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

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 11 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
How about this, I consider myself conservative and I am:

1.) anti-abortion
2.) anti-torture
3.) anti-death penalty
4.) anti-war
5.) indifferent to what happens in someone's bedroom
6.) pro-drug legalization
7.) agnostic

What most "pro-choice" people don't get is that they are denying the choice for LIFE to a child, that's not very "pro-choice" in my book. Oh yeah, I'm a man and know that it is my right to speak on this.

To the person that used the "rape" argument:

In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions. Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:

* 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
* 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
* 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
* 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
* 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
* 7.9% Want no (more) children
* 3.3% Risk to fetal health
* 2.8% Risk to maternal health
* 2.1% Other

So, out of 100%, only 2.8% (bold/italicized above) would I consider a somewhat legitimate reason for an abortion. The rest can be solved with adoption.

[edit on 11-5-2009 by Finalized]




posted on May, 12 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


How is it conservatives a pro-torture and anti abortion?



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I think a lot of it has to do with the way you look at life. Do you worry about killing bugs? Of course not. No one does. People kill flies, bees, deer, the list goes on. What about humans makes us so much better than other animals? We are sentient beings? Sure, but that is no justification for placing ourselves above all other species. The human race has created a false reality where everything revolves around our culture and lifestyles. we are dominant over all species and we let it get to our heads. The world was not created for the human race...I believe we are simply products of this beautiful planets strange abilities. But this is getting off topic... My point is I think its very hypocritical to be against abortion because those people surely kill thousands of beings each year, on purpose or not.

P.S. I'm really not trying to pick a fight. Just asking for a little non-linear thinking



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ledhead
 


Any one of those children that are killed via abortion could be the next Einstein, Mozart, Plato, but we will never know. One of those children could have been the person to unite the human race and return us to living in harmony with nature, but we will never know.

Also, I consider "thinking", intelligent life to be more precious than animal life. I love animals, we should be considerate of them, not be cruel, but, we are at the top of the food chain and if I'm hungry, I'm killing a cow. I'm fine with that, are you?

[edit on 12-5-2009 by Finalized]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
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?


Hi, firstly I am not a liberal and don't appreciate your automatic association of those who are NOT anti-abortion as being liberals.

Torture involves intentionally causing psychology and or physical harm and distress to another individual for information or a confession. This person actually experiences these very unpleasant sensations and it usually causes them distress.

Although definitions can get technical, I think most would agree that abortion involves ending a pregnancy before a birth occurs. This chemical entity (embryo or foetus) does not have a mind, a conscience, sensations and is dependent on a host to survive (uterus). IMO, this entity is thus not an individual.

So we are comparing causing intentional distress to another person, with the terminating of a chemical entity that has not yet been conceived. Child refers to an entity in the physical world, so abortion is not actually killing your child. How can one kill their child if the child has not been born?

While abortion does end the potential for life of a potential human being who may go on to do wonderful and generous things later in life, the potential life never materialises into a life.

A lot of anti-abortion advocates say things like "you are lucky to have your opinions as your parents decided to let you live" but this seems illogical to me. If my parents did abort me, my whole physical entity and all things related would not have existed. There would be no concept of me and I would not be aware of myself or my ideas or my feelings. It may sound harsh, but I think that is the reality of the situation.

Those who have lived are usually aware, those who have not never are...

[edit on 12/5/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   
While this thread OP quite obviously wanted to stir up trouble and not have a reasonable debate,i dont think an embyro(within a certain timeframe) is a life,therefore i do no not equate it to murder in the slightest.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by wyleecoyote
 


No not at all, I addressed that very question you ask in my last post. If a person is going to be pro-death penalty for murderers, then by staying true to that logic, they would also be pro-Life. It's all about innocent lives here... When a killer takes the life of an innocent person, a JUST penalty is either life in prison or lethal injection. Either way, they need to be removed from society. In abortion, it's like the inverse of the same problem. Innocent life is being denied.

We're looking at this whole abortion thing from the wrong perspective. PREVENTION is the only true answer to the abortion issue, because there is no way to end the debate over abortion, both sides having their legitimate reasons to stand where they do.

Those meth heads and criminals who have babies need to grow up and be more responsible and not have kids in the first place, but when they do, that poor child has every right to live and try to make a life for itself as the parents do. It's almost like you are a judge and declaring someone guilty before you hear the case and before they even get to court, if you are pro-abortion. People living today who are survivors of a failed abortion attempt are all the evidence I need to rest my case that abortion is wrong.

Again, the real problem we are facing here is a society full of irresponsible people who don't think they should have to pay the consequences for their actions. The Government constantly bails people out of their problems in the name of "political correctness", but that in itself is what is causing all these problems to manifest into the huge issues we are facing today.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   
sorry if this has already been posted . . .

but wouldn't it be considered torture to force someone to carry an unwanted organism inside of their body for nine months?

and then to push an 8-pound object out of their vagina after 12-hours of labor at the end?

so if you're anti-abortion, does that make you pro-torture by definition?

sorry, this all just seems silly and total gloss of two very serious issues.

shame.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Finalized
 


Valid points. I don't know. There is so much about life I don't understand. Yet things have led me to one conclusion. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people die each day. It's really inevitable. Death is a natural part of life. Humans are so afraid of it that we have created religion because we simply don't know how to deal with it. I think the biggest step humans can take, is to accept that everything that has a beginning, has an end. To try to protect every single life and to do everything in our power to extend the life of the human race is understandable...yet it defies nature. Humans have been around a long time now. I think we need to get off our high horse and accept that the death of our species is necessary for the survival of planet earth.

[edit on 5/12/2009 by ledhead]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ledhead
reply to post by Finalized
 


I think we need to get off our high horse and accept that the death of our species is necessary for the survival of planet earth.

[edit on 5/12/2009 by ledhead]


Are you serious or are you trying to bait me? You truly believe that the human race should perish to "save" the planet?

And if so, what does "save" the planet mean to you?

[edit on 12-5-2009 by Finalized]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Finalized
 


Haha, believe it or not, I am serious. I believe humans are an infection to the planet earth. A hard concept to accept, but if you look around, we have manipulated the earth for own desires (rather than the natural thing, which would be to "live off the land.") Deforestation, pollution...we are destroying the thing we have to thank for our very existence. Who knows how many more planets there are with the VERY precise conditions we have on Earth to sustain life...but I really don't think we will be locating and moving to another anytime soon. Maybe my thinking is an abomination and disgraces humans...but maybe if we all thought like this we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

And by "save the planet", I mean we need to look at the bigger picture. What's more important, the survival of a corrupt, inconsiderate species? Or the survival of a (possibly) very rare phenomenon we call Earth. I think it would do us good to change our "filters" if you will and look at things from a different point of view.

Just my two cents.

[edit on 5/12/2009 by ledhead]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Easy....Two Completely different things...Done



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
"Any one of those children that are killed via abortion could be the next Einstein, Mozart, Plato, but we will never know"


or a hitler or someone that would end the world.

(maybe an answer for the religeous- why do good people die? -
because their progeny would destroy mankind-)

I do know, however, if I was a young professional female, and some crank with a lower iq and missing a few teeth started going on about what i should or shouldn't do (lol) i would ignore, laugh , or maybe be frightened.

Some of these activists walking around with signs with imagery of aborted babies- (lol)- a ghoulish crowd no doubt-
prostituting the very lives they claim as "sacred" to push an agenda, would be comical- if they were not so dangerous.


[edit on 12-5-2009 by ScreamtheDance]



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ScreamtheDance
"Any one of those children that are killed via abortion could be the next Einstein, Mozart, Plato, but we will never know"


or a hitler or someone that would end the world.

[edit on 12-5-2009 by ScreamtheDance]


Well according to the person two posts above yours, that is what he is looking for.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Finalized
 


Your obviously not listening to a word i say. You have what some call "selective hearing". I see now posting on this topic was a mistake. Strikes a little too close to home. Ill keep my opinions to myself



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ledhead
[m]

No it wasn't a mistake, i hear what you mean.

Life is a rare phenomenon. For all we know we could be the first planet with life on it. Although i doubt this as a reality, but the fact of the matter is life is rare and it should be preserved. The current status of the human race is one of rapid self-destruction, as well as everything else around us. What ledhead wants to say is that life does not begin at conception, life doesn't even begin at birth. Life began millions of years ago and its an on-going process.

Also if you think that aborted babies are really dealing a blow to the "special people to be" concept. Take into consideration the fact that when abortion was completely legalized, a generation later we saw an extreme drop in the rate of crime. why? Because all of the aborted babies who might have been born into desperate families didnt exist. So we had many less desperate adolescence with fewer desperate families. The result, a reduction in crime.

Take another look at that chart as to why abortions are performed. If that chart is the basis of any argument, your basically saying life at all is better than a life not lived to its fullest. These mothers are trying to make the best and secure lives for themselves and having a child just isn't going to let them do that, but according to the chart that should be ignored because individual life is supposed to be valued as soon as it is conceived because we are obsessed with having our moral compasses pointing within 1 degree of perfection.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
It is fascinating how the Thread originator prefaces it with "A VALID POINT", as if stating it were so somehow lends gravity to his diatribe.

As I am well certain many have pointed out in this thread, there are a majority of people who do not perceive an embryo or zygote would be classified as human life. Your declarations of humanity are not reasonable, and as such, you cannot participate in a reasoned discussion about the subject.

Your pleas are emotional ones, appealing to Ethos and Pathos in the traditional rhetorical style and entirely lacking in logos.

Potentiality is never measured when a person makes a determination concerning an unborn entity. Whether they could or could not be the next Einstein or David Berkowitz is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

On the one side, abortion is perceived as murder of an innocent human life. As Paglia has argued, if you do consider conception to be a valid zero framework for when life begins, this still does not remove the will of the Woman who must sustain the entity until it is self sustaining. Paglia would argue yes, it is murder, but it is a murder which the woman and only the woman carrying the fetus has the right to decide.

Aside from Paglia, we have how we define a human being. The difference between war and the death penalty and an unborn child is that the latter is a nebulous undefined existence, which has lesser value than an entity with verifiable experiences and thought processes.

The only thing which would lend an infant or an unborn child a greater value is either the ambiguous definitional of what a soul is or the evolutionary engrained protective instinct to renew progeny and shelter the young from harm. Neither of which serves a purpose in this argument.

If a secular humanist disbelieves in the subject of a soul, then every being is a mass of self perpetuating germination, from the smallest fetus to the oldest and wisest of us. It is harder to dehumanize a grown adult than it is to seperate sense of human from a cluster of cells, all of which would have a near-zero chance of survival exterior to the supplementary engines that is a woman's uterus.

If a person believes that humanity as a whole has a lesser value as there is an abundance of us upon the sphere to begin with, then it is well reasoned to reduce the surplus population via elimination of new consumers and rivals though the ingrained need to belong ushers in the sensation that eliminating adults tends to bring about severe repurcussions, and as a fetus or embryo is not viable or the concept of it's livingness is debated upon, it seems reasonable to destroy that which cannot rightfully be anthropomorphized or related to in a cognitive capacity.

Some highly intelligent individuals have a similar anathema to children from age 1 to 10, seeing them as subhuman but unable to murder them out of the societal reprisal that would occur.

What we come to in the logos is that the one side relies upon entirely spiritual or dignity based presumptions whereas the other side comes to a generalist and often pragmatic conclusion as it relates to the picture of society and risk as a whole to themselves and to other currently existent humans.

It cannot be argued, without resulting towards supernaturalism, that a cluster of cells is dignified or posessing of a quality which differentiates it from a common parasite.

Thusly the originator of the thread has no valid point, other than the dogma which they wish to propogate. Their argument is baseless upon its face as it lacks "Reason" and replaces the lack of such with "Emotion" and "Morality" in order to appeal to a similarly dogmatic crowd.

If you cannot make an argument from functionalism, reason or sheer scientific need or necessity, you will never sway your opponent. Likewise, you will never understand the other side if you must pad your arguments with supernaturalist theism and appeal to morality.

The world is a cold, dark place. Reason is its light, yet it brings fear to those who long for the world to be ruled by emotion or absolutes.

We are a greyness bleaker and more varied than the mind can fathom.



posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by justsomeboreddude
 


Abortion and interrogation methods (not torture) are okay with me. As long as they are used in an efficient manner. That said, I don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control nor do I believe interrogation methods should remain unmonitored.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 10:39 AM
link   
You don't see the irony in your own question?

If the in fact the two views are mismatched; then you are asking at the same time; how can "conservatives" be against abortion but for torture?

You can't ask the one question without asking the other. My answer is-that I am against both.

We as a country used to be against both; given the Geneva convention, and prosecution and execution of "war criminals" for offenses which included water boarding--and because abortion was illegal until 1972.

Abortion couldin't stand up to "free love" and our high moral ground could only sustain one successful attack on the World Trade Center.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Finalized
How about this, I consider myself conservative and I am:

1.) anti-abortion
2.) anti-torture
3.) anti-death penalty
4.) anti-war
5.) indifferent to what happens in someone's bedroom
6.) pro-drug legalization
7.) agnostic

What most "pro-choice" people don't get is that they are denying the choice for LIFE to a child, that's not very "pro-choice" in my book. Oh yeah, I'm a man and know that it is my right to speak on this.

To the person that used the "rape" argument:

In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions. Another study, in 1998, revealed that in 1987-1988 women reported the following reasons for choosing an abortion:

* 25.5% Want to postpone childbearing
* 21.3% Cannot afford a baby
* 14.1% Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy
* 12.2% Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy
* 10.8% Having a child will disrupt education or job
* 7.9% Want no (more) children
* 3.3% Risk to fetal health
* 2.8% Risk to maternal health
* 2.1% Other

So, out of 100%, only 2.8% (bold/italicized above) would I consider a somewhat legitimate reason for an abortion. The rest can be solved with adoption.

[edit on 11-5-2009 by Finalized]


When i said abortion is a choice i meant it only for the argument I used. I don't agree with the other reasons for abortion, just to be clear about it. And next time quote me so i can be actually able to reply, i accidentally saw your post so i decided to reply.



  exclusive video


top topics
 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join