A valid political point - How are liberals pro-abortion but anti-torture?, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:10 PM by MattMulder

reply to post by justsomeboreddude

How can you look serious with such a thread?
My friend, torture is a way to extract information by force.
abortion is a medical-controlled way to end your pregnancy.

I assume you're not a woman, so you CAN'T talk about it. And you're not a CIA operative trying to thwart a dirty bomb plot in L.A., so my guess is that you can cry and shout as much as you want, you'll never be able to get those two subjects into a comparison scheme...

nice try anyway

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:11 PM by cautiouslypessimistic

reply to post by justsomeboreddude

Whats sad is you still dont get it. Its not that you didnt mention light that makes your statement invalid. Its that, even while admitting as much, that you dont realize that it is NOT JUST A SEED THAT TURNS INTO A PLANT. It is the combination of the seed, soil, water, and energy.

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:22 PM by grover

OK then explain how conservatives are pro life and pro death penalty at the same time? Its the same logic... and faulty logic at that.

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:38 PM by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by grover
OK then explain how conservatives are pro life and pro death penalty at the same time? Its the same logic... and faulty logic at that.

First I will say that I personally disagree with the death penalty. However I see your point. I think it goes to how I can be pro-war but also pro-baby. On the one hand you are killing someone who is a physical threat to your society as opposed to an innocent. But really I side with you. The state shouldnt be deciding who lives and dies or condone it. In a perfect world there woudlnt be war,but there is and as far as I know the only way to win is kill more of the other side.

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:41 PM by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
reply to post by justsomeboreddude

Whats sad is you still dont get it. Its not that you didnt mention light that makes your statement invalid. Its that, even while admitting as much, that you dont realize that it is NOT JUST A SEED THAT TURNS INTO A PLANT. It is the combination of the seed, soil, water, and energy.

Yeah I see that with water, energy, seed, and soil you get a plant. Just like with fetus, healthy mother who is fed and drinks, etc you get a baby. I see where you are trying to go with this, but I guess I just dont see your point about the difference.

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:41 PM by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by grover
OK then explain how conservatives are pro life and pro death penalty at the same time? Its the same logic... and faulty logic at that.

First I will say that I personally disagree with the death penalty. However I see your point. I think it goes to how I can be pro-war but also pro-baby. On the one hand you are killing someone who is a physical threat to your society as opposed to an innocent. But really I side with you. The state shouldnt be deciding who lives and dies or condone it. In a perfect world there woudlnt be war,but there is and as far as I know the only way to win is kill more of the other side.

Okay, so let's take it to the next level-how about a war on foreign soil, against an un-definable enemy, that has no chance of attacking america. How do you justify that?

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:42 PM by Finalized

If you are pro-abortion, then you have to be pro-death penalty; if you are pro-death penalty, then you have to be pro-abortion.

On the flip side,

If you are anti-abortion, then you have to be anti-death penalty; if you are anti-death penalty, then you have to be anti-abortion.

Both are the ending of a life and people you believe one way on one and a different way on the other are being hypocritical in my opinion. Personally, it took me a while to agree with this, but I'm now pro-life on both counts. I distrust the gov't too much to give them the power of death in any situation.

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:44 PM by justsomeboreddude

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

Well its getting off topic but I will bite. First of all they can obviously attack because did you see what the did on 911.

I agree that they are difficult to pinpoint but it doesnt mean you shouldnt try to defend yourself. Its like if you are in a dark room with a vampire bat, are you going to just stand there and let him bite you or are you going to start swinging a stick and moving around hoping that helps him to not bite you.

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:44 PM by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by Finalized
If you are pro-abortion, then you have to be pro-death penalty; if you are pro-death penalty, then you have to be pro-abortion.

On the flip side,

If you are anti-abortion, then you have to be anti-death penalty; if you are anti-death penalty, then you have to be anti-abortion.

Both are the ending of a life and people you believe one way on one and a different way on the other are being hypocritical in my opinion. Personally, it took me a while to agree with this, but I'm now pro-life on both counts. I distrust the gov't too much to give them the power of death in any situation.

Again, this is false. Abortion does not end a life.

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:46 PM by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

Well its getting off topic but I will bite. First of all they can obviously attack because did you see what the did on 911.

I agree that they are difficult to pinpoint but it doesnt mean you shouldnt try to defend yourself. Its like if you are in a dark room with a vampire bat, are you going to just stand there and let him bite you or are you going to start swinging a stick and moving around hoping that helps him to not bite you.

So, without getting into a 9/11 truth debate, you think that because some faction of people decided to hit the US(not at all the same thing as attacking with a military), you can justify the occupation of MULTIPLE COUNTRIES that are of no thread, and cannot reach us?

Do you see my point?

As far as the seed thing goes, the point is, just as a seed isnt a plant without outside energy and incubation, a zygote or an embryo is not a human as it needs outside help and energy to become human.

Get it yet?

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:46 PM by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by Finalized
If you are pro-abortion, then you have to be pro-death penalty; if you are pro-death penalty, then you have to be pro-abortion.

On the flip side,

If you are anti-abortion, then you have to be anti-death penalty; if you are anti-death penalty, then you have to be anti-abortion.

Both are the ending of a life and people you believe one way on one and a different way on the other are being hypocritical in my opinion. Personally, it took me a while to agree with this, but I'm now pro-life on both counts. I distrust the gov't too much to give them the power of death in any situation.

Again, this is false. Abortion does not end a life.

I disagree. What would most likely happen if that woman didnt have an abortion. If she took good care of herself then she would have a baby. So therefore you ended that babies life.

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:50 PM by justsomeboreddude

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

Ok so we are off topic again but what the heck. I have ADD so it kinda works for me.
1. Afghanistan/Taliban could have avoided invasion if they just handed over Bin Laden, which they said they would not do. So thus you get invaded.

2. Even though Bush used 911 as a pretense for Iraq this was wrong. I agree they were not a threat in that way. He did have grounds to invade which he didnt really use, I assume because he is slightly stupid. Those grounds are that Iraq was in constant violation of the cease first agreement from the first Gulf War from the moment they signed it.

Oh and the seed analogy I understand where you are going I just dont agree with the logic of it, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:52 PM by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

I disagree. What would most likely happen if that woman didnt have an abortion. If she took good care of herself then she would have a baby. So therefore you ended that babies life.

How can you end a life that hasnt begun?

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:54 PM by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

Ok so we are off topic again but what the heck. I have ADD so it kinda works for me.
1. Afghanistan/Taliban could have avoided invasion if they just handed over Bin Laden, which they said they would not do. So thus you get invaded.

2. Even though Bush used 911 as a pretense for Iraq this was wrong. I agree they were not a threat in that way. He did have grounds to invade which he didnt really use, I assume because he is slightly stupid. Those grounds are that Iraq was in constant violation of the cease first agreement from the first Gulf War from the moment they signed it.

Oh and the seed analogy I understand where you are going I just dont agree with the logic of it, so I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Not off topic at all, as it is the exact point I am making with the anti-choice, pro-war argument.

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:55 PM by justsomeboreddude

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

I disagree. What would most likely happen if that woman didnt have an abortion. If she took good care of herself then she would have a baby. So therefore you ended that babies life.

How can you end a life that hasnt begun?

Well this is where we differ. I say that since it would become life under normal circumstances it is therefore the same as life. Just like a seed properly given what it needs becomes a tree, a fetus given what it needs becomes a human. You cant say that either would have become anything other than a plant/tree or a human. They woudnt have become a rock or a car or anything but what they were.

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 01:59 PM by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude

Well this is where we differ. I say that since it would become life under normal circumstances it is therefore the same as life. Just like a seed properly given what it needs becomes a tree, a fetus given what it needs becomes a human. You cant say that either would have become anything other than a plant/tree or a human. They woudnt have become a rock or a car or anything but what they were.

Okay, but again, this is not a matter of opinion. IT IS SCIENTIFIC FACT, something you dont get to change just because you dont like it.

They all have the potential to become a baby, or a tree, but THEY ARE NOT, UNTIL THEY DEVELOP INTO SUCH.

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 02:01 PM by ImzadiDax

Originally posted by grover
OK then explain how conservatives are pro life and pro death penalty at the same time? Its the same logic... and faulty logic at that.

I heard a comic many years ago discuss this very thing. He said that the pro-life -- pro cap punishment people should just admit what they are saying is...

"Save em now.. so we can kill em later"

Wish I could remember who it was but it has always stuck with me.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by ImzadiDax]

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 02:02 PM by justsomeboreddude

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

I am not sure that it is scientific fact to say a human fetus is not going to become a baby under normal circumstances, barring any complications. Is a human fetus going to become a baby under normal circumstances or not?

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 02:06 PM by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

I am not sure that it is scientific fact to say a human fetus is not going to become a baby under normal circumstances, barring any complications. Is a human fetus going to become a baby under normal circumstances or not?

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Either you are a troll, or you arent very bright. I am not tryinig to be rude, but come on. I didnt say that a fetus wouldnt become a baby. I said it was scientific fact that a zygote or an embryo is not a living thing, and is definitely not a human being.

THIS IS FACT. Not a matter of opinion.

reply posted on 7-5-2009 @ 02:12 PM by DarkElvis

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by DarkElvis
I've never understood the use of the term "Pro-Choice" to the people that believe in abortion. Isn't Pro-Abortion the correct term? I believe Pro-Choice would be giving up the child for adoption.

Really? So pro choice means you should only have one choice?

There are two choices that preserve the life of the unborn individual: Keeping the child or giving the child up for adoption.

Abortion does not preserve life. It destroys it.