Anyway thanks to everyone for posting. Sorry if I offended anyone by saying it was just liberals that have that view. Sometimes you need a good shocking title to get interest, but it was a poor choice

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?

ok...the difference is....the fetus is IN A WOMANS BODY AND PART OF HER BODY....it's none of your business!!! ...what is INSIDE of her body is not the governments business, not the churches business, and not a conservatives business. she controls her own body.

what's wrong with you, i thought you guys want the government out of your own lives. if that is NOT the case, i think the government should have the right to control everything you do with YOUR body.

and it's not pro abortion...why don't you learn how to express yourself without using words that don't make sense? pro-choice women have kids...my wife is one of those, as are millions of other women.

and as far as torture...it does not work, period...all the 3 letter agency spooks have said so, listen to them, not JACK BAUER ON 24. that's why it was outlawed worldwide...and if you think it works, show me an official piece of evidence that it has.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by jimmyx]

Why all the anger? I just asked a simple question to try to understand the logic. I figured it might help to calm everyone down if I explained my view point.

First of all I have never been against abortion on religious grounds, but more on the grounds of what I view as common sense. If something has the likelihood to become a certain thing then it is in essence that certain thing. Like if a certain type of caterpillar always turns into a certain type of butterfly they are basically the same thing. This is why I view a human fetus as a human life.

Furthermore, I have 2 adopted children who could have easily been aborted. When I look at them and think they could have been aborted then I find it sad that children are being aborted all the time. I just look at all the hope and promise in my children and think they make the world a better place. To me, it would have been a tragedy if they were aborted.

That is where I am coming from. To me I have way less of an issue with torture then I do with abortion so I was just trying to understand the other side.

I am all for government not interferring in peoples lives, but I do see one of the roles of government as protecting life. I have never complained about the government arresting a person who committed murder or abuse of someone, as I see that as one of their primary roles.


[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by mental modulator


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.

I do not like to speak on behalf of JC, but I do not think a jew of his time would support War, abortion, rabid bible thumping with no knowledge of contents or context. I beleive that he held human life above all else. I don't think he would approve of a whorish woman or young lady snuffing out her unborn baby because she couldnt keep her priorities straight. And don't say "what about rape victims", although that is a most difficult case it is a miniscule minority compared to the great average. Now, as far as the government telling you what to do, if it is in fact murder, the government has the right to bring the hammer down on you, if its just some goo in a womb then the Govt should mind its own damn business.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by dashen]

I agree with your logic, and to put it in a woman's perspective:

Every month I am killing a potential baby by not becoming inseminated and instead having my menstrual cycle.

Now do you pro-lifers really want us women to have a baby every 9 months? Seriously.

Until men can somehow take on the ability to carry an embryo in the womb, they really just need to *cough* keep quiet.

If a man and woman are legally married, then yes, it is not fair that only the woman can decide if the baby goes to term.

But if a man is having sex unmarried with a woman and she gets pregnant, he has no rights. Period.

Ok so let me pose this to you...


A woman leaving work after dark walks into a man who is intent on raping her. Which he does. He is caught and thrown in jail for, lets say, 2 years. The woman finds out she is pregnant is forced (if we had pro-life) to keep the child. Rapist gets out of jail... and sues her for the custody of a child thats half his...


Does that sound right to you??? Does a woman not have sovernty of her OWN body? Shouldnt she be able to decide if she wants that PAIN forever?? And yes being raped is a pain that doesnt go away. Then to be forced to keep a child that is created from a horrible thing that someone else FORCES her to do.. that would be torture.. would it not? So it seems to me maybe the 'pro-lifers' are the pro-tortures.


I am pro-choice for this very reason. Keep your laws off of my body!

♥
Dax

Originally posted by ImzadiDax
Ok so let me pose this to you...


A woman leaving work after dark walks into a man who is intent on raping her. Which he does. He is caught and thrown in jail for, lets say, 2 years. The woman finds out she is pregnant is forced (if we had pro-life) to keep the child. Rapist gets out of jail... and sues her for the custody of a child thats half his...


Does that sound right to you??? Does a woman not have sovernty of her OWN body? Shouldnt she be able to decide if she wants that PAIN forever?? And yes being raped is a pain that doesnt go away. Then to be forced to keep a child that is created from a horrible thing that someone else FORCES her to do.. that would be torture.. would it not? So it seems to me maybe the 'pro-lifers' are the pro-tortures.


I am pro-choice for this very reason. Keep your laws off of my body!

♥
Dax

For whatever freak of nature reason, I happen to know 2 people that were raped and were impregnated and the had the baby and raised the child. One of those babies is a good friend of mine that I met through my ex-wife. He is a fine man who is now a missionary. The rape thing though is a tough call.

No disrespect to anyone but I think the logic of a sperm or egg being equal to life is possibly wrong. A sperm alone is not life. An egg alone is not life. They need to be joined together to become life. A sperm or an egg alone without human intervention in a lab are never going to become life on their own. But once they are joined together then they represent life.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Could someone provide a valid, universally accepted definition of a "liberal"? Or are they just the boogyman for half the country...this thread is a perfect example of the political machine's distraction mechanism.

You're either pro or anti liberty. Nothing else matters.

Not pro-abortion. Pro choice. Very big difference.

Here's a question for YOU though:

How can you be pro-war, but also pro-life?

Beyond that, I am not getting involved in this, as it will be just another thread of round and round, rhetoric, propaganda and name-calling.

Originally posted by spaznational

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest

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.

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.

Unfortuantely, a human being is a homosapien after they are born. So you are wrong.

An zygote, a fetus, are symbiotic organisms. They are not viable life.

[edit on 5/7/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
An embryo, a fetus, are symbiotic organisms. They are not viable life.

I am pretty sure the lives of everyone on ATS came from being a fetus first unless the PTB have come up with something new that I havent heard of.

So according to that line of thinking I could abort it legally as long as it hasnt left the womb. So if I wanted I could reach up during birth and kill it as long as it hadnt left her womb and had the umbilical cord cut. Is that what you are saying?

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
An embryo, a fetus, are symbiotic organisms. They are not viable life.

I am pretty sure the lives of everyone on ATS came from being a fetus first unless the PTB have come up with something new that I havent heard of.

Okay, and your point is? Is a seed the same as a plant, just because a plant comes from a seed?

Bottom line, all you anti-choicers want to make up your own science on the matter, when, bottom line, a zygote or an embryo is not a viable being. They are not human. They are cellular stages of growth.

[edit on 5/7/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
An embryo, a fetus, are symbiotic organisms. They are not viable life.

I am pretty sure the lives of everyone on ATS came from being a fetus first unless the PTB have come up with something new that I havent heard of.

So according to that line of thinking I could abort it legally as long as it hasnt left the womb. So if I wanted I could reach up during birth and kill it as long as it hadnt left her womb and had the umbilical cord cut. Is that what you are saying?

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

First off, I mispoke, I meant zygote, not fetus. And second, just because you can senasationalize things, does not mean you have a point.