The irrationality of Liberals

Why do Liberals support murderers yet oppose the death penalty?

Far as I got low brow. Spend your time with Fox and Dummies._javascript:icon('')



reply to post by Misoir

reply to post by camaro68ss


I actually support the man having a choice just as the woman does. But that's for another thread. Oh, here it is:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Whiffer Nippets


I am very sorry to hear about your unfortunate story and circumstances.

Sadly, many children are brought up as unwanted children, but I don't think that abortion is at the heart of that issue.

After all, there are many unwanted children that growing up now, even so the parents had the option of abortion.

Just as there would've been countless beneficial and influential members of society, if they hadn't have been aborted.

It works both ways, really.


On my comments about pro-abortionists being ''coy'' when having to defend their stance, I did qualify my statements by using the terms ''most'' and ''many'', as I'm aware there are some like you who are willing to put across your point of view in a genuine and open manner.

Originally posted by intrepid
If abortion is illegal, illegal abortions, probably done by a hack, would prevail. What kind of a health risk is that?

This point always comes up in these kinds of debates, but I feel it is unneccessary, and here is why:

If a fetus was declared as a ''human'', then the law would criminalise abortion, because it would constitute ''murder''.

Therefore, any woman that wilfully and knowingly solicited murder, would only have herself to blame if she suffered any ill-effects from her crime.

Would we have too much sympathy if a murderer injured himself with a murder weapon ? Or if a burglar severely injures himself while breaking and entering ?

As a woman of 64 years - - growing up before Women's Lib and Abortion rights.

Why do I feel I am in a "Time Warp"?

I would not go back to those times if a gun was pointed at my head.

Yes - - along with women being given the right to make a Choice - - - we also got the rights to our school and medical records.

Prior to demanding and winning these rights - - - you had to get a court order to view your own school and medical records.

Funny - - - how those "little" rights are never brought up.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
When a woman gets pregnant, who do you want to make the choice? Her or the government?

I fear you are missing the point.

If a fetus was declared fully human, then abortion would be considered murder.

There would be no ''choice'' involved. Abortion wouldn't legally be an option.

The government would only legislate and enforce the laws relating to murder ( which would include abortion ), which is exactly what it does at the moment.

A woman's ''choice'' to murder her unborn child ( as that's what it would be, if abortion were illegal ), would be no different to my current ''choice'' to murder someone. And both these ''choices'' would have the same legal consequences.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Which was decided by the SCOTUS back in the 70's. Whether one likes it or not, abortion isn't murder.

Originally posted by Annee
I would not go back to those times if a gun was pointed at my head.

I bet - if they had the chance - that most of the 40 million+ aborted children, since legalised abortion in the USA, would go back to those times, though.

Originally posted by Annee
Prior to demanding and winning these rights - - - you had to get a court order to view your own school and medical records.

Funny - - - how those "little" rights are never brought up.

Making abortion illegal doesn't preclude a woman's rights to view her school and medical records.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I fear you are missing the point.

If a fetus was declared fully human, then abortion would be considered murder.

Oh, no. I get your point completely. And if a dog were declared human, euthanasia would be considered murder, too. You can play with "if this and if that" all day long, but abortion IS legal and is NOT considered murder. That was determined by our legal bodies many years ago.

A woman's ''choice'' to murder her unborn child ( as that's what it would be, if abortion were illegal ), would be no different to my current ''choice'' to murder someone. And both these ''choices'' would have the same legal consequences.

IF it were illegal, yes. But it's not.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Making abortion illegal doesn't preclude a woman's rights to view her school and medical records.

No, just her choice to reproduce or not.

Is there an election around the corner or something? These subjects always come on hot and heavy around elections...

(I know there's an election - I voted today)

Originally posted by intrepid
Which was decided by the SCOTUS back in the 70's. Whether one likes it or not, abortion isn't murder.

Which is why I said ''if it were lillegal''. I never claimed it was murder.

I don't think you follow my point.

If a fetus was classed as a ''person'', then consequently aborting a fetus would legally constitute murder.

A woman seeking out a back-street abortion, would, by law, be soliciting murder.

Therefore, any detrimental health effects that she may suffer while carrying out her crime, would be the same as a burglar injuring himself while breaking and entering, or any other injury sustained while committing a crime.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Im a liberal and you got that wrong on all accounts.

Its the right who wants to legislate morality, and make prostitution illegal, drugs illegal, among other things.

I don't think you know what a liberal is.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Im a liberal and you got that wrong on all accounts.

Its the right who wants to legislate morality, and make prostitution illegal, drugs illegal, among other things.

I don't think you know what a liberal is.

I think both sides are insane. And I do know what a Liberal is because I spent most of my life on the Center-Left.

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?

Why are neocons against abortions but if the children grow up to become Muslims, then they're willing to wipe 100,000 of those babies off the face of the earth without hesitation or regret?

The best piece of advice I can give you is to gradually get yourself off of Fox News. Subjecting yourself to the intentional spread of an irrational hatred and fear is not a good idea. Go cold turkey for six months and you'll find that you're not spitting on immigrants, gays, college graduates, Muslims, and civil rights attorneys as often. You might come to accept that those who speak, look, and dress differently from yourself are not inherently evil demons dedicated to your destruction. The "axis of evil" may in fact be composed primarily of people much like yourself who spend their days simply trying to scratch out a living for their families. They don't all sit around the dinner table plotting the downfall of American values.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Oh, no. I get your point completely. And if a dog were declared human, euthanasia would be considered murder, too. You can play with "if this and if that" all day long, but abortion IS legal and is NOT considered murder. That was determined by our legal bodies many years ago.

You clearly don't get my point, otherwise you wouldn't have replied in the above manner.

Clearly, abortion is legal. Anti-abortion people don't tend to believe that it should be legal.

Therefore, hypothetical and philosophical points relating to the matter can still be discussed, without the constant attempted rebuttal of ''it is legal''.


Your initial point that I was replying to, was your opinion that the government shouldn't have the say on whether the mother has the child or not.

You are clearly entertaining the hypothetical possibility of the government prohibiting abortion.

You are selectively putting your fingers in your ears and saying ''it's legal'' when it suits you, rather than continuing along the lines of the hypothetical discussion.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
IF it were illegal, yes. But it's not.

And here you go again with your circular argument.

We wouldn't get anywhere if we just argued on the basis of what's legal or not. Society would stagnate.

You can't hide behind the legality of something, rather than stating supportive reasons foryour side of the argument ( well you can, but you shouldn't ).

The debate clearly isn't whether abortion is legal or not. That is not open for debate.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No, just her choice to reproduce or not.

A woman has always had the right to reproduce or not. It's just that many women don't use that right wisely, and refuse to handle the consequences.

My point that you were replying to was the idea that a woman's ''right'' to choice could be snuck in with all the other genuine rights that women attained ( such as access to their school records ).

reply to post by andrewh7


This thread is about Liberal craziness, although Conservative insanity deserves its own thread too. I am neither so I can see the two lunatics for what they are.

reply to post by Misoir


Yeah.. they are.

The right is the opposite of your points in the OP I was talking to Jean Paul..

Im liberal minded.. But Im a mix of both sides.. So essentially Im not in a category..

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by andrewh7

 

This thread is about Liberal craziness, although Conservative insanity deserves its own thread too. I am neither so I can see the two lunatics for what they are.

No - the thread is about you attempting to shift responsibility for what you believe to be a societal ill. What you fail to understand that the republicans have had control of both houses and the whitehouse on many occasions since Roe v. Wade. They just recently packed the Supreme Court as well. They've had plenty of opportunities to change the law if they really wanted to. If they feared the US Supreme Court would overturn the legislation, then why not propose a Constitutional Amendment that prohibits abortions on US soil?

If Neocons really had a problem with abortions and believed that most of the country shared their opinion, they would have taken action. So, why haven't they? The reason is that either the majority of Americans support the right to get an abortion or that the Neocons really care about those babies a lot less than they claim. If you don't care about the majority's will lawfully exercised through law, then you are advocating fascism.

Now, the OP can attempt to color himself as a moderate all he wants. The fact is that if he walks and quacks like a neocon, he's a neocon. Kill a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians and then call yourself pro-life. Your hypocrisy is a joke. You don't care about babies - what you care about is having control over other people. You want people to go to your churches, eat your food, read your books, go to your schools, and wear your clothes. If gays get married, you're so insecure that you believe it somehow diminishes the value of your own marriage. If someone doesn't believe in Jesus, then they must want to kill or convert anyone who does. You need enemies to get up in the morning. You can't go about your lives without being afraid of someone else. It's sad.

Sorry, but what? Liberalism is the only logical thought process I can think of. Oh I get it, we rather have Conservatism running this country. Damn, you're right. Let's get the religious zealots to enforce strict censorship over something they find immoral or outlaw women's rights. Oh and let's support BP and the other corrupt oil companies. Ah, let's declare war on countries that pose no threat to us either.

Damn, what was I thinking? Conservatism sounds awesome.

Click here for more information.