of you are willing to tell the woman, "You made the choice and had sex so you have to deal with the consequences and have the baby." But you aren't willing to take the responsibility when YOU have the choice (before sex) OR deal with the consequences after you plant your seed in another person's body.

The consequence is helping to create a lump of tissue that she can unilaterally throw into the garbage for absolutely any reason (under current law). If she chooses to let it become a child requiring 20 years of support, I'm not equally responsible for that.

The problem is Women want to have it both ways... they want Men equally responsible for creating a child in need of support (when they want the child and his money to help raise it) and at the same time they only want Men equally responsible for creating a lump of tissue (so they can throw it in the garbage if they want).

My body, my choice, our responsibility.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

You would have the government legally punish a pregnant woman for how she decided to handle her pregnancy? That explains a LOT.

A woman can smoke, drink etc. etc. throughout her pregnancy and give birth to a deformed child that will suffer from her actions for it's entire life... and there is no legal consequence for her.

On the way home from the hospital with the baby in the back, she can't have a cigarette because she might get in trouble, and she better have baby in a $200 dollar triple harness German engineered car seat too!

If that makes sense to you than you're completely irrational.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
And yet even you have this attitude that Men should just STFU if someone wants to kill their offspring... I don't get it.

I never said men should STFU. I don't know where you got that. I don't think ANYONE should STFU. I don't think ANYONE, man, woman, or government should dictate to ANYONE what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. It sounds like you may be speaking from a personal experience, but please don't assume things about me because of YOUR experience. You'll likely be mistaken.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The problem is Woman want to have it both ways... they want Men equally responsible for creating a child in need of support (when they want the child and his money to help raise it) and at the same time they only want Men equally responsible for creating a lump of tissue (so they can throw it in the garbage if they want).

Yep, sounds like personal experience. This is my opinion on the man having a choice. I don't want it both ways, after all.

Originally posted by SevenBeans
If that makes sense to you than you're completely irrational.

It doesn't make sense to me, in fact. I have no idea what you are trying to say with that last bit.

reply to post by SevenBeans

You would have the government legally punish a pregnant woman for how she decided to handle her pregnancy?

When womans irresponsible behaviour damages the child, it should be a crime and legal punishment is definitely justified!

Originally posted by SevenBeans

The consequence is helping to create a lump of tissue that she can unilaterally throw into the garbage for absolutely any reason (under current law). If she chooses to let it become a child requiring 20 years of support, I'm not equally responsible for that.

You want to complain about women having abortions but you think men shouldn't have to own up to the responsibility of half of that child is theirs? Hate to break it to you but a man would see his responsibility and would pay his fair share and if the woman didn't want the child then the man should have to take custody of the child. Men crying about how the woman used them to get pregnant so they could get support is rather lame. If the man is so worried about it happening he can always get a vasectomy.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


When I use the term "God"...I am not referring to orthodox religion, but rather nature/creation/evolution/the clockmaker/the force...whatever...and with a healthy does of "I don't know" and an even greater dose of humility in the utter genius in creation...all of our science and religion combined is just a tiny, pin-point, fleeting peek at best into the genius of the universe IMO.

That said...my question...which I have no simple answer to, but I believe is productive to ponder in the context of this debate..

"why" has the challenge/burden/miracle of childbirth been given decisively to women? Why in the least of circumstances are men only required to contribute sperm? Why such a lopsided responsibity?...Why did "God" choose to do it this way? What is the wisdom? The advantage?

In my opinion that question is worth thinking about and whatever answers you might test...apply them to the question of "choice" in the context of abortion.

God indisputably deemed the woman the better of the sexes for delivering the child, enduring childbirth, providing initial food (breastmilk) etc. and by extension forming the initial predominate bond...why?

Does that speak to a woman's right to "choose"?

All of this assumes you are comfortable treading potentially uncomfortable intellectual/philosophical ground...and there are of course no "right" answers. Just something I always contemplate when thinking about the issue.

Originally posted by maybereal11
"why" has the challenge/burden/miracle of childbirth been given decisively to women?

I see. Thanks for the explanation.

Why does nature endow woman with the burden/privilege of carrying the immature seed to personhood? It's a good question. My supposition would be that human life and procreation work better and are easier if two parties share the basic responsibilities of life. In nature, men have certain traits conducive to providing for the family and women have traits more designed to care for the family and keep the home - all of which guarantees the continuance of human life.

Since we're no longer living in a strictly natural environment, our roles are less rigid and we are more independent from those roles.

It's only lopsided in a narrow context. There are many factors in the difference between men and women that, when seen alone, seem lopsided. I could ask... "Why did nature endow men with such superior physical strength? Seems lopsided." See what I mean?

I don't think women are necessarily better suited to raise a child in the modern world. Lots of things have changed. Our old roles don't matter so much anymore because they aren't necessary. But one thing that hasn't changed is that the female carries and bears the young. It's simply a matter of biology that we (as yet) aren't able to get around.

God indisputably deemed the woman the better of the sexes for delivering the child, enduring childbirth, providing initial food (breastmilk) etc. and by extension forming the initial predominate bond...why?

I don't think 'he' deemed woman the better. More likely, she evolved to the task. In other words, 'he' made her the way she is so she COULD propagate. One of them had to do it. One had to provide and one had to keep the home fires burning. So each were made to (or evolved to) do the task at hand.

Does that speak to a woman's right to choose? Not necessarily, in my mind. The reason she has a right to choose is that it's her body that's involved. If men were the childbearers. it would be their choice whether or not to bear.

Everyone wants to enforce their Utopian ideals. Why don't you get raped and be forced to support something you were not ready for or had no interest in. Obligations for financial, emotional, educational, and developmental.

You want to post your interest like its a game. If you really want to get some feedback that you will understand why don't you make yourself a victim?

No wonder the free nation has no ideal relationships. People like you have so little to answer for and so much to enforce. You can afford the morality others cannot.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by earthdude
Today I learned that the Tea Party wants to eliminate intellectualism. Just like they did in China durring the cultural revolution and in Cambodia under the Camire Rouge. They want to go after the professors first, use poll taxes and tests for voters, and shut down public schooling. This seems very unamerican. So yeah, I'm a proud liberal.

That would be the Khmer Rouge. So much for "intellectualism".

Your point is that I am not an intellectual. Great point and true, but not related to this discussion. Intellectuals are everywhere, we should listen to them. They spell good too, irrational tangents aside.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by Misoir
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?

Actually that IS the debate. When is a life a life?

edit on 29-10-2010 by intrepid because: Correct syntax.

The only reason why that is a "debate" is in an attempt to water down the argument. It is an attempt to dehumanize an unborn child. Once you successfully dehumanize, it's like putting down a dog - sad, but socially acceptable.

Abortion is almost a non-issue to me. I would never vote for or against a candidate because of their stance on abortion, but I can tell you the root cause of the abortion "argument".

Liberals don't support abortion because of some deep-seated hatred for children or something. It doesn't have anything to do with the "murder" argument, either. It has to do with responsibility. In order to be a liberal, you have to dislike personal responsibility for your actions. Welfare, lifetime disability, social security, government safety nets in general - liberals support these things because liberals do not believe in personal responsibility. They believe that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions, and those that are willing to work hard are obligated to take care of those that don't feel like doing so. Liberals support abortion because they are scared that one day their actions will catch up with them. They fear having an illegitimate child, so they want the option on the table for themselves. No way do they want to face responsibility for something that they did, so now the twisting of language begins. They start asking questions like, "When is a life a life?" The goal is to dehumanize the baby enough that they can stomach it in their own minds. It doesn't matter if it's murder as long as they've beaten it into their heads that it isn't long enough that they actually believe it and can sleep at night.

Shirking responsibility is a characteristic of a liberal, and that is why abortion exists - as a safety net in case they screw up, just like every other government program.

This is the root cause of why liberal beliefs are illogical and unnatural - it takes years of beating something into your head for you to come to grips with it.

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
Liberals support abortion because they are scared that one day their actions will catch up with them. They fear having an illegitimate child, so they want the option on the table for themselves.

How narrow minded to think that:

1. Supporting CHOICE means supporting abortion.
2. Supporters of choice are all of child-bearing age. (How do you explain the millions of people OVER child bearing age who support choice?)

:shk:

reply to post by Misoir


I know of this hypocrisy all too well.

Living here in a blue state, surrounded by die hard liberals, I have to hear them spout their non sense on a daily basis. I understand their reasoning, for me liberals are idealists. For the most part, they want to live in a peaceful, utopian society, where all race of people get along, and all drive a Prius while eating a vegan burrito, and everything is cost free. Sure, I can see how that would sound nice, but is it realistic? Far from it.

I often debate liberals, (myself being independent) only to find myself being lectured. When I start making good points, or ask thought provoking questions, they immediately become emotional and try and make me out to be a "violent, gun toting, racist, animal murderer." Wow.

The whole question of killing life is hilarious to me. Most liberals have no problem with a 16 year old chola chick in east L.A. having her third abortion. But, they will protest a store that sells fur coats and make signs that say "MEAT IS MURDER"

Hypocrites.

reply to post by ChocoTaco369


What a pile of bull#.

Liberals don't support abortion because of some deep-seated hatred for children or something.

I am a generally a liberal (the only thing I dont like is their stance on multiculturalism and immigration), and I love children.

It has to do with responsibility. In order to be a liberal, you have to dislike personal responsibility for your actions. Welfare, lifetime disability, social security, government safety nets in general - liberals support these things because liberals do not believe in personal responsibility. They believe that they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions, and those that are willing to work hard are obligated to take care of those that don't feel like doing so.

I believe everyone should be responsible for their own mistakes. To an extent that wont threaten his life or cause too much suffering, if history has shown that society can easily prevent it. Its not about liberalism or socialism, or responsibility. Its simply humanitarianism and empathy, something right wing anarcho-libertarians run from like vampire from a cross, because they will have to admit that they dont have any.

Liberals support abortion because they are scared that one day their actions will catch up with them. They fear having an illegitimate child, so they want the option on the table for themselves.

This just shows your attitude naked. You are so self-oriented that you cannot imagine someone would support welfare state or pro-choice position even if he would most probably never need it (my case), not from selfish interest (paying taxes for welfare is clear economic loss for me), but ONLY from EMPATHY and COMPASSION with those less fortunate.
I would never have a child if I am not absolutely sure I would be able to take care of it (this position I have made pretty clear on the forums) so I support abortion certainly not for my interests, but only from empathy with the children that would suffer if their parents would not be able (or willing) to take care of them. Never existing (which is neutral) is better for them than having a life of suffering (which is bad).

It doesn't matter if it's murder as long as they've beaten it into their heads that it isn't long enough that they actually believe it and can sleep at night.

It doesnt matter if the innocent unwanted and unprepared for child suffers, all it matters for you is that parent has been punished for his mistakes by it, and his lack of responsibility (the holy cow of conservatives) has been properly avenged. Screw the child.

"When is a life a life?"

Why should we protect unsentient life, in case it is going to cause harm and difficulty to already sentient life, or sentient life in the future (the child after birth)? Thats perfectly logical question.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Misoir
The little whores who get themselves into that problem should also be taught a lesson that big brother won’t always be there for them when they make mistakes

So you propose we make abortion illegal, forcing some 15-year-old "whores" to bear their children, not finish high school, probably mistreat these babies that they didn't want in the first place and aren't mature enough to raise responsibly... and probably resent the children for taking their youth for their whole lives, resulting in totally screwed up, unwanted kids, just to teach the "little whore" a lesson...

What lesson is that? How will one "little whore's" lesson teach other 15-year-olds not to have unprotected sex?

And then what about the ones who go into the alleys to have an illegal abortion? You're all for that? You support that? How is dying from an infection caused by a botched abortion going to teach anyone a lesson? We've already learned OUR lessons from abortion being illegal. It's none of your business what women do with their body. If you would kindly mind your own business, you wouldn't have all these worries.

This is just the ranting of someone who wants to control other people and hasn't thought out the consequences of their desires... :shk:

So wait, a baby is part of a woman's body? Women just naturally grow babies? I was unaware of that.

But seriously, if a woman wants to cut out a kidney or maybe a vestigial organ...more power to her. Those were in there naturally and they are officially a part of her body. I will mind my own business about that part of her body. However...since we are talking about another human life inside of the woman's body...we can't be talking about it like it is a natural part of her body...right? It's not an appendix, it's a human life. It is not JUST your business. Telling someone to mind their own business when it comes to that is like saying "look away as I kill these children. They aren't yours so quit asking."

reply to post by DaGremlin


I agree, and that is why we must define to the best of our scientific ability WHEN does simple tissue change to (starts to contain) another human person. Because both extremes (human bodies contain new persons from conception, human bodies contain new person after birth) lead to suffering and are unfounded in any rational facts, since we have pretty accurate elaborations on what qualities constitute a person (entity worth protecting), and not a single one has anything to do with birth or conception. They all appear inbetween (cca 4-5 month of pregnancy).

reply to post by Misoir


I think the real problem here is our society produces "Little whores" and "Dead Beat Fathers".

At least in the united states, and I am sure in many other countries. I believe it has to do with Media. Media is not inherently a bad thing, it could be the most powerful tool to get information out. (Well it is, it just isn't sending very viable information.)

I am pretty sure that advertising has warped all of our minds, starting for the most part in the 20th century.
It is true we have seen a steady rise in violent crimes and murder since the 1960s per capita in the U.S.A.

Everyone should read the book On Killing by Lt. David Grossman.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

This is just the ranting of someone who wants to control other people and hasn't thought out the consequences of their desires... :shk:

this is the essence of the problem. Its a control issue. Its control over a woman's biology that is being argued. As long as whatever is inside a woman's reproductive tract, its her choice to keep or abort. That's it.

If you don't like it, don't screw her. Or use a rubber.

Aborting a cystoplast (less cells than a fly) cannot in anyway be compared to murdering a human.

If you believe that abortion is murder then I assume you have
- Never had sex, be it protected, unprotected or intended for procreation. Think of the millions of potential humans murdered in that ghastly act (yes in sex for the purpose of procreation, millions of sperms don't make the cut.)
- Never masturbated or never had a period

The anti-abortion debate is ridiculous.

It is worth noting that is not something I could ever go through (from the male side) as I personally deem getting pregnant in most cases (other than the exetremes of rape etc) irresponsible. However I do not deny people the right to choose and to claim an understanding of everybodies individual reasoning would be ignorance of the highest accord.

Let me start off by saying that I am Pro-life.

I also wish to mention that the OP is a little.. well.. cruel in this thread. It is true (and I personally challenge anyone to say other-wise, I have pictures and evidence that would trump anything you can present) that a late-term or even mid-term abortion IS snuffing out the life of a child. Have you SEEN the picture of the pre-natal operation with a tiny hand reaching out of the womb to grip the doctor's finger?!

ANYone that can say that late-term, or partial-birth abortion is NOT murder needs to have their head examined. Allow me to explain, labor is induced and the baby is born save for the head, a small hole is then inserted into the baby's head and a tube is inserted. The brain is then sucked out. Through the entire process the baby is awake and aware. If anyone did that to an adult, they would be called sadistic yet, because a few inches of the baby's body is still inside the mother, the baby is considered a fetus and the murder is called an abortion.

Mid-term abortions aren't much better. True, the baby could not survive outside the mother at this stage but everything is already developed, including pain receptors. One method is to insert a salt solution into the womb and dissolve the baby, the other is to make a small slit in the womb and wave a KNIFE around in there to slice up the child. In these cases, IT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED THAT THE CHILD TRIES TO GET AWAY FROM THE KNIFE. They have a brain at that point, a heart, working lungs, all they need is time.

I also do not approve of early-term abortions but at least the child is not aware to know what is going on nor can they feel the pain. To me, this type is the only type that might not be murder. I do not know when a human receives a soul but it is easy to think of the baby as a fetus when it could resemble anything from a dog to a whale in the earliest stages. I will abstain from making a judgment here though I, personally, do not approve of it I would no longer make a fuss about abortion if all other term-abortions were illegal and only the first trimester abortions remained. Truly, so many babies are lost in the first trimester before the mother even knew she was with-child. How can I justifiably and with any sureity call that murder?

The only thing I, myself would support and possibly partake in is the morning-after pill which should be given to all rape victims.

Truly, abortion IS murder. However, our OP is targeting the wrong people. More than half the time the mother is a scared teenage girl that neglected to keep her legs together and just wants to be rid of the inconvenience. Please note the contempt I hold for these fools. But they truth is, they don't know what's really going to happen to the child. They just want "it" gone.
The doctors, now, those are the murderers. Can't say I really care when the abortion docs are killed. I wouldn't DO it but to me, it's justice served via crazy-person. They know what they are doing. They bare the responsibility. The mothers aren't told when they go to clinic what will happen. Their little hands are patted, their money is taken and they are completely un-aware what is being done to that little life inside them and of how they are violating their bodies and that it's possible they won't be able to HAVE a child when the want one. (Poetic justice, that)
The doctors, the schools that run buses to clinics, and the society that allowed abortion to become a convenience are who I mainly blame. As a woman I say, we should have the right to choose - to keep the child and raise it or to give it up for adoption. Sometimes, women are just too nieve and stupid to choose.