How can liberals believe that...

[Cecilie1200]

For those considering abortion for they do not want nor can support a child, there is an excellent alternative. Giving the child up for adoption.

I agree that adoption is an alternative in some cases. In line with my comments, my point would be that pro-life advocates would be more consistent in their principles if they also prioritized increased public support for adoption (financial and otherwise) alongside support for contraception and sex ed.

It is a biological, scientific fact that abortion is the killing of a lving human being.

I think you misunderstood the distinction I was making. I agree with what you wrote above. Abortion involves killing a human being. So does in vitro fertilization (in large numbers) given the definition of "human being" being employed, which I stated I have no particular objection to. I was pointing out that the word murder goes beyond merely stating the fact to adding a moral judgement about it, and that moral judgement is not universal.

I haven't had time to read the rest of your post, or some others, but I'll return to them later today...

Excuse me, adoption is an alternative in SOME cases? Meaning you believe there are occasions in which the only POSSIBLE solution is killing a baby?

Do not give me "If you don't demand tax money for the government to handle it, THAT MEANS YOU DON'T CARE AT ALL." I utterly, 100% reject that half-assed, leftist worldview that the government is the be-all and end-all of getting anything done, and that one "cares" about something by voting for other people's money to pay for it and bureaucrats to paperwork it to death.

And I already pointed out to you once that you have exactly zero, zip, nada on which to make this blithe assertion of "fact". I will point out AGAIN that you still don't. You can tell me about "consistency in principles" when, and only when, you have actually demonstrated 1) that you even understand what our principles are, and 2) that we haven't been consistent with them. And I can assure you that "throw tax money at it" is NOT anywhere in said principles.

Because I'm in a giving mood today, I will go to the trouble of doing the thinking you neglected AND the research you didn't bother about, and I will explain all the many different ways in which your condemnation is crap, and all the many different reasons why you need to humbly apologize for having EVER spoken it as though it were truth.

The Catholic Church, while not remotely the entire pro-life movement, is and has been one of the primary mainstays of it. Noticeably, the Catholic Church is also the number one source of non-governmental charitable assistance in just about any town you care to name. The government actually REFERS people to the Catholic Church for assistance that they, the government, cannot provide.

The list of assistance programs the Catholic Church provides - all through voluntary donations - to "born children" at every stage of their lives is longer than my arm, including pregnancy centers, daycares, schools, medical centers for the poor and indigent, soup kitchens, housing assistance, food and clothing banks, orphanages, adoption programs, nursing homes . . . you name it, they probably have it somewhere.

And that's JUST the Catholics. That doesn't even address all the other groups affiliated with other churches, or non-affiliated with any church, which are funded 100% by donations largely from the same group of people who oppose killing babies in the womb.

Furthermore, and this is my second point, how can anyone who advocates killing children before they can be born have the unbelievable gall to take anyone else to task for not caring enough after the birth? At least WE are willing to let them be born!

Completely aside from being false via the actual facts as to what pro-life people actually do for their fellow man, this "concern" of yours is a logical fallacy. Let me see if I can get you to understand why quickly and easily:

If you need me to explain that further, let me know.

Now, on to your second fallacious paragraph.

You say, "Well, in vitro fertilization ALSO kills unborn children." What exactly is your point? Are you NOW just assuming I'm grand and wonderful with in vitro fertilization? On what do you base that assumption? Have you a quote of me saying that IVF is just marvelous? No? Then why in the hell are you bringing it up?

Yeah, the moral judgement of calling abortion "murder" isn't universal; it's not shared by the people who are advocating for abortion. I'm not sure I consider that any sort of telling point, however.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Most of the posters on the left on this board that have been here awhile have said that a fetus is not a human. They have argued that until the actual birth a baby is in fact not a baby but a growth in the woman to be dealt with in any manner she sees fit. I have engaged numerous of them on the issue of the fact a baby can survive outside the womb at 20 weeks and been told they don't care that abortion is acceptable right up to the last day before birth at the woman's desire.

Show a single post on this board where someone on the left advocated abortion up to the last day before birth

I will NOT go back through years of posts. You and I Both know it happened. But lets use the standard you advocate for Ford, I claimed it happened there for it did.

 

[rightwinger]

Most of the posters on the left on this board that have been here awhile have said that a fetus is not a human. They have argued that until the actual birth a baby is in fact not a baby but a growth in the woman to be dealt with in any manner she sees fit. I have engaged numerous of them on the issue of the fact a baby can survive outside the womb at 20 weeks and been told they don't care that abortion is acceptable right up to the last day before birth at the woman's desire.

Show a single post on this board where someone on the left advocated abortion up to the last day before birth

I will NOT go back through years of posts. You and I Both know it happened. But lets use the standard you advocate for Ford, I claimed it happened there for it did.

It’s not there you liar

 

[Stormy Daniels]

How can liberals believe that...not having any proof yet someone should still be punished?

Eyewitness testimony is proof. Many people are in prison based on eyewitness restimony

What you should have said is that an accuser's testimony is proof. Ford is not an eye witness, she's the victim.

 

[flacaltenn]

Probably a good topic, but there's too many directions and possibilities here for Moderation to apply an "on-topic" rule. It could range from saving the whales to the "Space Force". So I think it's better in General Discussion..

 

[rightwinger]

How can liberals believe that...not having any proof yet someone should still be punished?

Eyewitness testimony is proof. Many people are in prison based on eyewitness restimony

What you should have said is that an accuser's testimony is proof. Ford is not an eye witness, she's the victim.

Ummm....it can be both

 

[well named]

I have engaged numerous of them on the issue of the fact a baby can survive outside the womb at 20 weeks and been told they don't care that abortion is acceptable right up to the last day before birth at the woman's desire.

I have no information about the views of people on this forum specifically, but I was speaking about American liberals in general, and all of the survey data I've seen suggests that the overwhelming majority do not hold this view. According to Gallup, only 18% of Democrats support legal abortion in the third trimester. You see similar results when you ask about Roe v. Wade, which 80% of Democrats support. The point of asking about Roe v. Wade in relation to your claim is that the decision hinges on making a distinction between abortion pre- and post-viability (incorporating Casey v. Planned Parenthood), holding that abortion may be restricted after viability. Pew finds similar numbers supporting Roe. It seems to me that most Democrats are fairly comfortable with that compromise.

 

[well named]

Excuse me, adoption is an alternative in SOME cases? Meaning you believe there are occasions in which the only POSSIBLE solution is killing a baby?

Your second sentence doesn't follow from what I wrote. I'm not advocating that people be required to have abortions. When I said "some" instead of "all" I had in mind things like:

1) I think it's unjust to require a rape victim to carry her attacker's child to term
2) I think it's unjust to require a women to carry a child to term if it poses a significant risk to her health
3) It's not clear to me that adoptive parents are available in all cases
4) There may be other situations which I haven't anticipated. One of my original points is that I think abortion is morally complicated, that there are other moral considerations beyond the opposition to killing, and that pro-life activists' moral calculus is often too simplified. I'm mostly just trying to recognize that complexity and leave room for it.

Do not give me "If you don't demand tax money for the government to handle it, THAT MEANS YOU DON'T CARE AT ALL." I utterly, 100% reject that half-assed, leftist worldview that the government is the be-all and end-all of getting anything done, and that one "cares" about something by voting for other people's money to pay for it and bureaucrats to paperwork it to death.

I didn't claim that government is the "be-all and end-all" of anything, and I understand that you reject the role of government in addressing abortion as a social issue beyond the criminalization of abortion. My point is that I find this attitude to be morally incoherent, i.e. because it insists on government as a strong enforcer of the moral order in only this one narrow way, while eschewing the role of government as an enforcer of the moral order in other ways.

My opinion is that nothing you wrote about the Catholic church is really responsive at all to the argument I actually made. I was making an argument against the pro-life approach to government regulation of abortion, not criticizing pro-life activists for failing to support public charity. I think that religious organizations in the US play an important and valuable role in promoting the well-being of millions of people, although I also have many criticisms of those organizations on other grounds.

You say, "Well, in vitro fertilization ALSO kills unborn children." What exactly is your point? Are you NOW just assuming I'm grand and wonderful with in vitro fertilization? On what do you base that assumption? Have you a quote of me saying that IVF is just marvelous? No? Then why in the hell are you bringing it up?

I'm aware that some people who hold pro-life views also strongly oppose in-vitro fertilization (however, only 13% of American Catholics believe in-vitro fertilization is morally wrong while more than 50% hold that abortion is -- Pew). And some strongly oppose the death penalty. I didn't bring those subjects up in an attempt to claim that literally all pro-life activists hold the same views. I brought them up for a couple reasons:

1) they help illustrate the point I wanted to make about the distinction between stating a scientific fact and making a moral judgement. Abortion, in-vitro fertilization, and the death penalty all involve the killing of a human being defined as "unique human DNA", as SweetSue92 put it. But clearly many people who hold that abortion is morally wrong do not hold that the other two are wrong. The scientific fact does not lead necessarily to a moral conclusion.

2) they help illustrate the point I wanted to make about the moral complexity of abortion, by analogy. That's why I wrote this:

My only intent in making the comparison is to draw out the point that it doesn't follow automatically from the fact that an act involves the taking of human life that this same act is murder, or is morally impermissible.

My argument is not exactly that people should strive for internal consistency for its own sake, although I can see where I may have given that impression. My argument is that people who argue that abortion is immoral because it involves killing a human being but who do not find in-vitro fertilization immoral, or who do not find the death penalty immoral, have probably not thought through their moral intuitions with sufficient clarity. My point is that the poster I responded to seems to view the question as settled merely by stating the fact that abortion is killing, and it is not in fact settled.

Beyond that, though, I don't think the moral question is the only important question to ask about abortion as it relates to public policy. I think that people who have a moral objection to abortion (including myself in many cases) should also think carefully about the role of government as an enforcer of a moral order, and the costs and benefits of using government in that way. When I suggested a focus on contraceptive availability and sex education (and I should add anti-poverty programs) I was outlining the beginning of an argument in that direction. Even if one accepts as a worthy goal the reduction of abortion rates, it doesn't follow that criminalization of abortion is the best way of achieving that goal. I tried to deal with the moral arguments first because it seemed clear that it was the most important aspect to the person I was responding to, and because I think the strength of people's moral intuitions tend to cloud those other considerations.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I have engaged numerous of them on the issue of the fact a baby can survive outside the womb at 20 weeks and been told they don't care that abortion is acceptable right up to the last day before birth at the woman's desire.

I have no information about the views of people on this forum specifically, but I was speaking about American liberals in general, and all of the survey data I've seen suggests that the overwhelming majority do not hold this view. According to Gallup, only 18% of Democrats support legal abortion in the third trimester. You see similar results when you ask about Roe v. Wade, which 80% of Democrats support. The point of asking about Roe v. Wade in relation to your claim is that the decision hinges on making a distinction between abortion pre- and post-viability (incorporating Casey v. Planned Parenthood), holding that abortion may be restricted after viability. Pew finds similar numbers supporting Roe. It seems to me that most Democrats are fairly comfortable with that compromise.

I personally can live with a 20 week cut off. I am opposed to abortion on principle as I believe it is murder BUT am willing to compromise on the cut off date of when the baby can live out side the womb. I believe it is a Justifiable compromise that both sides can live with.BUT I want it to be LAW I want every State to have the same requirement that once a baby is viable it can not be murdered. There is of course one except and that would be the life of the mother. Medical necessity can allow for past 20 weeks.

 

[OldLady]

I have engaged numerous of them on the issue of the fact a baby can survive outside the womb at 20 weeks and been told they don't care that abortion is acceptable right up to the last day before birth at the woman's desire.

I have no information about the views of people on this forum specifically, but I was speaking about American liberals in general, and all of the survey data I've seen suggests that the overwhelming majority do not hold this view. According to Gallup, only 18% of Democrats support legal abortion in the third trimester. You see similar results when you ask about Roe v. Wade, which 80% of Democrats support. The point of asking about Roe v. Wade in relation to your claim is that the decision hinges on making a distinction between abortion pre- and post-viability (incorporating Casey v. Planned Parenthood), holding that abortion may be restricted after viability. Pew finds similar numbers supporting Roe. It seems to me that most Democrats are fairly comfortable with that compromise.

I personally can live with a 20 week cut off. I am opposed to abortion on principle as I believe it is murder BUT am willing to compromise on the cut off date of when the baby can live out side the womb. I believe it is a Justifiable compromise that both sides can live with.BUT I want it to be LAW I want every State to have the same requirement that once a baby is viable it can not be murdered. There is of course one except and that would be the life of the mother. Medical necessity can allow for past 20 weeks.

There also needs to be an exception if there are severe fetal abnormalities which would cause the child an existence of incurable suffering.

 

[SweetSue92]

You don't have to respond to this, because as I see it liberals/Leftists have no response.

You cannot be "the party of science" and continue to see human development in the womb as anything less than a unique human life from the moment of conception. The days of claiming "whatever is in there" was a "clump of cells" is long over and gone. Sure, technically, we are ALL a "clump of cells". But from the moment sperm meets egg, that "clump of cells" has unique human DNA that is not mother, not father, but its own human being.

When it implants and begins to grow, aborting the human is murder.

It is true that the human at this stage of development must grow inside the womb of a mother. The Left uses this fact as reason to say the mother has the right to off her growing baby anytime she pleases, even right up to the 9th month. If people knew what was entailed in offing your baby late in pregnancy they would be driven to vomit. That is not an overstatement. Even a 12 week abortion is violent and involves the ripping of limbs from torsos.

Yet the Left is so wedded to this monstrous procedure that it's really what drove the Kavanaugh madness. To the Left abortion is not a tragic necessity in dire circumstances. It's a "woman's right". Some call it a sacrament. I can't disagree.

It's a moral sickness on the Left, something they have come to embrace that's rotten and corrosive and evil to the core.

So that's it, really. There's no response to this that I can see--it is what it is.

When conservatives start supporting programs that give women alternatives to abortion......I will give them some credibility

You have no response I see. Because there is none. It is a moral horror.

 

[SweetSue92]

You cannot be "the party of science" and continue to see human development in the womb as anything less than a unique human life from the moment of conception. The days of claiming "whatever is in there" was a "clump of cells" is long over and gone. Sure, technically, we are ALL a "clump of cells". But from the moment sperm meets egg, that "clump of cells" has unique human DNA that is not mother, not father, but its own human being.

When it implants and begins to grow, aborting the human is murder.

I've not heard anyone on the left deny that a human embryo or fetus is human, and I agree that such a claim would be false. It is true that people who hold pro-choice positions generally reject the moral intuition that terminating human life at certain stages of development is murder. That intuition does not reduce to an empirical, scientific claim. Sometimes you hear this rejection of the moral principle expressed by someone saying that an embryo or fetus isn't a person. Even if that is a little ambiguous, I think it's clear that they are rejecting the moral equivalence between abortion and legally recognized murder, rather than rejecting the idea that a fetus contains human DNA.

Some people reject the claim that there is any moral problem related to abortion at all. However, I think a plurality of folks on the left do agree that there is some moral dimension to abortion, and this can be inferred from various survey data, i.e. in the percentage who hold that abortion should be legal only in some circumstances, and the sharp decline in support for legalized abortion in the second trimester. As for me, I also find value in the general moral principle that leads pro-life activists to reject abortion, and so I agree that abortion is morally problematic.

That said, I also think the typical pro-life position on abortion is morally incoherent, and the difficulty I have with it is that pro-life activists seem to extend their concern for the moral problems of abortion only so far as the birth of a child, and no further. This is basically the same objection rightwinger raised, but I'll try to elaborate.

The thing that makes abortion a difficult moral problem is that there are competing values at stake. One of those values is that human life is valuable and ought to be protected. But even for pro-life activists that value is not typically taken to be absolute. For example, many people who oppose abortion support the death penalty. Presumably the value they place on justice and retribution overrides the value they place on human life in specific circumstances. My only intent in making the comparison is to draw out the point that it doesn't follow automatically from the fact that an act involves the taking of human life that this same act is murder, or is morally impermissible. In vitro fertilization provides another example of the difficulty with equating "unique human DNA" with a strong legal protection for life. This is one way in which the pro-life position can sometimes be incoherent.

But there are also other values. Individual freedom and the right to self-determination is one, but there is also the value we place on quality of life. I think the pro-life position becomes particularly incoherent when it insists with absolute moral clarity that life must be preserved at all costs, but takes no interest in the quality of that life -- or the potential for human suffering -- after birth. It becomes then a pretty abstract moral principle. It doesn't seem to matter if a child is brought into the world in disadvantageous circumstances to parents that are unable to provide a good life. It doesn't seem to matter if being forced to bring that child into the world will have enormous negative consequences for the life of the parents. The social costs are ignored as well. There are many situations in which an abortion may be morally problematic but the alternatives appear to me to be no better. Pro-life activists don't often seem nearly as concerned about those moral issues, and that is what seems incoherent to me. In many cases the moral evaluation is muddy enough to me that I think there's a good argument that the best people to make those difficult decisions are the individuals who have to deal with the consequences.

The closest thing to a clear moral imperative in relation to abortion, in my view, is that we ought to do much more to avoid unwanted pregnancies to begin with, because that is the least morally problematic path. We ought to make contraception and sex education universally available. Here again, I find many pro-life activists' positions to be incoherent when they disapprove of these goals.

There's plenty more that could be said on this topic, and there are other considerations beyond the moral ones, but this post is long enough and I have to run for a while, so I'll leave it at that for now...

You are trying to justify the case because you don't like the people making it. You lost after the fourth paragraph "the pro-life position can be incoherent".

It does not matter. You're saying, "the philosopher has an airtight argument but he drinks too much scotch after dinner". That's your argument. It fails all the way around. The argument is not ALL the moral failings of the arguer, or does the arguer save ALL the children ALL over the world.

The argument is: is abortion murder. Does a mother have a right to kill a child because that child is housed in her body.

You are basically making the ultimate argument ad hominem. It fails.

 

[well named]

You are trying to justify the case because you don't like the people making it.

I disagree, but it's irrelevant anyway. The arguments can stand or fall on their own merits.

The argument is: is abortion murder.

Yes, I addressed this claim in some detail.

You are basically making the ultimate argument ad hominem.

I don't think you understand how ad hominem works; nothing I wrote amounts to claiming that pro-life claims are false because of who is making them.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I would like to welcome the Original Poster---though a Liberal---for he is trying to address issues in a mature manner.

This simply does not occur with Liberals on this board. Its like everyone of them were educated in schools controlled by Teachers Unions in rotting Northern cities run by Democrats for more than 4 decades.

Take for example the turd "Rightwinger"----who seems to have about half the posts in this thread alone---all inane, just like those few of his other 160,000 previous posts which I have read.

When a poster has over 100,000 posts, a presumption arises that he is living in his mother's basement, drawing a welfare check, watching porn and masturbating---and of course posting nonsense---as Rightwinger does constantly. I will read what this new Liberal has to say---and send Rightwinger of to "Ignore" as I should have done long ago.

Snowflake

Refute any post on this thread

Just adding.
Snowflake? The original pro
SlAvery boys?.
Snowflake posters have zero idea of this

View attachment 221073

Goebells would work for Trump today

Sorry he's give you a B+ for Kavanaugh, an A would have been if he lost the vote. And then your token negro comments.....

do you guys ever talk about reality? or issues?

all you guys do is propaganda and insult and try and intimidate.......it's pathetic and sad

 

[buckeye45_73]

Are you kidding or trolling with that statement?

Prove me wrong

Prove you're not gay

Not that there is anything wrong with that

Gay? No. Being a Lefitst? Yes.

We founded this country

You commies didn't found shit. You tried to ruin France....it has never recovered...

 

[buckeye45_73]

How can liberals believe that...guns cause crime when they don't want to punish criminals?

Again, I think your premises are dubious, both that guns cause crime and that liberals are against criminal punishment in general. But here's my opinion:

Guns don't "cause" crime in any simple sense of the word cause, but there's ample evidence that the widespread availability of guns is highly correlated to deadly violence (cf. various charts here). If we had fewer guns, we would have fewer violent deaths, fewer suicides, and we would also almost certainly have fewer problems with police shooting people that didn't need shooting, because the police would be in dangerous situations less often.

So, there is a large social cost associated with having so many guns. There are also (from a liberal point of view) relatively few benefits. Guns are not, in fact, a useful deterrent to government tyranny, at least not in the 21st century. Guns are not a particularly desirable means of self-defense, or at the very least it would be preferable to not need guns for self defense, i.e. because there aren't so many guns. Liberals look at other countries and see that they don't have these problems.

Add that all together, and the conclusion is that guns aren't worth their social cost, and we ought to restrict access to them more than we do. Note that none of this reasoning has anything to do with the topic of criminal punishment in general. It's purely a cost/benefit calculation.

That's because democrats are soft on crime. They are the party of crime.

no shit ask them what should happen to an actual rapist....they have no answer

 

[buckeye45_73]

Excuse me, adoption is an alternative in SOME cases? Meaning you believe there are occasions in which the only POSSIBLE solution is killing a baby?

Your second sentence doesn't follow from what I wrote. I'm not advocating that people be required to have abortions. When I said "some" instead of "all" I had in mind things like:

1) I think it's unjust to require a rape victim to carry her attacker's child to term
2) I think it's unjust to require a women to carry a child to term if it poses a significant risk to her health
3) It's not clear to me that adoptive parents are available in all cases
4) There may be other situations which I haven't anticipated. One of my original points is that I think abortion is morally complicated, that there are other moral considerations beyond the opposition to killing, and that pro-life activists' moral calculus is often too simplified. I'm mostly just trying to recognize that complexity and leave room for it.

Do not give me "If you don't demand tax money for the government to handle it, THAT MEANS YOU DON'T CARE AT ALL." I utterly, 100% reject that half-assed, leftist worldview that the government is the be-all and end-all of getting anything done, and that one "cares" about something by voting for other people's money to pay for it and bureaucrats to paperwork it to death.

I didn't claim that government is the "be-all and end-all" of anything, and I understand that you reject the role of government in addressing abortion as a social issue beyond the criminalization of abortion. My point is that I find this attitude to be morally incoherent, i.e. because it insists on government as a strong enforcer of the moral order in only this one narrow way, while eschewing the role of government as an enforcer of the moral order in other ways.

My opinion is that nothing you wrote about the Catholic church is really responsive at all to the argument I actually made. I was making an argument against the pro-life approach to government regulation of abortion, not criticizing pro-life activists for failing to support public charity. I think that religious organizations in the US play an important and valuable role in promoting the well-being of millions of people, although I also have many criticisms of those organizations on other grounds.

You say, "Well, in vitro fertilization ALSO kills unborn children." What exactly is your point? Are you NOW just assuming I'm grand and wonderful with in vitro fertilization? On what do you base that assumption? Have you a quote of me saying that IVF is just marvelous? No? Then why in the hell are you bringing it up?

I'm aware that some people who hold pro-life views also strongly oppose in-vitro fertilization (however, only 13% of American Catholics believe in-vitro fertilization is morally wrong while more than 50% hold that abortion is -- Pew). And some strongly oppose the death penalty. I didn't bring those subjects up in an attempt to claim that literally all pro-life activists hold the same views. I brought them up for a couple reasons:

1) they help illustrate the point I wanted to make about the distinction between stating a scientific fact and making a moral judgement. Abortion, in-vitro fertilization, and the death penalty all involve the killing of a human being defined as "unique human DNA", as SweetSue92 put it. But clearly many people who hold that abortion is morally wrong do not hold that the other two are wrong. The scientific fact does not lead necessarily to a moral conclusion.

2) they help illustrate the point I wanted to make about the moral complexity of abortion, by analogy. That's why I wrote this:

My only intent in making the comparison is to draw out the point that it doesn't follow automatically from the fact that an act involves the taking of human life that this same act is murder, or is morally impermissible.

My argument is not exactly that people should strive for internal consistency for its own sake, although I can see where I may have given that impression. My argument is that people who argue that abortion is immoral because it involves killing a human being but who do not find in-vitro fertilization immoral, or who do not find the death penalty immoral, have probably not thought through their moral intuitions with sufficient clarity. My point is that the poster I responded to seems to view the question as settled merely by stating the fact that abortion is killing, and it is not in fact settled.

Beyond that, though, I don't think the moral question is the only important question to ask about abortion as it relates to public policy. I think that people who have a moral objection to abortion (including myself in many cases) should also think carefully about the role of government as an enforcer of a moral order, and the costs and benefits of using government in that way. When I suggested a focus on contraceptive availability and sex education (and I should add anti-poverty programs) I was outlining the beginning of an argument in that direction. Even if one accepts as a worthy goal the reduction of abortion rates, it doesn't follow that criminalization of abortion is the best way of achieving that goal. I tried to deal with the moral arguments first because it seemed clear that it was the most important aspect to the person I was responding to, and because I think the strength of people's moral intuitions tend to cloud those other considerations.

Um lets get one thing straight on abortion. If we allow cases for rape and life....are you against it then?

 

[buckeye45_73]

You don't have to respond to this, because as I see it liberals/Leftists have no response.

You cannot be "the party of science" and continue to see human development in the womb as anything less than a unique human life from the moment of conception. The days of claiming "whatever is in there" was a "clump of cells" is long over and gone. Sure, technically, we are ALL a "clump of cells". But from the moment sperm meets egg, that "clump of cells" has unique human DNA that is not mother, not father, but its own human being.

When it implants and begins to grow, aborting the human is murder.

It is true that the human at this stage of development must grow inside the womb of a mother. The Left uses this fact as reason to say the mother has the right to off her growing baby anytime she pleases, even right up to the 9th month. If people knew what was entailed in offing your baby late in pregnancy they would be driven to vomit. That is not an overstatement. Even a 12 week abortion is violent and involves the ripping of limbs from torsos.

Yet the Left is so wedded to this monstrous procedure that it's really what drove the Kavanaugh madness. To the Left abortion is not a tragic necessity in dire circumstances. It's a "woman's right". Some call it a sacrament. I can't disagree.

It's a moral sickness on the Left, something they have come to embrace that's rotten and corrosive and evil to the core.

So that's it, really. There's no response to this that I can see--it is what it is.

When conservatives start supporting programs that give women alternatives to abortion......I will give them some credibility

They do, there are abstinence programs, adoption programs, financial programs.....oh and they create jobs
If you want to know how to have money, take a Dave Ramsey course.....it's very helpful....

but you gotta put down the crackpipe and stay away from the clubs

 

[rightwinger]

You don't have to respond to this, because as I see it liberals/Leftists have no response.

You cannot be "the party of science" and continue to see human development in the womb as anything less than a unique human life from the moment of conception. The days of claiming "whatever is in there" was a "clump of cells" is long over and gone. Sure, technically, we are ALL a "clump of cells". But from the moment sperm meets egg, that "clump of cells" has unique human DNA that is not mother, not father, but its own human being.

When it implants and begins to grow, aborting the human is murder.

It is true that the human at this stage of development must grow inside the womb of a mother. The Left uses this fact as reason to say the mother has the right to off her growing baby anytime she pleases, even right up to the 9th month. If people knew what was entailed in offing your baby late in pregnancy they would be driven to vomit. That is not an overstatement. Even a 12 week abortion is violent and involves the ripping of limbs from torsos.

Yet the Left is so wedded to this monstrous procedure that it's really what drove the Kavanaugh madness. To the Left abortion is not a tragic necessity in dire circumstances. It's a "woman's right". Some call it a sacrament. I can't disagree.

It's a moral sickness on the Left, something they have come to embrace that's rotten and corrosive and evil to the core.

So that's it, really. There's no response to this that I can see--it is what it is.

When conservatives start supporting programs that give women alternatives to abortion......I will give them some credibility

You have no response I see. Because there is none. It is a moral horror.

So why don’t conservatives offer women alternatives to abortion?

Birth control, maternity care, child care, children’s healthcare

 

[rightwinger]

You don't have to respond to this, because as I see it liberals/Leftists have no response.

You cannot be "the party of science" and continue to see human development in the womb as anything less than a unique human life from the moment of conception. The days of claiming "whatever is in there" was a "clump of cells" is long over and gone. Sure, technically, we are ALL a "clump of cells". But from the moment sperm meets egg, that "clump of cells" has unique human DNA that is not mother, not father, but its own human being.

When it implants and begins to grow, aborting the human is murder.

It is true that the human at this stage of development must grow inside the womb of a mother. The Left uses this fact as reason to say the mother has the right to off her growing baby anytime she pleases, even right up to the 9th month. If people knew what was entailed in offing your baby late in pregnancy they would be driven to vomit. That is not an overstatement. Even a 12 week abortion is violent and involves the ripping of limbs from torsos.

Yet the Left is so wedded to this monstrous procedure that it's really what drove the Kavanaugh madness. To the Left abortion is not a tragic necessity in dire circumstances. It's a "woman's right". Some call it a sacrament. I can't disagree.

It's a moral sickness on the Left, something they have come to embrace that's rotten and corrosive and evil to the core.

So that's it, really. There's no response to this that I can see--it is what it is.

When conservatives start supporting programs that give women alternatives to abortion......I will give them some credibility

They do, there are abstinence programs, adoption programs, financial programs.....oh and they create jobs
If you want to know how to have money, take a Dave Ramsey course.....it's very helpful....

but you gotta put down the crackpipe and stay away from the clubs

That’s about all Republicans offer
Absistence and shame