The irrationality of Liberals

page: 1
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Liberals (not all Liberals fit into one group mind you) are very irrational in their beliefs on Social issues. Why do Liberals support murderers yet oppose the death penalty?

Women who have an abortion without a threat to the life of themselves or the baby are murderers and are killing an innocent life that never asked to ever be conceived yet when what is classified as a murderer by legal standards kills a person they are opposed to the death penalty for a convicted murderer. What sense does this really make?

Claiming the right to murder is giving women a choice over their body is completely irrational. The freedom to murder is not freedom, it is despicable and abhorrent. Why can’t a mother kill her child when he/she is 2 or 15? What is the difference? Maybe the mother can no longer afford her child or recognizes that having the child was a mistake. She should be allowed to abort it should she not?

Liberals oppose the Death Penalty for serial killers and other murderers on the grounds it is a violation of human rights. Can they not see the absolute hypocrisy of their thoughts?

Abortion = Good, Murder = Bad. Somehow they have missed the part that common sense should tell them, Abortion = Murder, Murder = Bad.

I am not understanding their reasoning here. As soon as a baby is conceived it is alive, how can that even be up for debate?




posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
I am not understanding their reasoning here. As soon as a baby is conceived it is alive, how can that even be up for debate?


Actually that IS the debate. When is a life a life?
edit on 29-10-2010 by intrepid because: Correct syntax.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


Hey Mis!

Just for the record I get labeled "liberal" and support a womans right to choose simply because I am not a woman and feel that telling a woman what she can and cannot do, when I am not "walking in her shoes" would be incorrect to the concept of freedom.

On the other hand, I also support the death penalty, not as a punishment, per say, as vengeance is a hollow and irrational concept. But because there are some people who simply cannot be part of the herd any longer and death is the only remedy for those people. Incarceration doesn't always accomplish this - as many people are able to kill in jail. For those people... let 'em ride the lightning.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


You could always re-label your sentence like this:

“support a murderers right to choose simply because I am not a murderer and feel that telling a murderer what she can and cannot do, when I am not "walking in her shoes" would be incorrect to the concept of freedom.”

What would you say if someone said that to you? That because they aren’t a murderer it is not their place to tell a murderer what they can/cannot do.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I am labeled a liberal...and I'm 100% against abortion unless the mothers life is in danger. There are some cases where you make a choice to end one life to save the other...or let them both die. That is the only time I see this as a valid "choice".

Otherwise I just see women who have abortions as murderers...cold heartless murderers.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Misoir
 


Just for the record I get labeled "liberal" and support a womans right to choose simply because I am not a woman and feel that telling a woman what she can and cannot do, when I am not "walking in her shoes" would be incorrect to the concept of freedom.


Do you care about the well-being of your offspring before they've left the birth canal?



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir


I could also rephrase it thusly,

“support a rape victims right to choose simply because I am not a rape victim and feel that telling a rape victim what she can and cannot do, when I am not "walking in her shoes" would be incorrect to the concept of freedom.”

or

“support a teen mother abandoned by the babies father right to choose simply because I am not a teen mother abandoned by the babies father and feel that telling a teen mother abandoned by the babies father what she can and cannot do, when I am not "walking in her shoes" would be incorrect to the concept of freedom.”

The fact is that women are sometimes faced with decisions that I am not fit to judge because I am incapable of being put into the same position as they are put in. This sole fact disqualifies me from a position of judgment and would, morally, force me to recuse myself from having control over the issue.

~Heff

edit on 10/29/10 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Abortion is acceptable in the event of a threat to the mother’s and/or babies life or rape, other than that no exceptions.

It is the responsibility of society and the government to hold those dead beat dads accountable for their actions. While we can’t force two people to marry who don’t truly love each other we can force that father to take care of the child. Very simple either the father takes care of the child or he will be put in jail and be required to work in prison to pay for his child that way, his choice.

The little whores who get themselves into that problem should also be taught a lesson that big brother won’t always be there for them when they make mistakes, so we should abolish every social service except Social Security to guarantee that these girls think twice before making irrational decisions. (Of course we should not abolish those services just for that reason but it has created a system of irresponsibility)
edit on 10/29/2010 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
American Liberals, (really the left who've hijacked liberalism), love to call themselves "pro-choice" but outside of abortion, there is very little choice the American left approves of. Prostitution? Nope. Illicit Drug use? Well, maybe, if it is them behind closed doors, or at a swanky party where no repercussions will follow, but for you...Nope. A free and unregulated marketplace? No way Jose!!!!!! Abolish the Fed? Are you nuts? End the income tax? Fuggedaboutit! Nope, no choice for you, pal, unless you're a woman, and if you're a black woman, unmarried and pregnant, then by golly do they really believe that you should have the choice to terminate that pregnancy. No really, terminate that pregnancy...seriously...terminate that poor little black baby...you don't seriously think it is moral to raise a black child in the ghetto as an unmarried woman, do you? Look...I, as an American Liberal and really going to have to insist that you strongly consider choosing the option of abortion! Ugh...you know, there should be population control laws!!!!! What? I, as an American liberal, just really care about the planet.

Another thing the American left has hijacked is "intellectualism". They insist that they, and only they, hold the true intellectual ideals, and if you don't believe it, they will point to their trendy berets, their Little Red Books, their Che Guevara T-Shirts, and their Shepard Fairey Obama Hope poster hanging on their exposed brick wall in their rent controlled apartment right next to the book shelf filled with Marx, Nietzsche, Jung, McLuhan, Watts, and Zinn, all of which they will claim they have read several times over, unless you really push them on the issue, then they will sheepishly tell you that they have read all the important parts of those books. Shortly thereafter they will politely excuse themselves because it is time to do their Pilate's.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
The little whores who get themselves into that problem should also be taught a lesson that big brother won’t always be there for them when they make mistakes, so we should abolish every social service except Social Security to guarantee that these girls think twice before making irrational decisions.


What about, oh say, a 15yo girl that looks for love because she gets none at home and gets pregnant? 15yo's make irrational decisions. That's because they are 15yo.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir

It is the responsibility of society and the government to hold those dead beat dads accountable for their actions.


What action would that be? Helping to create a lump of tissue that a Woman can unilaterally throw in the trash for absolutely any reason?



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir

Abortion is acceptable in the event of a threat to the mother’s and/or babies life or rape, other than that no exceptions.


For someone who purports to be an advocate of freedom and for lack of governmental control, the words "no exceptions" seems contrary. The only body capable of enforcing your ideas would be the government.


Originally posted by Misoir

It is the responsibility of society and the government to hold those dead beat dads accountable for their actions. While we can’t force two people to marry who don’t truly love each other we can force that father to take care of the child. Very simple either the father takes care of the child or he will be put in jail and be required to work in prison to pay for his child that way, his choice.


May I point out, referring to your next statement, that Child Support Enforcement is already extant and that it is, indeed, a social service. And, also, that again, you are coming across as a person who despises big government but who then wants big government to take care of the issue.

Other than those caveats, I agree totally that dead beat Dads should be held accountable.


Originally posted by Misoir

The little whores who get themselves into that problem should also be taught a lesson that big brother won’t always be there for them when they make mistakes, so we should abolish every social service except Social Security to guarantee that these girls think twice before making irrational decisions.
edit on 10/29/2010 by Misoir because: (no reason given)


Wanting to abolish all social services based upon your desire to "teach the little whores" a lesson seems to be a very harsh outlook. In fact it is a tad disappointing to me that someone as obviously intelligent as you might state such a thing.


~Heff



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
Just for the record I get labeled "liberal" and support a womans right to choose simply because I am not a woman and feel that telling a woman what she can and cannot do, when I am not "walking in her shoes" would be incorrect to the concept of freedom.


That's a complete cop-out.

Do you support the woman's right to kill her child after it's been born ?

After all, you can't walk in her shoes, and telling her that she cannot commit infanticide would be ''incorrect to the concept of freedom''...


+3 more 
posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
I am not understanding their reasoning here. As soon as a baby is conceived it is alive, how can that even be up for debate?


It's not up for debate.
It is alive. It has human DNA and will grow into a viable human being if allowed. But it doesn't have human rights until is IS a viable human being.

I support a woman's right to choose and I oppose the death penalty so I suppose I fit into your definition of "liberal". I do have many liberal views, but also some conservative views. It may seem an irrational and illogical position to you, but let me try to explain where I'm coming from.

First of all. supporting the right to choose DOES NOT mean supporting abortion. It means that it's none of my business what a woman does as far as her reproductive rights are concerned. It's HER business and HER choice. I do not support her getting an abortion, I support her choosing whether or not to have a family. It's a basic right. A person's body is their own and the government has NO PLACE to dictate what happens there. That is the basis of my position. One of my conservative views is "less government". And the government has no business in our bedrooms or in our bodies.

I oppose the death penalty because it is killing a fully-formed, viable human being and I don't believe we should have the right to take another person's life except in self-defense. My biggest opposition of the death penalty stems from the fact that innocent people are put to death. In addition, it does nothing to deter other criminals.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

That's a complete cop-out.


No, it's my personal moral and intellectual feeling upon the matter. Having to resort to belittling it makes your point of view no more valid, nor mine invalid.


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Do you support the woman's right to kill her child after it's been born ?


Of course not. But since an apples to apples argument won't work for you, in this case, I do not hold resorting to a straw man apples to oranges argument against you. It is to be expected here.


Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

After all, you can't walk in her shoes, and telling her that she cannot commit infanticide would be ''incorrect to the concept of freedom''...


I dislike the choice of words, but, other than that, exactly.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I corrected my final statement, I do not wish to abolish those services simply because of this reason. Rather abolishing the services would help to solve the current problem, IMO of course.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I would think that most ''liberals'' that support abortion are actually pseudo-liberals.

Any genuine social liberal would support the rights of the unborn child, because there is nobody else to defend it ( obviously, it's mother should be doing this job, but you can't always rely on a ''deadbeat mum'' to live up to her responsibilities - and many are willing to break the mother/child bond in the most heinous manner ).


The funny thing is, that even the law knows that an unborn child is a human life, because if anyone ( other than the ''mother'' ) intentionally kills the unborn child, then they get charged with the equivalent of murder.

The law has a severe case of cognitive dissonance on this issue, so what chance do the pro-abortionists have of being able to logically, morally or objectively justify their warped viewpoint ?




edit on 29-10-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


That's irrational.


No more so than me though. I'm pro-life and pro-death penalty. If you look at it from a purely logical point of view, ie: what's killing(?), it doesn't make sense. BUT it's a larger issue as to what's best for society. You say that a murderer is a "viable human", I disagree. Once you've taken another humans life willingly and wantonly you lose your "viability" imo. Secondly a fetus is "viable" if it's allowed to be.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Ending a child’s life is not a decision that can be made by anyone unless they have been violated or they and/or the baby are at risk of death. How is it morally or even logically acceptable I guess is my question here? I am appalled that people can be as cruel to believe that just because a child is not born they are not entitled to the same rights that other ‘viable humans’ enjoy.

Life is life, as soon as the sperm enters the egg the life of the child has begun and murdering that child without a rational reason should be cause for the woman and the abortionist to be placed in prison for murder.

I do believe society has room to dictate these policies unless you don’t believe we should lock up serial killers and other murderers, why don’t we just let them run the streets too while we’re at it? Justice, what is the need for that? Murder is perfectly acceptable!



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
No, it's my personal moral and intellectual feeling upon the matter. Having to resort to belittling it makes your point of view no more valid, nor mine invalid.


Saying something is a ''cop-out'' is not ''belittling'', it's saying that it's an, er, cop-out.


Originally posted by Hefficide
Of course not. But since an apples to apples argument won't work for you, in this case, I do not hold resorting to a straw man apples to oranges argument against you. It is to be expected here.


There's no strawman.

I ask you whether you would approve of a woman's ''right'' to kill her child after birth.

You reply ''of course not'', without elaborating as to the reasons why.


Originally posted by Hefficide
I dislike the choice of words, but, other than that, exactly.


I was referring to her ''choice'' to kill her child after it was born as infanticide.

What I'm getting at here, is why you support a woman's ''choice'' to kill her unborn child, but don't support her ''choice'' to kill her child after it had been born.

Considering that your argument is based on the fact that you are not a woman, and can't walk in her shoes - how is one acceptable to you, and not the other ?

edit on 29-10-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
20
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join