The irrationality of Liberals

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 you propose we make abortion illegal, forcing some 15-year-old "whores" to bear their children, not finish high school, probably mistreat these babies that they didn't want in the first place and aren't mature enough to raise responsibly... and probably resent the children for taking their youth for their whole lives, resulting in totally screwed up, unwanted kids, just to teach the "little whore" a lesson...

What lesson is that? How will one "little whore's" lesson teach other 15-year-olds not to have unprotected sex?

And then what about the ones who go into the alleys to have an illegal abortion? You're all for that? You support that? How is dying from an infection caused by a botched abortion going to teach anyone a lesson? We've already learned OUR lessons from abortion being illegal. It's none of your business what women do with their body. If you would kindly mind your own business, you wouldn't have all these worries.

This is just the ranting of someone who wants to control other people and hasn't thought out the consequences of their desires... :shk:

reply to post by intrepid


Everyone has to live with the decisions that they have made in their life, they might not always be the best decisions but just as that old phrase goes, “you've made your bed, now you must lie in it.”

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Just to provide an example of what you are saying.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


You people may all be in favor of letting Charles Manson type people running the streets but not I. To me murder is murder there is no time that murder is justified unless your life has been put in danger. You can try all your little sayings about how its freedom and minding your own business but why shouldn’t we mind our own business about having a murder for a neighbor what’s the problem with that?

Why should we have a justice system? Close down all prisons and let criminals be free, don’t hold anyone accountable for their own actions because we should mind our own business right?

reply to post by Misoir


Well,researchers announced that they found a DEFECTIVE gene that makes people liberal.

Are Liberals genetically inferior?

The government is not planning on spending money to cure this though.

But considering most if not Gay(they don't like the term Homosexual any more) are liberal,eventually it will not be an issue since they don't procreate.

I wonder how many Gay couples adopt babies without the gene DEFECT and then years later,lament when they find out they raised a conservative!

The same issue with those who abort a fetus.

Most are liberals and don't realize they are eliminating a liberal by doing so.

It is very ironic that the liberals will bend over backwards to denounce capital punishment and rapists ,and pedophiles but have no problem with killing a unborn human.

I believe if they do more research they will find this DEFECTIVE gene will cause people to be pedophiles also.

That may be why there are so many Gays,crooks and Pedophiles hiding in the Catholic organization masquerading as a religious institution.

The y should practice "transparency" and change the name to "The church of the DEFECTIVE gene."

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Also whatever happened to the option of adoption? If a mother does not wish to have her child there are plenty of orphanages for these children instead of being murdered in the name of ‘women’s rights’.

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by intrepid

 

Everyone has to live with the decisions that they have made in their life, they might not always be the best decisions but just as that old phrase goes, “you've made your bed, now you must lie in it.”

That's a pretty narrow view. Especially for those that don't have the life experience to make cogent decisions. I would have to disagree with you on this one. It's wrong to expect someone without the wisdom of age to be subjected to an all encompassing stance like yours. It's a moot point though. Roe vs Wade isn't going to be repealed any time soon.

reply to post by intrepid


How come everyone forgets about the option of giving their baby up for adoption? Every mother has that choice. There are plenty of orphanages that will take these children that are not wanted by their irresponsible parents. With so many options available I don’t see how murder is at the top!?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

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

And saying it is a "cop-out" is an attempt to marginalize a position without the burden of having to provide substance or credence. It is an off hand dismissal devoid of any indication of contrary evidence.

Thus it is a means of belittling the position of another.

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.

I disagree and here is why...

zy·gote   /ˈzaɪgoʊt, ˈzɪgoʊt/ Show Spelled[zahy-goht, zig-oht]
–noun Biology .
the cell produced by the union of two gametes, before it undergoes cleavage.

fe·tus /ˈfitəs/ Show Spelled[fee-tuhs]
–noun, plural -tus·es. Embryology .
(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

in·fant /ˈɪnfənt/ Show Spelled[in-fuhnt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a child during the earliest period of its life, esp. before he or she can walk; baby.
2.
Law . a person who is not of full age, esp. one who has not reached the age of 18 years; a minor.

By biological definition substitution one stage of development, by replacing "zygote" or "fetus" with the word "infant (or baby)" is a straw man argument as it provides false context to what is being discussed.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

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 hr ''choice'' to kill her child after it had been born.

For the above stated reasons of biological definition. Now if you wish to argue from a position of "At what point does a fetus become self-aware, I might be open to adjusting my views. But to consider a mass of cells as "human" simply because it will eventually become human at some point... well that is not a leap I am prepared to intellectually make.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

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 ?

No, my choice of personal moral opinion is partially based upon this fact. But my general opinion is much more informed and complex.

~Heff

Originally posted by intrepid
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.

Too bad...seriously...too bad. A 15yo girl is not an idiot...she fully knows the consequences of having sex.

If she doesnt' want to have a baby...don't have sex...lots of people do it...let's not act like all 15yo girls are retards that are suprised they got pregnant from having sex and so we need to give them an easy out of their responsibilities.

15 year olds make irrational decisons because they are allowed, by people like you, to run away from the consequences and the responsibility of those decisions.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Thank you Outkast, I could not have said it any better myself.

Originally posted by intrepid
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.

Viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus without artificial aid. This can happen as early as 24 weeks, but is more often more like 28 weeks or 7 months. A person charged with murder can definitely survive outside the uterus.

Originally posted by Misoir
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.

The law disagrees with you. And so do I.

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.

Because when a "child" is COMPLETELY dependent on another person for its very breath (before it's viable), the woman's human rights must be taken into account. Forcing a woman to carry and bear an unwanted child is violating HER rights. When two people occupy the same body, we have to pick one's rights to trump the others'. The one that's viable wins.

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.

You state your opinion as though it's the truth or something. Again, the law and I disagree with you.

Originally posted by Misoir
Everyone has to live with the decisions that they have made in their life, they might not always be the best decisions but just as that old phrase goes, “you've made your bed, now you must lie in it.”

Exactly! Why are you making it your business to lie in everyone else's bed? It's not your place to dictate what a woman does with her body and regarding her reproductive rights. Lie in your own bed and let everyone else lie in theirs. You cannot force your views upon them.

Originally posted by Misoir
How come everyone forgets about the option of giving their baby up for adoption?

No one has forgotten about it. It's a matter of CHOICE. Adoption is a CHOICE. If you force it on women, it is no longer a choice.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

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.

Sorry BH...but that is a disgusting point of view.

Shall we start to decide if all humans are "viable" enough to be granted human rights?

How should be involved with this process?


I see this view of saying it is OK to kill a living thing because it hasn't moved 1 foot from where it is currently living down the birthing canal...just out right INSANE. It's either insanity or willfully ignorant in order to justify the murder of a baby.

What many don't realize is that it's perfectly legal for Women to abandon their babies at a hospital, firestation, or police station with no further obligation...

Women never have to support offspring if they don't wish to.

reply to post by Oneolddude


From the article linked in your own thread link...

Is there a "conservative gene," too? Presumably. An earlier study of twins suggests that genetics account for about 30 to 40 percent of a person's ideology, and environment another 50 percent. And, the study notes, "psychologists have asserted for many years that social conservatism is heritable." Fowler says it is likely that political ideology has been passed down genetically for tens of millions of years, as being conservative was beneficial in some periods and being liberal helped in others. "If it made sense for us all to be liberal," he says, "natural selection would have made us all liberal."

So, be fair, and admit that, by your own standards, your own views are a "birth defect" as well.

And having read this from your same link source:

"In other words," says Catherine Mayer in Time, "people with the DRD4-7R gene are more likely to be game for a laugh, for a dare, for anything new and stimulating" enough to alter dopamine levels and affect their mood.

Source

So, I think a thank you is in order because, based upon this, if the "conservative gene" was our only choice - the status quo would have lasted forever and we'd be having this debate in a cave while clubbing our women over the heads whenever we felt frisky.

~Heff

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Why have you not answered my questions??

You people may all be in favor of letting Charles Manson type people running the streets but not I. To me murder is murder there is no time that murder is justified unless your life has been put in danger. You can try all your little sayings about how its freedom and minding your own business but why shouldn’t we mind our own business about having a murder for a neighbor what’s the problem with that?

Why should we have a justice system? Close down all prisons and let criminals be free, don’t hold anyone accountable for their own actions because we should mind our own business right?

- Benevolent Heretic

Because when a "child" is COMPLETELY dependent on another person for its very breath (before it's viable), the woman's human rights must be taken into account. Forcing a woman to carry and bear an unwanted child is violating HER rights. When two people occupy the same body, we have to pick one's rights to trump the others'. The one that's viable wins.

Wait! The rights of the woman because a baby is dependent solely upon her so she has the right to terminate its life!? I didn’t know the baby made the decision of its parents to have intercourse! Maybe it’s just me but the mother was the one making the baby with the father yet her rights must be respected to kill that baby!? Holy crap that makes no sense whatsoever!

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Shall we start to decide if all humans are "viable" enough to be granted human rights?

Viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus without artificial aid. People ARE viable. Not all fetuses are.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by intrepid
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.

Too bad...seriously...too bad. A 15yo girl is not an idiot...she fully knows the consequences of having sex.

"Too bad"? It must be nice to be able to blanket all 15yo girls like that to put forth your own personal beliefs. Even those that are against what the SCOTUS has determined.

15 year olds make irrational decisons because they are allowed, by people like you, to run away from the consequences and the responsibility of those decisions.

Thanks for the back handed insult, is that all the hard liners have(?), but I guess you didn't read my posts here. I'm pro-life. I'm also more open to other opinions. You should try it some time.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I see this view of saying it is OK to kill a living thing because it has moved 1 foot from where it is currently living down the birthing canal...just out right INSANE. It's either insanity or willfully ignorant in order to justify the murder of a baby.

I'm afraid, more often than not, the pro-abortion viewpoint is wilfully ignorant.

I have no doubt that most pro-abortionists have genuinely convinced themselves that it's accepetable, through wishful thinking, cherry picking evidence, and confirmation bias.


As you say, there's no way that someone could objectively and logically argue that it's acceptable to kill a child at 9-months, because it's inside the womb, while at the same time, be horrified that someone would kill a child at exactly the same stage of development, when it is outside the womb.

The cognitive dissonance that must go into this thought process is truly breathtaking.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus without artificial aid. People ARE viable. Not all fetuses are.

Devil's Advocate here. Are you saying that Christopher Reeves wasn't viable after his horse accident because he needed artificial assistance to survive?