The irrationality of Liberals

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Saying that it is always the consequence of her own action is naive at most

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Heff...really?

Men are court ordered to pay child support...and I think they should be.


But why do you think it is ok for women to walk away from the consequences of their own actions?

Yes, OS my friend, really. On a couple of caveats. First of all I've seen the word "whores" used here to describe the women involved, but not a single such tirade against the men whores who also share culpability.

Secondly, writing a check is a far cry from biologically committing oneself to 9 months of pregnancy, health risks, and the fact that society, generally, expects the mother to be the custodial parent and the absolute pariah status that a woman not living up to that standard is subjected to, still, even these days.

All things being equal, nothing in this subject is equal.

~Heff

reply to post by maybereal11


When has anyone mentioned "God" in this thread?

What exactly is your intent?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I see this view of saying it is OK to kill a living thing because it hasn't moved 1 foot from where it is currently living down the birthing canal...just out right INSANE. It's either insanity or willfully ignorant in order to justify the murder of a baby.

edit on 29-10-2010 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

With everyone here tossing about the "murderer" label..... you are including God right?

www.americanpregnancy.org...

Spontaneous abortion (SAB), or miscarriage, is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage.

Chemical pregnancies may account for 50-75% of all miscarriages. This occurs when a pregnancy is lost shortly after implantation, resulting in bleeding that occurs around the time of her expected period. The woman may not realize that she conceived when she experiences a chemical pregnancy.

Most miscarriages occur during the first 13 weeks of pregnancy.

If God aborts maybe 50% of those "innocent unborn children" in the first trimester then what does that say about God?

If this is where you speak of God's will, God's perogative etc...then shouldn't we stop assisting Premature births?...Gods will and all.

Is it possible between 25%-50% of pregnancies are aborted "by God" in the first 13 weeks because those pregnancies do not constitute an "innocent unborn child" in his omnipotent view?

Might that also be the reason that while "God" is perfectly willing to abort a fetus in the first tri-mester for the slightest of reasons...God is also willing to roll the dice with the mothers life vs. the childs life in the last tri-mester and a mother can die giving birth?

Some very clear evidence as to when "life" begins...at least in "God's" opinion..which I trust more than religious zealots and idealouges.

Abortion in the first tri-mester? Tragic...yes..murder...no. God does it all the time. up to 50% of the time to be exact..poor nutrition, stress...whatever..the slightest of reasons.

Ask me about the 2nd and 3rd trimester and I will give you a different answer and so will the statistics on spontaneous abortions (God given abortions).

Gunning down your local OBGYN is murder.

Edward Abbey once said that "Orthodoxy is a stiffening of the heart accompanied by a relaxation of the mind" I have come to think that represents the conservative movement well these days. It came to mind as I read the posts here referring to teens who get pregnant as "murderers" and "whores"...

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Yes...she had this choice...the same time the guy had the choice if he was prepared to be a father. BEFORE they had sex.

Interestingly, I agree with you on that. But I don't think making the girl or woman suffer with a pregnancy and childbirth and to fill the world with MORE unwanted children is the answer to the problem.

Pregnancy is more of a danger to a woman than abortion. A woman has the choice which procedure she wants to undergo.

I'd bet a million dollars that if men were the ones to carry and bear children, abortion would be legal and there would be NO moral attachments to it. It would be cheap and insurance would cover it.

Originally posted by intrepid
Well what's the difference between Chris Reeves needing assistance to live and a fetus needing the same?

Chris Reeves was getting assistance from the WILLING medical community. He asked for and was receiving medical assistance to survive. When a 5 week old, 1/8 inch fetus can be kept alive and growing by the WILLING medical community, then that will be a different story. But until then, the ONLY person that can keep the fetus alive is the woman in whose body the thing resides. And it's her choice to do it or not.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Hefficide

But how handy is it that we only wish to make ONE of those parties culpable and accountable for blame.

What on earth are you talking about?

This:

Originally posted by SevenBeans
[
It didn't crawl into your uterusYOUR ACTIONS PUT IT THERE.

edit on 29-10-2010 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

Since men don't have a uterus, can you defend my statement that your hyperbolic statement was NOT directed at women?

~Heff

Originally posted by Brood
reply to post by Hefficide

 

Our laws should control the sins that pro-lifers do not commit, and allow the sins that they do. Right, pork industry?

edit on 29-10-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)

I'm afraid that I don't even have a clue as to what this means....

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide

Since men don't have a uterus, can you defend my statement that your hyperbolic statement was NOT directed at women?

~Heff

It was directed to the person I was replying to... who portrayed a fetus crawling into her body, as if she had nothing to do with it getting there lol.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by maybereal11

 

When has anyone mentioned "God" in this thread?

What exactly is your intent?

In determining whether abortion constitutes murder...we must first determine if a fetus at that stage constitutes life. To make that determination the "Natural System" or "God" or "The Crreator" or "Science" can be examined.

Choose whichever you like...I myself am agnostic...I believe in a higher power as yet undescribed by our religions.

If that does not answer your question...please be more specific.

Abortion in the first trimester is not murder...and God/Nature/Science demonstrates that...that is what I am saying.

reply to post by Hefficide

Yes, OS my friend, really. On a couple of caveats. First of all I've seen the word "whores" used here to describe the women involved, but not a single such tirade against the men whores who also share culpability.

I have not called anyone whores in this thread. Do I think of women who get multiple abortions out of convenience whores...yes I do.

The only reason you don't see anyone calling men those names...is because men are proud of multiple partners...women aren't. Take that up with society or the difference between men and womens throught process...I have no control over that.

Secondly, writing a check is a far cry from biologically committing oneself to 9 months of pregnancy, health risks, and the fact that society, generally, expects the mother to be the custodial parent and the absolute pariah status that a woman not living up to that standard is subjected to, still, even these days.

Even more of a reason that a women should be careful about that CHOICE she makes about having sex. Or she could always just have the baby killed...as long as it is still inside her...she would be a monster if it moved 1 foot down from where it is currently living and then she killed it.

All things being equal, nothing in this subject is equal.

If this subject is parental rights and responsibilities...no...nothing is equal.

If this subject is the killing of a living thing...and a innocent baby at that...yes...things are fairly equal.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But until then, the ONLY person that can keep the fetus alive is the woman in whose body the thing resides. And it's her choice to do it or not.

Onelook defines "alive" as follows:

living and not dead

www.onelook.com...

So you are admitting that a woman that has an abortion has killed the fetus?

Edit: Gotta go. Catch up with this later.

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by Brood
reply to post by Hefficide

 

Our laws should control the sins that pro-lifers do not commit, and allow the sins that they do. Right, pork industry?

edit on 29-10-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)

I'm afraid that I don't even have a clue as to what this means....

~Heff

It means that it is just as sinful to eat pork as many things that Pseudo-Christians preach about sociopolitically; they only condemn people for the sins that they are incapable of preforming themselves, so that they can tout their own morality even though they are just as guilty of sin. ts hypocrisy and blasphemy; the "Christian" way, as evident over the past 2500 years.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Like I said before...then she shouldn't have sex if she doesn't want to have her body "used as an incubator" (what an inhuman way to look at this...guess it helps with murdering babies...remove them as human).

Look, I don't appreciate you getting personal about this with me. There's no need for that. I have argued that a fetus IS human. It IS alive.

I would NEVER get an abortion. I was pregnant once and my life was in danger so I had to have it removed and it's one of the saddest experiences of my life. I could not have a child after that. I still think about how old she would have been. So don't give me this CRAP about trying to dehumanize it. You're wrong about me and I haven't said or done anything to deserve this kind of disrespect from you... my friend.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I'd bet a million dollars that if men were the ones to carry and bear children, abortion would be legal and there would be NO moral attachments to it. It would be cheap and insurance would cover it.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said except for this one. Maybe 30-40 years ago if abortion technologies had boomed then this would be true... but in case you haven't noticed, the Western World hasn't exactly cared about Men's Rights in the past few decades

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
American Liberals, (really the left who've hijacked liberalism), love to call themselves "pro-choice" but outside of abortion, there is very little choice the American left approves of. Prostitution? Nope. Illicit Drug use? Well, maybe, if it is them behind closed doors, or at a swanky party where no repercussions will follow, but for you...Nope. A free and unregulated marketplace? No way Jose!!!!!! Abolish the Fed? Are you nuts? End the income tax? Fuggedaboutit! Nope, no choice for you, pal, unless you're a woman, and if you're a black woman, unmarried and pregnant, then by golly do they really believe that you should have the choice to terminate that pregnancy. No really, terminate that pregnancy...seriously...terminate that poor little black baby...you don't seriously think it is moral to raise a black child in the ghetto as an unmarried woman, do you? Look...I, as an American Liberal and really going to have to insist that you strongly consider choosing the option of abortion! Ugh...you know, there should be population control laws!!!!! What? I, as an American liberal, just really care about the planet.

Another thing the American left has hijacked is "intellectualism". They insist that they, and only they, hold the true intellectual ideals, and if you don't believe it, they will point to their trendy berets, their Little Red Books, their Che Guevara T-Shirts, and their Shepard Fairey Obama Hope poster hanging on their exposed brick wall in their rent controlled apartment right next to the book shelf filled with Marx, Nietzsche, Jung, McLuhan, Watts, and Zinn, all of which they will claim they have read several times over, unless you really push them on the issue, then they will sheepishly tell you that they have read all the important parts of those books. Shortly thereafter they will politely excuse themselves because it is time to do their Pilate's.

I just wanted to say that this sounds exactly like Theocritus' character writings... brilliant. (I am taking a Greek/Roman Literature class.)

At the same time as I find the humor in your argument, I find it very stereotypical and confining, for I possess liberal characteristics but I'm not the same as every liberal. One can be liberal but be pro-choice and pro death penalty, or vise versa. 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are such broad terms. There is hypocrisy among traditional conservative values as well, which include the support of militarism and the death penalty, but also the huge faction of 'pro-life' advocates. The matter is that within the confines of Liberal and Conservative are many different types, and not every liberal is the same, just as not every conservative is the same. This is why I don't find the OP's original argument a straight up hypocrisy on the part of liberals. I actually find it to be ill-informed and conforming to Extreme Left/Right Idealogy when in reality, almost everyone is somewhere in the middle.

reply to post by maybereal11


Saying a miscarriage is the same as abortion is like saying a heart attack is the same as murder.

One has human interaction to commit the act, the other does not.

I simply see life as a process...a continuing process...starting at conception...ending at death. There are many different stages of "life" during that process...but it is all LIFE.

If that death is caused by another human being, it is either an accident, self defense, or murder. Abortion is not an accident...it is not self defense (unless the pregnancy is actually causing harm and threatening the life of the mother, then you could say this is "self defense"...not that it "might cause"...but IS causing), and so we are left with murder.

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?

so if I flipped the script I could say

Murder = Good as in death penalty
Murder = Bad as in 10 commandment bad which most conservatives regard as holy
Abortion = Bad
Bombing abortion clinic = good?

the irrationality of conservatives?

Originally posted by Hefficide
And saying it is a "cop-out" is an attempt to marginalize a position without the burden of having to provide substance or credence. It is an off hand dismissal devoid of any indication of contrary evidence.

Thus it is a means of belittling the position of another.

No, it's not an attempt at ''belittling'' your comments.

My comment was in regards to your stated position on the issue. That appeared to me to be a cop-out, so I say so. I don't know why you have a problem with that.

Let me elucidate further;

Your argument is that you're not a woman, and that you can't get pregnant, so you can't morally judge a woman's actions on this issue.

All the time, we are constantly judging something to be either ''right'' or ''wrong'', despite never having experienced - either as perpetrator or victim - the action that we form a moral objection to.

A woman, for example, can judge that rape is wrong, despite not being a man, or being a victim of the crime, herself.

Despite not being able to get pregnant, I can judge that it's wrong for a woman to kill her own child,


Bearing in mind, that we make moral judgements on other people's actions, without ever experiencing them, then I feel that your coyness on passing judgement on this issue constituted a ''cop-out''.

That is all. My comment wasn't intended to be belittling.

Originally posted by Hefficide
By biological definition substitution one stage of development, by replacing "zygote" or "fetus" with the word "infant (or baby)" is a straw man argument as it provides false context to what is being discussed.

Technically, maybe, but I wasn't using biological terminology ( although, maybe I should have made this clear ).

By dismissing my point instantly as a strawman, rather than gaining clarification on my terminology, could be construed as an ''offhand dismissal''.

In reality, you are just being pedantic, as you know that fetuses are often referred to as ''unborn children'', and the like.

My point ( as I'm sure you were well aware ) was asking the difference between a woman killing her ''fetus'', and the difference between her killing her ''child'' after it was born.

Originally posted by Hefficide
For the above stated reasons of biological definition. Now if you wish to argue from a position of "At what point does a fetus become self-aware, I might be open to adjusting my views. But to consider a mass of cells as "human" simply because it will eventually become human at some point... well that is not a leap I am prepared to intellectually make.

As you must surely be aware, biological and legal definitions aren't always relevant in this debate, when we are arguing along philosophical lines.

The biological defintion of a zygote, fetus and child are all arbitrary, man-made definitions.

Maybe we are at cross-purposes, and you were arguing purely on biological definitions, rather than philosophical or biological interpretations.

All humans are a ''mass of cells''. So this line of argument is rather moot.

Personally speaking, I consider a zygote to be what a human being looks like, when we are a few days old.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Hefficide

Since men don't have a uterus, can you defend my statement that your hyperbolic statement was NOT directed at women?

~Heff

It was directed to the person I was replying to... who portrayed a fetus crawling into her body, as if she had nothing to do with it getting there lol.

I have a penis, thank you. I'd like to think that if it were me in that situation that I would keep the child, but some women don't feel that way. It may not adhere to my personal moral standards, but that does not affect other people, and me trying to force my personal moral standards on other people would be morally wrong. But hey, don't take my word for it....

John 8:7

When they kept on questioning him, Jesus straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Matthew 7:5

Jesus said, "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Why is this thread titled "the irrationality of liberals" when it's just another abortion thread?

I think the mods should close it. There are plenty of abortion threads going as is.