The irrationality of Liberals

reply to post by Annee

Oh yeah - - - no connection at all. Has nothing to do with Government "owning and controlling" your body and mind

Correct...no connection at all.

Gaining access to records was an equality issue...making abortion legal had nothing to do with equality.

In fact...making abortion legal created an equality issue...if you are for equality...do you not care about that?

Originally posted by Misoir
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?

Something tells me that you don't know what a fetus is. Before the time "personhood" is scientifically established in the fetus, that fetus is little different from the fetus of a chicken. Or of a dog. Or even a jaguar. And we eat chickens. Cultures in other lands eat dog. And those aren't even the fetuses of the animals that people eat. People eat the actual developed animals.

So is eating a chicken, dog, or jaguar also tantamount to murder like these women you claim are committing homicide by getting an abortion?

Well, what do you know! One more blanket statement
from the people who know nothing else.

I have been called a "traitor" from conservatives;
even though I and thousands of other people who
disagreed with certain National Security measures
this country undertook.

We were called these by cowards who NEVER
served (cheney, wolfowitz, pearle and no telling
how many on this site). Now I and others are being
called irrational because you NEVER bothered to
ask a simple question.

I believe in abortion rights and I also believe
in the death penalty. I guess that makes you
look like an idiot. As a man it is not, and has
NEVER BEEN MY PLACE to dictate to a woman
what she can and cannot do with her own body.

As far as "irrationality", some of you conservatives
did not want and still to this day will not accept
a rape victim recieving RU486 (morning after pill)
as if it any of you business.

And as far as your eloquent "little whores" comment.
At first I was going to let it go and chalk it up
to ignorant Glenn Beck wannabe jealousy.

Instead I have become tired of trying to excuse
you folks and have come to the conclusion that
it is time to treat you with the same contempt you
have treated me for the last seven years.

From now everytime someone talks of violating
a womans rights, or trying to restrict anyone's
religous freedoms in this country or curb my
free speech rights you will have a new name.

You are now the New American Taliban Party.

reply to post by Misoir


I would bet you thought George W. Bush was "rational" because he was against abortion.

1. George W. Bush when he was Governor of Texas had more people executed than ALL of the
other Governors combined for the entire history of our country.

2. With DNA testing it has been shown that approximately 16% of the people on death row
turn out to be innocent.

3. George W. Bush was fond of saying "more sacrifices will have to be made in Iraq".
Of course, that was code for more soldiers will have to die (for an illegal unjust war that has
accomplished nothing except that a lot of Iraqis have died and a lot of US soldiers,
many of them under the age of 25, have died.) Put another way, GWB sent young men
and women into harms way based on a series of LIES presented to Congress and We The People.

4. George Bush Senior, Barbara Bush and Dan Quale all made hypocritical statements years ago
when a journalist asked them what they would do if their daughter came home pregnant.
They all said that they would talk it over with their daughter and then "let her decide what she wanted to do".

5. I firmly believe the "Pro Life" movement is not about protecting life, but more about controlling women.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Yes...she had this choice...the same time the guy had the choice if he was prepared to be a father. BEFORE they had sex.

Interestingly, I agree with you on that. But I don't think making the girl or woman suffer with a pregnancy and childbirth and to fill the world with MORE unwanted children is the answer to the problem.

Pregnancy is more of a danger to a woman than abortion. A woman has the choice which procedure she wants to undergo.

I'd bet a million dollars that if men were the ones to carry and bear children, abortion would be legal and there would be NO moral attachments to it. It would be cheap and insurance would cover it.

Originally posted by intrepid
Well what's the difference between Chris Reeves needing assistance to live and a fetus needing the same?

Chris Reeves was getting assistance from the WILLING medical community. He asked for and was receiving medical assistance to survive. When a 5 week old, 1/8 inch fetus can be kept alive and growing by the WILLING medical community, then that will be a different story. But until then, the ONLY person that can keep the fetus alive is the woman in whose body the thing resides. And it's her choice to do it or not.

totally agree,



and to be fair, miss carriages happen all the time by the body.

which makes us think abortion is ok. it has been practiced forever.

like c-sections, to save the baby and mother or one of them. my daughter was a c baby. both are fine. i mean, when it was figured out. seems like mom was the first to go, in the early days.

i am for the death penalty and choice.

it comes down to responsibility of the individual.

kill 5 people at work, see ya, have a nice after-life!

Food for thought for those willing to listen.
I am by no means a Christian basher; however, the man's points are valid.

reply to post by Miraj

Im a liberal and you got that wrong on all accounts.

Either you are who you say you are and a are a genuine liberal, or you're just another left wing ideologue who has hijacked liberalism. We shall see.

Its the right who wants to legislate morality, and make prostitution illegal, drugs illegal, among other things.

Right, exactly what I thought. You claim to be a liberal, but when it comes to owning up to what the left does, you deflect and blame the right. I am not in this thread to defend either left or right, they are both political beasts that are a part of the problem, not a part of any answer. However, it can be only ignorance that clouds your judgment when asserting that it is the right, and the right alone who "make prostitution illegal, drugs illegal, among other things".

Let's just take prostitution, for example. Nevada is the only state in the Union with some areas that have legal prostitution. If we are to take seriously at all the red state/blue state break down of American political ideology, Nevada is primarily considered to be a red state, although if you were to break it down simply by who vote for Obama in the last Presidential election then Nevada will appear as a blue state, but it is generally considered to be a red state, sometimes being labeled as a "purple state", because Nevada carried both parties twice in the past four elections.

Whether Nevada is actually a red state, or a blue state, or alternates between the two is less telling than the fact that Nevada is the only state in the Union that has legal prostitution. This means that for the rest of the Union, both red state, and blue states have criminalized prostitution. California is considered to be one of the most "liberal" states in the Union, but in that state, Prostitution is illegal. New York, also considered to be a "liberal state", has also criminalized prostitution.

In terms of drugs, every state in the Union has criminalized certain illicit drugs, and while there is a movement lately from certain states to decriminalize marijuana, at least in terms of medicinal purposes, there are only 14 states that have done so. Admittedly of the 14 states, (D.C. is counted as one of those states), only three red states are a part of that movement, they being Alaska, Colorado, and Nevada, leaving the remaining 11 states are blue states. That means, in terms of medical marijuana that 7 blue states still see the issue of marijuana strictly as a criminal one.

California has on its ballot this upcoming election Proposition 19. This proposition will attempt to make marijuana legal across the board. However, the Obama Administration has made it perfectly clear that they will not tolerate any such act, and will blatantly defy the will of the voters in California if they do indeed pass Proposition 19, and continue to prosecute those who use and traffic marijuana. Obama is also considered to be a "liberal".

As for the rest of "illicit drugs" every state in the Union has prohibited them, and the federal government, regardless of what political party is in power, has escalated the drug war, not eased it. There is absolutely no sign or evidence of "liberal" politicians that have passed any meaningful legislation moving us closer to legal drug use, or trafficking.

It is also telling that you shied away from free market principles, or abolishing income tax, as issues I have asserted were left wing issues. The right, of course, is no better in this regard, but to be sure, it is the left who rant and rail against free market principles, constantly pointing to our decidedly regulated market place and insisting on calling it a "free market" in spite of the fact that our economy does not in any way resemble a free market. You have instead insisted on making it an issue of "morality", and in fairness to you, the O.P. also used "morality" to criticize "liberals", but it should be noted that when it suits the left's purposes, they will no doubt rely upon "morality" to support their ideology, and the redistribution of wealth through socialized programs is just one example of the left's "moral" compass.

I don't think you know what a liberal is.

I frankly, don't think you know what a liberal is. Liberal, in its simplest term is one who is not limited by any established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, and are characterized by broad mindedness. Your proclivity to declare yourself a liberal and then attack the right, with not a mention of conservatism, suggests you are far from broad minded, and it is doubtful that you take a broad minded view towards free and unregulated markets, to abolishing income taxation, and repealing all prohibition laws that cannot produce a victim to demonstrate a crime. Far from being a liberal, I suspect you are a left wing ideologue, and I suspect this due to your willingness to attack the right, without any willingness to admit the left's own authoritarianism on a wide array of political issues.

To answer the OP, it truly IS a paradox and very illogical IMO that many people believe in that way, or the exact reverse of that. Logic would have it that if you think that it's OK to take another human life (whether or not it's partially developed and independent of the womb that bore it) then you should support both the death penalty AND abortion rights. Or just the opposite, as I generally do* (see below).

This whole hypocrisy sort of reminds me of animal rights activists who are horrified at the thought of someone legally (again, there's that word "legally" or "legal") killing a wild game animal yet they gladly set out poison to kill the mouse that's taken up residence under their kitchen sink (or, they wear leather and eat meat).

Personally I believe it is only justifiable to kill another human being if that person poses (this referring to a born person and generally in this context they are a fully capable adult) an imminent threat to the lives of others. An example would be a police officer who is forced to shoot a suspect who points a weapon at the officer, or the US military dropping a bomb on terrorists in Afghanistan who are making/placing an IED with the intent to kill others(or terrorists who are simply planning in one way or another to kill people). In that case it's all you can do is to "get them" before they "get you" either that or you die.

As for abortion, I'm a bit more conflicted. I do think that it truly does tend to be used as a "get out of jail free" card in this monopoly game we call life but that there are also circumstances in which it is necessary. To deny abortion in cases of rape, health reasons or similar instances would be wrong because of the immense physical and/or psychological damage pregnancy could cause the mother. But still it is unfortunate that child conceived from rape would have to die, and also unfortunate and sad that some fetuses are so badly deformed that they would either never be born alive or would die shortly afterwards. Luckily rape rarely causes conception, though it would be even better if there was no rape to begin with. I wouldn't begrudge a woman who would choose to abort in those situations.

That said, I don't think anything would be solved by making abortion in general illegal, though I do think that from the earliest point in pregnancy that any premature birth has survived that abortion after that point should be severely restricted. I also think that there is something pathologically wrong with women who use abortion as a form of birth control - I can see one "mistake", especially from a very young woman (or girl), but seriously, if after that if you can't figure out where babies "come from" then she has some serious problems that go way beyond trying to acquire another abortion.

If abortion is okay, no one should be tried for murder or homocide after killing the fetus inside a pregnant woman. After all, it's not really human yet. Our laws should be consistent.

reply to post by xEphon


Through logic and intellect you nailed it.

I really don't know how people argue in favor of abortion in the case of rape. Truly a woman who has suffered rape has a huge burden to bear the rest of her life. However, that does not justify killing the baby, Many couples spend years on a waiting list to adopt a child. I know the months carrying the child will be tough. But IMO it must be done. In my view it is unnatural to destroy or purposely cause harm to ones offspring. And after all isn't it our unnatural tendancies that is slowly killing our society

Hmm...killing replicating mass that could potentially be a baby one day is murder

so, is masturbation mass murder?

What is life..that is the question...sure, the replicating blob one day will be considered a lifeform, but so is an amoeba or virus...what seperates that life from a human life, why is one perfectly find to destroy and the other cause such a stir?

intelligence

and until there is a central nervous system developed, there is no experience..with no experience, there is no intelligence

I am in favor of 3 months or before abortion...after that, only if it risks the mothers life.

If I would label an abortion murder, I would also have to label taking meds to rid the body of a virus murder.

Abortion is a very tricky subject. My morality class tackled it from every direction and reached no real conclusion. The problem is, at what stage do you declare a fetus a person that should be moraly protected? To do this you must answer the question of what is it to be human?

reply to post by SaturnFX


Exactly.

Life itself should not be protected. Otherwise we would run around rescuing insects and crops and who knows what else. Only persons (human and non-human) need to be protected. Ask not when do human life begins, but when do human PERSON begins? The answer is, not at conception. At about 4-5 month is the earliest time when something like person begins.

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 depends on which field you are arguing the point. Are you speaking in terms of strict biology, legally or philosophically?

In strict biological terms then yes the embryo is alive, however it is no more alive than one of your skin cells. Indeed the seperate egg and sperm are alive if we are talking strict biology. Legally the embryo is not alive, it has no ability to think or feel, it is not a human being, it could not live outside the mother. Philosophically is where people find trouble. Some argue that when sperm meets egg then it's a life, others argue that it's only human when it can think and feel on a basic level, others say it's human when it has gained the ability to exist without relying upon the mothers biological support systems.

In the end your comparison of the death penalty to an abortion is a very long argued and long refuted position. The death penalty is killing a living, breathing, thinking human being and the abortion is killing a none thinking, non feeling amalgam of cells.

There are other arguments against the death penalty as well. It does absolutely nothing to dissuade crime and people may be killed and we later find they are innocent. There have been various cases where people have been found innocent while on death row and the only reason they were not killed was because some terrible liberal fought for them. The day an innocent man or woman is killed by the state is the day that everyone who supports the death penalty becomes a murderer by proxy.

Some of us will have a clean conscience.

Of course the label of liberal has been hijacked slightly and i hate to say this but it's a more american phenomenon. Most people are a mix of left and right but it seems that the american media has manufactured this left and right idea of where you should belong, either you're completely left or completely right, black and white, no grey area.

a fetus, until the age of external viability, is a parasitic growth within the womb. until external viability, it has no more rights than a tape worm or tumor.

"what if it was to grow up and be the next einstein?" its far more likely that it would grow up to be a killer, statistically speaking.

for those opposed to choice, then the fetus is to be carried to term regardless of circumstances regarding conception, logically. so no exceptions for rape or incest. after all, a child is a child, whether it was due to rape or incest is irrelevent.

now as for liberals not liking free trade, thats bogus. we do believe in free trade, just not wild, corrupt, evil free trade. look to the "guilded age" of american history to see what happens when free trade runs amuck. corporations do not care about country or people, only the bottom line. due to this fact, someone must step in and regulate fair play. after all, money is like sports, and referees are required.

conservatives want to regulate the bedroom (gays are bad), then get caught in bathrooms looking for gay sex. they want you to go to church, then cheat on their wives. they push the drug war (prisons make loads of money), then do coke off a hookers butt.

so if anybody is two-faced, its the conservatives.

p.s. when it comes to taxes, just shut up already. you want everything for nothing. how do you think roads are built and maintained? what about schools? what about the military that keeps you safe? what about police and fire services? what about science grants that figure out cures for disease? if you wish to live in a society, and benefit from the society, then you must pay for it. its called the "social contract", one of the foundational books read by the founding fathers.

liberal thought doesnt equal anarchy, thats libertine thought. heres the big difference. liberal equals free, but socially responsible. libertine is do what feels right to you (if it feels right to kill, do it, but if everyone around you feels its right to kill you for that murder, than thats right too).

reply to post by stormson

a fetus, until the age of external viability, is a parasitic growth within the womb. until external viability, it has no more rights than a tape worm or tumor.

External viability cannot be the criterion (why?), because even born children (and even many teenagers ) cannot survive without their parents or others caring of them. Should we kill all persons that are dependent on others?
Appearance of awareness (status of the nervous system) should be the criterion to determine beggining of human personhood. Just as status of the nervous system determines the end of a human person (death).

for those opposed to choice, then the fetus is to be carried to term regardless of circumstances regarding conception, logically. so no exceptions for rape or incest. after all, a child is a child, whether it was due to rape or incest is irrelevent.

Exactly. Explain this, pro-lifers. If you believe fetus is a regular human person with all the rights, and its innocent, how can you justify killing it for something it has not done? Why dont you also kill older children conceived from rape or incest? They have the same rights as embryos, dont they? Your logic just doesnt add up.

Just to clarify, I am AGAINST abortion after the appearance of awareness (4-5th month), EVEN in cases of rape and incest. Otherwise I would not be consistent in my logic too.

Originally posted by Misoir
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?

Wow.... you know your definitions do not fit my beliefs.

I am a liberal.

I do not support abortion. I believe it is wrong. I do not call it murder however. The reason is because the law does not. There still is much debate regarding when a fetus becomes a human being. I have my mind made up that it is at the moment of conception but I would be wrong to force my view on others. This is where liberal differs from conservative. I am not stern and opinionated, inclined to lecture others.


I do not support the death penalty. Not because of human rights but because every once in while an innocent person is executed. It does happen sometimes. Another reason is that even the worst of us might possibly benefit from a long life during which reflection might result in remorse. It's possible. The worst human being might possibly find healing. The possibility of this seems better than just being dead.

If one wants to know what liberals believe it is a great mistake to ask a conservative and vice versa.

tt

Hey Fellas, you heard about the liberal gene being detected right?

Well get this - that means there is a chance that liberals can be aborted in utero, once their presence is detected.


Your move liberals.

reply to post by Exuberant1


from discover magazine- "The 7R variant of DRD4, a dopamine receptor gene, had previously been associated with novelty seeking. The researchers theorized novelty seeking would be related to openness, a psychological trait that has been associated with political liberalism.

However, social environment was critical. The more friends gene carriers have in high school, the more likely they are to be liberals as adults."

wow! seems the conservative-regressives were the ones in high school no body liked. imagine that?