The irrationality of Liberals

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

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.

BH...you are my friend...and we agree on many things...this we happen not to.

But as my friend, you will have to know that I will call them as I see them. And I see the opinion of a women carrying a baby as an "incubater" is looking at it in an inhuman way. That is how I see it. If it was said by someone else, I would say the same thing...it was meant to be a directed personal attack on you...but on the comment regardless of who said it.

If you read my previous posts, you will see that I have stated that your situation is the only situation I see this as being a choice, and I'm sure a hard choice, for a women to make. So please don't take my comments about abortion as being directed at your situation.

Originally posted by intrepid
So you are admitting that a woman that has an abortion has killed the fetus?

Of course. That's what an abortion is.

I believe that it's self-defense. Allowing the fetus to grow in one's body is a dangerous proposition. In 2008, nearly 300,000 women died in childbirth. Given that there is an alternative to childbirth, I think it's the woman's choice whether or not she wants to take that chance.

Source

reply to post by spacekc929

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.

I actually went out of my way, (parenthetically speaking), to make clear that what we in America call "liberal" is really the left wing, who hijacked liberalism. It may have been subtle, (although subtlety is not my strong suit), but it was my attempt to let liberalism off the hook and hold the left responsible for any hypocrisy. Liberalism is very much a noble ideal, and at best is the pursuit of freedom, and at worst, at least in America, is the liberal view of the Constitution.

Conversely, conservatism is every bit as much a noble ideal, and at best, at least in America, it is the conservation of Constitutional principles, and at worst is merely the attempt to slow down the eager progressive who may in their eagerness progress too quickly. Just as the left, in my opinion, are guilty of hypocrisy, the right are also guilty of hypocrisy. Right and left paradigms are what I believe you are speaking to, and in their purest forms, liberalism and conservatism can only be hypocritical if one betrays those principles. Right and left wing politics are less about principles and more about...well, politics. There ain't no principles in politics.

Thank you, however, for your very nice words regarding my words that wound up making you a tad uncomfortable.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Am I the only one sick of hearing about how spectacular the constitution is? Surely the only reason it's lasted so long is because there are amendments that control it.

reply to post by Lysergic

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?

Again...did someone say something about bombing abortion clinics or that it is ok to do so?

First someone who supports abortion tries to bring in religion into the debate, even though they don't believe in God...because it stears the discussion to a place that would be easy for him to argue from.

And now, we have someone trying to bring in the bombing of abortion clinics.

Why? Why try to move the topic? Can you not discuss it or argue your position without bring in outside unrelated issues?


And who is the conservative...I know Misoir isn't (at least I thought so)...I'm not a conservative....so who exactly is the conservative you are talking about?

Click here for more information.

The double standard I still don't get is this:

A fetus requires the support and care of it's mother to survive.

When that fetus is born, then it still requires the support and care of another human or humans.

So, why is a woman legally allowed to abrogate the responsibility of providing for her unborn baby, yet doing the same to a child outside the womb will result in the parents being rightly villified, and facing charges of manslaughter and child neglect ?


The fetus is 100% dependent on it's mother providing it with nutrition and shelter to survive.

Isn't it a bit disgusting that it's own ''mother'' would let it down so badly, when it requires her the most ? Her own ''flesh and blood'' ?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by intrepid
So you are admitting that a woman that has an abortion has killed the fetus?

Of course. That's what an abortion is.

I believe that it's self-defense. Allowing the fetus to grow in one's body is a dangerous proposition. In 2008, nearly 300,000 women died in childbirth. Given that there is an alternative to childbirth, I think it's the woman's choice whether or not she wants to take that chance.

Source

It is only self-defense once something goes wrong with the pregnancy and the women's life is in danger. There is always a potential for harm...but that doesn't make it "self defense" because of the possibility of harm.

I can't just go kill someone and claim self defense because he had the potential of doing harm to me or killing me. Even if someone has threatened to kill me...I can kill him and claim self defense. I have to wait for him to actually try to kill me...and then I can act and claim self defense.

The possibility of harm or threat of life is not a valid excuse or justification to claim abortion is self defense. There are some cases where abortion can be looked at as self defense...but not all abortions.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
[what an inhuman way to look at this...guess it helps with murdering babies...remove them as human).

You accused me of using the term incubator as a way to remove fetuses from being "human". You're wrong. I didn't use it for that reason. I use the term incubator because that's EXACTLY what a woman's uterus is. It's a technical term, not dripping with all the emotional crap like "murderer" and "baby" and all the stuff people opposed to choice use.

Let me just say this. To those of you who are opposed to choice: You want the government to take away the choice, right? You want the government to make the choice for every woman. So let's say sometime down the road, the US becomes drastically overpopulated. The government decides that each family can only have one child and any further pregnancies will be aborted. Would you still support the government deciding? I don't think so. All of a sudden, you'd want the WOMAN or FAMILY to decide.

It's NOT the government's choice! It's the woman's choice. And should always be.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Why? Why try to move the topic? Can you not discuss it or argue your position without bring in outside unrelated issues?

On all issues pertaining to this discussion, there are always deflection tactics used by pro-abortionists to steer the conversation away from their own untenable position.

The poster you are replying to is clearly trying to twist the subject matter away from where the debate's gone and is heading.

It is telling that anti-abortionists always get to the heart of the matter, and aren't afraid to put across reasons why they are against it, yet so many pro-abortionists are very coy and defensive on their own viewpoint.

I think that speaks volumes.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Why? Why try to move the topic? Can you not discuss it or argue your position without bring in outside unrelated issues?

On all issues pertaining to this discussion, there are always deflection tactics used by pro-abortionists to steer the conversation away from their own untenable position.

The poster you are replying to is clearly trying to twist the subject matter away from where the debate's gone and is heading.

Are you people for real? These things get on different subjects and scenarios because this topic has been debated for ages and there are THOUSANDS of variables. Would you rather continue talking about the locked horns in the same area... forever... that will go absolutely nowhere?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

You accused me of using the term incubator as a way to remove fetuses from being "human". You're wrong. I didn't use it for that reason. I use the term incubator because that's EXACTLY what a woman's uterus is. It's a technical term, not dripping with all the emotional crap like "murderer" and "baby" and all the stuff people opposed to choice use.

This is exactly what I mean...you use it to remove "emotion"...to take human feelings out of it...to sterilize it like it is just a medical process the same as removing a "growth" (which I have heard other people say). All of this is used to make the baby seem non-human. It's hard to say you support a womens choice to kill a baby...but it's easy to say you support a womens choice to remove a growth from an incubator.

Words like "murder" and "baby" are used because that is exactly what is involved...saying "discontinuing pregnancy" or "removing a zygote" are much more sterile words...and it is leaves less guilt in those that support such actions.

I'm sorry you see this as personal...it's not...I would say it to anyone.

Let me just say this. To those of you who are opposed to choice: You want the government to take away the choice, right? You want the government to make the choice for every woman. So let's say sometime down the road, the US becomes drastically overpopulated. The government decides that each family can only have one child and any further pregnancies will be aborted. Would you still support the government deciding? I don't think so. All of a sudden, you'd want the WOMAN or FAMILY to decide.

Where do you get the idea that I want the government to decide if someone gets an abortion? Wanting something made illegal doesn't mean I want the government to be able to do it but no one else.

The government enforces murder being illegal...does that mean they can decide who should be murdered?

I don't think this argument holds any water. I don't want "The government to make the choice for every women". I want the government to say one choice is illegal...for the women, for a man, and for the government.

Where do you get that I want the government to make the choice for someone?

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Everyone has an opinion on this topic. It's a hot button one. And everyone thinks(knows?) that their stance is the right one. Guess what? For them it is. Let's take a step back though guys and leave the emotion and the personal heatedness out of this though please. Like I said earlier, I'm pro-life but I know that this is only right for me. Let's allow others to have their beliefs without getting bent out of shape.

Originally posted by Brood
Are you people for real? These things get on different subjects and scenarios because this topic has been debated for ages and there are THOUSANDS of variables. Would you rather continue talking about the locked horns in the same area... forever... that will go absolutely nowhere?

That's got absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying.

Of course there are plenty of variables, and those will be brought up in these debates.

What I was referring to are specific deflection tactics that are used to steer a topic from one path, onto another, that is more comfortable for the person that is doing the deflection.

Actively deflecting any topic is completely different to a topic going off on a tangential course due to the various points within the debate.

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?

Despite the fact that you think "Why can’t a mother kill her child when he/she is 2 or 15?" is a valid argument against abortion, I'll still reply. Murder is by definition the unlawful killing of another human being. The problem with your post is that abortion is not illegal, and a fetus is not a human being. To refer to abortion as murder is irrational. The death penalty is a violation of human rights, just as abortion is a violation of reproductive rights. No hypocrisy at all.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Where do you get the idea that I want the government to decide if someone gets an abortion?

Making it illegal is taking the choice away from the woman and giving it to the government. Who do you think makes and enforces laws? The government.

The government enforces murder being illegal...does that mean they can decide who should be murdered?

YES. They DO decide who should and shouldn't be murdered! What do you think the death penalty is? Government sponsored murder.

I don't want "The government to make the choice for every women".

Making it illegal DOES mean the government makes the choice for every woman.

Where do you get that I want the government to make the choice for someone?

I'm not surprised you can't wrap your head around this concept, but when the government takes the choice away (makes abortion illegal) they have just made the choice for every woman.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


BH...you implied that then the government could decide to FORCE a women to have an abortion.

That is what I am asking where you get that idea.

Making something illegal does not mean that the government can now commit or force somone to do that act.


Why don't you adress that...because that is what you claimed.

Do you think the government should take away the CHOICE of all people to murder other people? Does that translate into the government having the right to make the choice to murder people?

Your argument doesn't make logical sense.