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

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Just a thought, but how about expecting people to exhibit personal responsibility.

Let me give you an example.
My friends parents had their first child when the husband was 15 and the wife was 16. Obviously an accident. They got married and had the baby, or vice versa


The husband worked like 3 jobs at a time to support his wife and child. The wife stayed home with the kid and found ways to make money from home to help out. During this time the husband worked hard and found ways to make a better living.

When they got on their feet a little and could afford it they started trying to have more kids.

Ovetime they built a VERY good life for their family. Part of the reason for their success was the things they learned by sacrificing at the begining.

They had a little help from their parents from time to time, but nothing major.

The reason I say this is if you do the right thing you can overcome and even turn it into a positive if you take responsibility for your mistakes and strive to make it.




posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mkultraangel
Women have the right to choose and people don't deserve to be tortured...those are rights. You suggest taking those away--what next?



Relating this back to the OP...What about the rights of the innocent child? Also, are you saying a terrorist (murderer) is more deserving of "rights" than the innocent, unborn child?

Like the OP, I am merely trying to understand the logic here. I am not attacking. Just asking a question,



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by nasdack24k

Originally posted by jdub297
So is it "a woman who can afford it has the right to control her body;" and "reproductive rights " diminish in inverse proportion to wealth?

Then how do liberals justify state-funded abortions, or state-funded anything, if your ability to enjoy your freedom is tied to how much your lifestyle costs?


Short answer: Yes. Because no matter which choice is made, there is an expense that somebody must bear.
You justify state-funded abortions when their cost is outweighed by the cost of state-funded child-raising.


No. You forgot your original answer to the first question.

Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by justsomeboreddude

"If you are equating liberals with 'a woman's right to control her own body' and 'reproductive rights,' then how do you explain liberals' outcry against and mockery of a single woman who decides to have 14 children while out of work on 'disability?' "

Because that lady ... is a huge strain on the balance of our fragile socialist welfare system - on purpose. Even liberals know that. Reproductive rights is one thing. It crosses a line when someone blatantly abuses the system.


Maybe you meant "Short answer: No!

As for the costs of 'state-funded' abortions:

Doesn't this assume that the "state" will be responsible for the costs of every unwanted pregnancy? What ever happened to adoptions?

Given that the mother will already have made provision for food, clothing and shelter for herself, how much of those costs would the "state" have to assume for a child?

Education can't be a factor since public schools are already funded from local taxation. Health care can't either, since the mother already qualifies for "state-funded" medical benefits/care.

What exactly is the "state's" burden in raising any child, wanted or not? Why would the cost of an unwanted pregnancy that went full-term to delivery be any different from one that was wanted/planned (see: Octomom)?

jw



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
for my kids id depopulate all of you....

thats my 2 cents



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I would say Octomom and her brood are a huge expense to society. Yes healtcare, school, etc will be paid for out of taxes. But they are all being paid to her. She isnt going to earn a living unless that reality show idea comes true. So she isnt paying anything into the system only taking away from it.

Realistically, how is she ever going to work. You cant raise 14 kids and work. Even if she did the government expesnse or her expense for daycare would outweigh any amount of money she is going to make. She obviously has some mental issues and/or is a little on the dumb side. Who would want her to work for them? Would you hire her crazy behind?

[edit on 7-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by justsomeboreddude
I would say Octomom and her brood are a huge expense to society. Yes healtcare, school, etc will be paid for out of taxes. But they are all being paid to her. She isnt going to earn a living unless that reality show idea comes true. So she isnt paying anything into the system only taking away from it.


All true.

But isn't this just a different expression of "reproductive rights?"

And just because she doesn't work, doesn't she still have the "right to control her own body?"

Since the 8 or 14 fetuses were not "people" until they were born alive, they and her uterus were her "property," no?

Liberal logic is wonderful. As it was said earlier, "someone is going to pay" for this. Just happens that 'someone' is us.

jw



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 07:12 AM
link   
in my opinion being pro life means you must also know when to end it.

if there is no life why presue misery ?

and that torture and abortion has nothing to do your political ideology and more to do with your human rigths as a person.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297


Maybe you meant "Short answer: No!

As for the costs of 'state-funded' abortions:

Doesn't this assume that the "state" will be responsible for the costs of every unwanted pregnancy? What ever happened to adoptions?

Given that the mother will already have made provision for food, clothing and shelter for herself, how much of those costs would the "state" have to assume for a child?

Education can't be a factor since public schools are already funded from local taxation. Health care can't either, since the mother already qualifies for "state-funded" medical benefits/care.

What exactly is the "state's" burden in raising any child, wanted or not? Why would the cost of an unwanted pregnancy that went full-term to delivery be any different from one that was wanted/planned (see: Octomom)?

jw


No, my answer remains yes.

No it doesn't assume the state would pay for every unwanted pregnancy. The state always ends up bearing the cost of unaffordable children.



I'm not going to argue with you about liberal vs conservative, what the state is/isn't responsible for etc.

I'll just tell you how I think it should be, and let you call me a liberal under you breath, though I'm not sure how complaining some woman being a burden on social welfare makes me a liberal... Maybe you should read a book on that..

Personally I'm a Libertarian, so my belief is pretty straightforward.


To the California Octomom:

Have all the sex you want, however you want.
Have all the kids you can afford, but don't cry to the gov. when you can't afford to feed them.
Nature will weed out the weaker ones anyway.
Also don't get upset when they grow up to be criminals because you don't have time to hold them or nurture them. (In an interview, she claimed she would be a good mom because she spends up to 45 minutes a day with each of her kids. What a joke.)

See that's the real problem with people who have unwanted pregnancies they can't afford. 9 times out of 10 their children are either a burden on society via the welfare system, or later in life via the correctional system.

Not to mention the fact that kids who are raised in welfare families often times are taught that's simply where money comes from.
So when they're adults, their instinct is not to find work, but to find assistance.

I know this to be true, and it's pathetic. I'm a 24 year old carpenter. It's pretty sad that 4 out of five people I know who are around my age and well able to work are on some type of government assistance, and many have never even bothered to look for work, regardless of the economic situation.
...But thats ust what their parents taught them.

I was at the store with a friend's family once and they were all buying junk food on their mom's food card. After they were done, I bought a bottle of juice with cash. My friend's mom actually started to talk down to me for not having a food card, like I was stupid or crazy for even thinking about solely relying on my own hands to provide my sustenance..

This is a HUGE part of what's truly wrong with America's societal values and the economy.


[edit on 5/8/2009 by nasdack24k]

[edit on 5/8/2009 by nasdack24k]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297


Liberal logic is wonderful. As it was said earlier, "someone is going to pay" for this. Just happens that 'someone' is us.




THIS

I think we only think we're arguing with eachother, wile actually agreeing...



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
how is it that republicans can support the death penalty but Apose abortion muder is murder. Killing another human being is just as grotest. Liberals justifiy abortion by saying a child is not a living human being untill its birth. at least the veiw on killing criminals make since they are a threat to socity.

abortion is about one thing avoiding responsibilty!



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Here's an interesting question I have never seen debated.

First off, full disclosure, I am fiercely Pro-Choice, I personally do not believe a fetus under 3months is a "life", and I just went through having a baby with my wife. At 3 months I was already in love with this little fetus, but I still didn't REALLY consider it "alive", because it could have ended at any moment, and could not exist outside of my wife's body.

I consider myself a libertarian, but many conservatives would brand me a "liberal" because I essentially believe that the government doesn't really have the right to tell us to do/not to do anything.

now to the scenario
As it stands today and abortion marks the end of a "potential life". We don't REALLY have the science to reliably take a young fetus, embryo or blastocyst to "life" outside of the human body.

I believe that in the relatively near future, this will be a thing of the past. I think that science will be able to remove a fetus at ANY age and keep it alive until it is old enough and strong enough to survive unaided by science (think "A Brave New World") Potentially, science could arrest the development and then restart it at a later time with no ill effects to the fetus.

So, now the question is, would it be right or wrong to offer these options as an alternative to abortion?

You're not "ending a life" which is good, but many people would consider this an abomination. I for one think it would still be reliant on the mother's wishes. The fetus should not be kept alive unless the mother wants it to be...It could go up for adoption, be arrested and restarted at another time, destroyed, or potentially donated for scientific study (regulations abound).

The cost of keeping the fetus viable would have to be absorbed by the mother...maybe in an adoption case, the adoptors could foot the bill...

I think this is a scientific reality, and it is a scenario that will probably be discussed in our lifetimes. Well, at least mine (I'm only 31)



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover

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.


That is absurdly sloppy logic. I for example and pro choice but I oppose the death penalty.



Not really, science can't say for sure when a life begins during a pregnancy, there are only two points that are an absolute, conception and birth, therefore, as far as I'm concerned, an abortion ends a life, the same as the death penalty. Life = Life or Death = Death, in my mind, you can't have it both ways and I think people that support one and not the other are the ones utilizing sloppy logic and/or are emotionally tied up in one.

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner. EVERY ONE of those reasons can be solved with adoption.

If you throw the argument of "what about if the mother's life is in danger", then I will point you to this article, it can articulate in a much cleaner manner than I can: www.associatedcontent.com...

I use to be pro-life and pro-death penalty, but over the years I've changed my attitude. If I support life at the beginning, I have to support life at all times. Furthermore, I believe if the gov't gets the death penalty wrong just 1 time, then that is 1 too many innocent people that have died; the power to end life is too great as that is all you have that is meaningful in the world.

We will never agree.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Again, nobody is talking about aborting fetuses. Perhaps you should do a bit of research re: zygote/embryo vs. fetus.


Perhaps YOU should read your own posts. I quote: "An zygote, a fetus, are symbiotic organisms. They are not viable life. "

You're talking about aborting fetuses. This is an abortion thread.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Finalized
 


Not really, it's scientifically proven that until late in the second trimester a fetus cannot survive outside the womb. No matter what.

An organism/child/whatever must be able to live on it's own, using it's own developed organs.

At least that's how I see it. Many zygotes never implant and many fetuses are miscarried. That doesn't mean it's the "death of a child" until later in the pregnancy. IMO, of course.

In other words, to put it bluntly, I don't consider undeveloped parasites consisting of less cells than a goldfish to have rights the same way that human adults do.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vasilis Azoth

Originally posted by spaznational
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.


That's the difference. Some of us(or at least me anyway) don't consider a clump of cells to be a human being. I won't change your mind(and I don't want to) and you won't change my mind(more scientific data is need to solve this in my mind once and for all). So there it is.

btw, although most people who somewhat know me would call me a liberal the truth is I'm far, far to radical to be called a liberal.

Vas


But I'm not talking about a zygote. I'm talking about late-term abortions of viable and fully-formed fetuses. I'm not talking about a clump of cells.

I'm curious, though, if you are too radical to be called a liberal what do you call yourself? Do you fit into any pre-defined sociopolitical category?



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by zerbot565
in my opinion being pro life means you must also know when to end it.

Eugenics? Euthanasia?

Are you saying pro-lifers want to kill everyone's grandparents or all the non-productive members of society?

Sorry, I never heard that. That sounds more like what Obama was discussing in Sunday's NYT when he called for "drawing the line" on health care expenses as we near the 'end of life.'

At some point, according to Obama, the costs of care outwiegh your right to continue living. He suggests that this is where "an outside group" is called for to "make the cut."

Liberal values.

jw
jw



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaznational



But I'm not talking about a zygote. I'm talking about late-term abortions of viable and fully-formed fetuses. I'm not talking about a clump of cells.

I'm curious, though, if you are too radical to be called a liberal what do you call yourself? Do you fit into any pre-defined sociopolitical category?

Last I checked, late term abortion is illegal IN EVERY CASE< EXCEPT WHEN THE MOTHER'S HEALTH IS COMPROMISED.

So what exactly is the point of talking about late term abortion?

[edit on 5/8/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaznational

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Again, nobody is talking about aborting fetuses. Perhaps you should do a bit of research re: zygote/embryo vs. fetus.


Perhaps YOU should read your own posts. I quote: "An zygote, a fetus, are symbiotic organisms. They are not viable life. "

You're talking about aborting fetuses. This is an abortion thread.

Yes, and if you continued to read, you would understand. I first stated that I misspoke, and intended to say embryo, and I second pointed out the fact that fetus' aren't aborted in this country.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaznational


You're talking about aborting fetuses. This is an abortion thread.

Does everyone who is anti-choice sensationalize and lie? I NEVER said anything about aborting a fetus. In fact, I said quite the opposite.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic

Originally posted by spaznational


You're talking about aborting fetuses. This is an abortion thread.

Does everyone who is anti-choice sensationalize and lie? I NEVER said anything about aborting a fetus. In fact, I said quite the opposite.


I dont think we sensationalize and lie I think that is just your opinion because you are angry that we disagree with you. By the way we are not ANTI-CHOICE. I am all about choices and the government staying out of our lives. I dont think it is anti choice to want the government to protect the potential life of a child, no more then it is antichoice to say the government shouldnt allow some one to blow someone elses brains out. There have to be some basic rules, even I see that.

Furthermore I am all for choice. The mother can have the baby and when the child gets say 18 and decides it doesnt want to live anymore then I will not disagree when they choose to blow their own brains out or suck themselves into a vacuum cleaner. How is that for sensationalism?


[edit on 8-5-2009 by justsomeboreddude]





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join