A valid political point - How are liberals pro-abortion but anti-torture?

How is it that liberals are against torture but pro abortion? So its not ok to torture your enemy but it is ok to end your childs life? Can someone please explain?

Click here for more information.

reply to post by breakingdradles

---

Thanks for replying. Dont you see the mismatch in logic though? I mean you wont torture your enemy without feeling guilty but it is somehow ok to end your own childs life. I am not trying to start trouble. I just want to understand the logic. By the way what did I ever do to anybody that I wouldnt accept someone doing to me? Also, sorry you lost points. I hate it when that happens to me.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

I was waiting for that lol.

and it was about the poster, not the topic btw!

EDIT TO ADD: Ouch, that cost me 1000 points!

[edit on 7-5-2009 by breakingdradles]

OK, since your sorry about the points, I'll answer your question, that is IMHO.

I think it's more of being anti-war and seeing that some people just shouldn't have kids.

Yes there are many families waiting to adopt, that that number is FAR fewer then the number of abortions performed that year.

Won't be able to until there can be 100% birth control, other than abstinence, as anyone with a brain knows that just will not work, Bristol proved that!

So in conclusion, I believe liberals feel that way because they are anti-over population (eco friendly), and because they are so anti-war that it spills over into the prisoner category.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by breakingdradles]

Ouch, 1000 points, fear the mods.
I also find that there is a misrepresentation in the pro abortion crowd. The conservative position is called Pro-Life, so shouldn't the other side of the argument be called Pro-Death? It's usually the hippie liberal douches that will save a 1000 baby seals before they save a human being, messed up ideology.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by dashen]

Ok... I get your point in a way. Maybe my perception is wrong, but I think that a lot of people that get abortions are teenage girls from middleclass families who could afford to take care of the kid and could do a good job if everyone in the family pitched in.

Now dont get mad because I am not saying this to upset you... But wouldnt it be better to have war and lower the population that way instead of basically terminating our own?

Did you really just suggest a war for de-population instead of abortions?

Do you find a difference!?!

You think we should kill Arabs and send our teenage girls there to raise their brood?

reply to post by dashen

---

I better not touch that with a ten foot pole. Like I say about other topics, it doesnt matter what you call it.. things are what they are.

reply to post by breakingdradles

---

Well to be honest I am not really a fan of depopulation at all. I figure the Earth can handle a few more billion at least. I say if there is depop let it happen naturally. Once we exceed the limit people will start dying. That way none of us decide who lives and who dies.

But I guess I am saying if I am given a choice of limiting population by abortion of our own children or killing an enemy during war.. then i choose the latter. I am not just saying US started wars. I mean just wars in general. I dont think we should make a point to start wars just for depop, but if a war starts and depop is important to some its going to help their cause. Wars and natural disasters happen all the time.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

To be clear, I don't think anyone is "pro-abortion"....that's why the stance is called "pro-choice". No one thinks abortion is a good thing (well no one I have ever talked to), but it is an alternative, a choice. Also, you are painting this with a pretty big brush--saying that ALL Liberals are against torture but pro-abortion. There is a fallacy in your argument (maybe that the correlation makes no sense)---I don't know, but I'm not going to wikepedia right now to look it up.

I will say because of what you stated in the OP and others subsequently, THIS is why women understand what it would be like to live under Fascist rule more so than men. Women have the right to choose and people don't deserve to be tortured...those are rights. You suggest taking those away--what next?

Fake controversies are always put before the public. I'm sure 99% of the so called liberals really don't care about abortion or torture. They just want to feel they're on a winning team and can feel good about themselves. Same for any point of view. If people are really caught up in some worldly issue they're living in delusion. Nothing of the world changes and "Governments" are being promoted as an illusion of control and freedom of choice. Issues like these draw you into dependency on the very existence of a controlling authority over others ie ourselves. No one gets away with anything. We will all stand before the angel of death and be held accountable for our behaviors. The scales of good and bad are separate and unequal. No one gets away with any good or bad deed. All must be repaid, chaining us to this world of lies.

same way conservatives are pro-life and pro-hunting.

your question is pretty flawed. yes there is a contradiction. welcome to human beliefs.

plus i dont think either ones are really contradiction.
they aren't pro-abortion. thats a slanted way to phrase it. they are pro-choice. they want women to be able to choose what to do with their bodies.

pro-abortion tends to imply that liberals absolutely love abortions.

This is a great question because it exposes just how backwards Liberal thinking is on most issues. Pro-Choice is giving irresponsible people the CHOICE of exterminating a human life. How does this compare to pro-hunting where you are hunting wild prey? It doesn't, and it's the only pathetic shot someone could come up with to say the republicans do the same thing.

The Liberals are more concerned about the health and sanity of people who want to do us harm AKA our ENEMIES, than they are with innocent human life inside the womb. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

They will debate with you all night long until they are blue in the face on how you can "interpret" water-boarding as "in-human" or "torture", but yet they give an irresponsible woman the right to kill her own baby because she made a "bad choice".

Insead of bailing people out for making a bad choice, Barack needs to focus on the cause. Prevention is ALWAYS the best option. If he is going to give women the choice to kill an unborn baby because they made a bad decision, then by the same logic he should allow people who get a D.U.I. to get away without fine or penalty because they decided to drive when they shouldn't have. It's ludacris

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Gdc934]

WERD

Just like it is usually the kootery recknecks who push the bible and are pro death penalty, pro war, pro gun and anti social programs...

I would love to see JC in line with any of the things mentioned above - messed up ideology.

You've just equated a human life with an animal life. So, are you saying that killing a baby human is the same as shooting a deer? Is nothing sacred to you?

It isn't about women choosing what to do with their bodies... it is the body of a new human being inside them, not a cancer cell.

reply to post by justsomeboreddude

---

In the same way that you neocons/ religious right can support the death penalty but not abortion.

It's all about constitutionality. Torture is unconstitutional (freedom from cruel and unusual punishment), and that should be the end of it. It can't be linked to another point in order to justify it.

Becuase it is not a child and it si not alive - please stick to the FACTS / SCIENCE on this issue - your question is completely loaded.

the religulous community has been neaten all around the park on this issue by the very best scientists who deal in facts which left the church the only real argument the could muster - that the SOUL is initiated at conception.

So unless you are talking about 24 week abortions or something (would be decent to have stated something rather than just drumming up contention) you are referring to an embryo. Which si not alive and no brain function and would live under any circumstances. And is MOST definitely NOT a child - this is something that baby - once born - will grow into -

Hence you question should be "Why do liberals oppose torture and not the removal of a non-living parasitic entity." -

Well the answer is fairly simple - torture is just wrong -

so there you have it. the two have absolutely NOTHING to do with each other - so why ask the question really. You may as well ask why buy oranges when did Christopher Columbus discover America - they have no bearing on each other what -so ever.

Removal of a non living biological parasite with potential to cause unknown damage and harm physically and psychologically which will have zero impact on the entity beyond harming its supposed "SOUL" - or knowingly inflicting horrendous pain on a sentient living human being for personal gain.

Glad I could help

Well let's say I am pro-choice on whether someone wants to murder someone else, meaning I think people should be able to murder other people if they so choose. Doesnt that make me not against murder and therefore by default for murder?

Ok and I will say I could have worded the title of my post better. I shoudnt have said it was only liberals. My point was that I dont undertand being pro-choice and being anti-torture at the same time. I would much rather torture my enemy then see any babies have their lives ended.

Before you all say I am some religious nut, I am not. I think it is just common sense that if something has the potential to be a baby its a baby.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

I dont really agree with either, but if I had a choice between terminating the life of a serial killer or terminating the life of a fetus, I would choose the serial killer everytime. The fetus is innocent.