True conservatives are pro-choice

False.

True conservatives also recognize that the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the role of government. True conservatives recognize that there are times where some interests overlap and come into conflict.

Thus, a true conservative might very well believe that the government has an obligation to preserve the life of the pre-born.
This is the odd logic of conservatives. What is right is not the question, it's who decides. Consider a liberal who said charity is morality, therefore government needs to confiscate money from other people and give it by force to the charity of their choice. You would no doubt object that while yes, charity is moral it's not their choice what to do with your money. But you will object and say it's your choice what a woman does with her body.

You can't just say it's murder to you. As the liberal should convince people to give money to their charity, I challenge you to convince the woman it's morality to have the baby. Because:

1) You can't tell a woman what to do with her body. Convincing her would work, having government try to force her to follow your morality wouldn't. No one is going to not have a baby because government on your behalf says they have to.

2) The baby is entirely insider her and dependent on her. To just say it's the same as killing someone who isn't physically attached doesn't make sense. You can still think it's immoral, but it's not the same.

3) The government is not only telling a woman she can't do something, like steal or rob. It's saying she must carry the baby the balance of nine months, she can't smoke or drink too much... There is no other case where government dictates control into the future.

The bottom line is there is nothing wrong with your view, it's your choice how to carry it out. Rather then running to politicians controlling guns, make what you think is right happen by convincing people. Doesn't that sound exactly like something you would say to a liberal trying to control your life and wallet?
 
False.

True conservatives also recognize that the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the role of government. True conservatives recognize that there are times where some interests overlap and come into conflict.

Thus, a true conservative might very well believe that the government has an obligation to preserve the life of the pre-born.

In other words, a true conservative is for bigger government. Got it!!:eusa_angel:
 
That's right, jerkoff. Conservatism is not monolithic on this topic. But as a general rule, there is nothing whatsoever inconsistent with being a conservative and valuing life as the higher value in competing claims of important values
I missed the part where they took any position on conservatives valuing life. I thought they said wasn't for government to decide...
 
False.

True conservatives also recognize that the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the role of government. True conservatives recognize that there are times where some interests overlap and come into conflict.

Thus, a true conservative might very well believe that the government has an obligation to preserve the life of the pre-born.

In other words, a true conservative is for bigger government. Got it!!:eusa_angel:
Sadly, yes, that is what they are saying. It's not morality if you only do it because government forces you to any more then it's charity if government confiscates your money and gives it for you. To exist, morality and charity both require they are made from free choice. It makes no sense a "true" conservative would support government mandated morality any more then a true liberal would support government mandated charity. Sadly we have few true conservatives or true liberals in this country anymore.
 
supposedly cons hate bug government and its over intrusive hand unless of course its to raise and pay for all the kids that are born to parents that dont want them

oh wait i know - the tooth fairy will take care of all the unwanted babies
 
Some very strange and absurd reaches by the OP. The deductions sought by the OP are not even plausible. Very strange. If this, then that doesn't apply in this scenario.

I don't see how it can be both either. There are absolutes you must live by, you can't make claims you cannot support, and make statements that contradict one another. If you oppose abortion because it is murder, you must also oppose deaths in war and executions of human lives. A life is a life.

Don't raise a family and children in confusion.
 
Some very strange and absurd reaches by the OP. The deductions sought by the OP are not even plausible. Very strange. If this, then that doesn't apply in this scenario.

I don't see how it can be both either. There are absolutes you must live by, you can't make claims you cannot support, and make statements that contradict one another. If you oppose abortion because it is murder, you must also oppose deaths in war and executions of human lives. A life is a life
I don't understand your argument. I am also pro-choice, oppose the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and am anti-death penalty. So I'm not arguing the position, just the logic.

A fetus is "innocent." Enemy combatants and criminals are "guilty." Fetus has no choice, military and criminals do. Why does protecting the life of the innocent logically mean you would have to protect the life of the guilty? I've heard that argument before and it still makes zero sense to me.
 
False.

True conservatives also recognize that the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the role of government. True conservatives recognize that there are times where some interests overlap and come into conflict.

Thus, a true conservative might very well believe that the government has an obligation to preserve the life of the pre-born.

Aren't parents the ones who are so obligated to the new life? Shouldn't they be the ones who decides? Not the government. Not some religionist.
 
abortion is a social issue and should not be subject to government intervention one way or the other....

if a women wants to kill her unborn child ...and you can find a doctor to do it....go for it....

on the flip side if she wants to have it and the father doesn't...go for it...but don't ask for financial help form the dad....

your body ...your choice...your problem....

I am pro-life. But, as a conservative, I don't have the right to inflict my social beliefs on anyone else. However, don't expect me to support abortion or pay for someone's abortion. It would be great if other people, like liberals, could stop trying to inflict their beliefs on me.

I promise to never force you to have an abortion. However, I don't think you should have any more say in how the government spends our tax dollars than I (which is my one vote, and all the letters I can write).
 
True conservatives believe that a government that governs least governs best.

And that would naturally mean an opposition to a government forcing newly pregnant women to carry to term.

Alleged conservatives perform a lot of mental gymnastics to try to rationalize away this simple fact. But they're still wrong and they're not true conservatives.

And that's just the way it is.

Mental gymnastics is what it takes to call the killing of babies anything other than murder. Obama's policy while Illinois state senator was if a baby lived after abortion that child must die. The woman's first choice to murder the baby must be upheld as her, "right to chose".

Newly pregnant women all made the same choice (outside of rape), to have sex, the point at which a woman has a right to do with her body as she choices is before her body becomes the life support system of another human being.

Mental gymnastics is performed when the pro-abortion-murder lobby and activist determine when the exact time a baby is not a human being and is to be called a fetus.

Imagine, we had to fight to end late term abortions.

Quick warning, any person who gets an abortion is potentially destroying their ability to have a health baby, ever.
 
Some very strange and absurd reaches by the OP. The deductions sought by the OP are not even plausible. Very strange. If this, then that doesn't apply in this scenario.

I don't see how it can be both either. There are absolutes you must live by, you can't make claims you cannot support, and make statements that contradict one another. If you oppose abortion because it is murder, you must also oppose deaths in war and executions of human lives. A life is a life
I don't understand your argument. I am also pro-choice, oppose the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and am anti-death penalty. So I'm not arguing the position, just the logic.

A fetus is "innocent." Enemy combatants and criminals are "guilty." Fetus has no choice, military and criminals do. Why does protecting the life of the innocent logically mean you would have to protect the life of the guilty? I've heard that argument before and it still makes zero sense to me.

Wars kill innocents, and executions kill innocents. It comes down to life and humanity having an equal value regardless of cause. Morally we cannot say one life is better than another. Kant (philosopher) demonstrates this in his life-boat scenario.

Would the fetus be the world's next Hitler? We cannot say it is entirely innocent, even feeding in the womb it might take the life of its host, and at best drains life of its host. Would it be innocent?

The soldier feels he is fighting to die for a cause he believes is correct, regardless of which side of the battlefield he is on. Both side's cause is just in this insane world of murdering one another for a cause. In most cases the soldier on the battlefield is not thinking of glory of his cause while he is butchering his enemy. He is thinking about his own survival and maybe his Buddy's survival, and is reduced to the animal state in this pursuit. Two soldiers being pushed to fight and forced to fight to the death. But even if the cause is wrong, the murdering of humans is not. The enemy is not doing anything you are not doing, so you have no moral high ground here. A life is a life.

In the end, no one life is better than another, they all hold equal value.
 
Last edited:
True conservatives believe that a government that governs least governs best.

And that would naturally mean an opposition to a government forcing newly pregnant women to carry to term.

Alleged conservatives perform a lot of mental gymnastics to try to rationalize away this simple fact. But they're still wrong and they're not true conservatives.

And that's just the way it is.

Mental gymnastics is what it takes to call the killing of babies anything other than murder. Obama's policy while Illinois state senator was if a baby lived after abortion that child must die. The woman's first choice to murder the baby must be upheld as her, "right to chose".

Newly pregnant women all made the same choice (outside of rape), to have sex, the point at which a woman has a right to do with her body as she choices is before her body becomes the life support system of another human being.

Mental gymnastics is performed when the pro-abortion-murder lobby and activist determine when the exact time a baby is not a human being and is to be called a fetus.

Imagine, we had to fight to end late term abortions.

Quick warning, any person who gets an abortion is potentially destroying their ability to have a health baby, ever.


You're entitled to your opinions.

But you sure as shit ain't no real conservative.


True story :thup:
 
I don't see how it can be both either. There are absolutes you must live by, you can't make claims you cannot support, and make statements that contradict one another. If you oppose abortion because it is murder, you must also oppose deaths in war and executions of human lives. A life is a life
I don't understand your argument. I am also pro-choice, oppose the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and am anti-death penalty. So I'm not arguing the position, just the logic.

A fetus is "innocent." Enemy combatants and criminals are "guilty." Fetus has no choice, military and criminals do. Why does protecting the life of the innocent logically mean you would have to protect the life of the guilty? I've heard that argument before and it still makes zero sense to me.

Wars kill innocents, and executions kill innocents. It comes down to life and humanity having an equal value regardless of cause. Morally we cannot say one life is better than another. Kant (philosopher) demonstrates this in his life-boat scenario.

Would the fetus be the world's next Hitler? We cannot say it is entirely innocent, even feeding in the womb it might take the life of its host, and at best drains life of its host. Would it be innocent?

The soldier feels he is fighting to die for a cause he believes is correct, regardless of which side of the battlefield he is on. Both side's cause is just in this insane world of murdering one another for a cause. In most cases the soldier on the battlefield is not thinking of glory of his cause while he is butchering his enemy. He is thinking about his own survival and maybe his Buddy's survival, and is reduced to the animal state in this pursuit. Two soldiers being pushed to fight and forced to fight to the death. But even if the cause is wrong, the murdering of humans is not. The enemy is not doing anything you are not doing, so you have no moral high ground here. A life is a life.

In the end, no one life is better than another, they all hold equal value.
I think that all lives being equal is preposterous. But that's another discussion. I didn't argue your view on that, I argued your logic. You said that it's contradictory to oppose abortion while supporting "war" and capital punishment. Nothing you said here contradicts their logic, it just says that it's your view that all lives are the same. It is perfectly logical to oppose killing an innocent fetus while supporting a war for defense against an aggressor or punishing a murderer with death.

I do think it's illogical to argue that government cannot make people's choices for them with their wallet, but they can with their bodies. That's why I go that route
 
Last edited:
True conservatives believe that a government that governs least governs best.

And that would naturally mean an opposition to a government forcing newly pregnant women to carry to term.

Alleged conservatives perform a lot of mental gymnastics to try to rationalize away this simple fact. But they're still wrong and they're not true conservatives.

And that's just the way it is.

Mental gymnastics is what it takes to call the killing of babies anything other than murder. Obama's policy while Illinois state senator was if a baby lived after abortion that child must die. The woman's first choice to murder the baby must be upheld as her, "right to chose".

Newly pregnant women all made the same choice (outside of rape), to have sex, the point at which a woman has a right to do with her body as she choices is before her body becomes the life support system of another human being.

I truely call that "Mental gymnastics " in its finest hour!! LOL!

Mental gymnastics is performed when the pro-abortion-murder lobby and activist determine when the exact time a baby is not a human being and is to be called a fetus.

Imagine, we had to fight to end late term abortions.

Quick warning, any person who gets an abortion is potentially destroying their ability to have a health baby, ever.

If I am to accept your reasoning, I could expect to extract a fetus from the womb in the first month, and set it in the crib. And it should survive there by mothers milk and the air we breath. If it can do that, then I can accept your twisted "Mental gymnastics." :eusa_angel:
 
I don't understand your argument. I am also pro-choice, oppose the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and am anti-death penalty. So I'm not arguing the position, just the logic.

A fetus is "innocent." Enemy combatants and criminals are "guilty." Fetus has no choice, military and criminals do. Why does protecting the life of the innocent logically mean you would have to protect the life of the guilty? I've heard that argument before and it still makes zero sense to me.

Wars kill innocents, and executions kill innocents. It comes down to life and humanity having an equal value regardless of cause. Morally we cannot say one life is better than another. Kant (philosopher) demonstrates this in his life-boat scenario.

Would the fetus be the world's next Hitler? We cannot say it is entirely innocent, even feeding in the womb it might take the life of its host, and at best drains life of its host. Would it be innocent?

The soldier feels he is fighting to die for a cause he believes is correct, regardless of which side of the battlefield he is on. Both side's cause is just in this insane world of murdering one another for a cause. In most cases the soldier on the battlefield is not thinking of glory of his cause while he is butchering his enemy. He is thinking about his own survival and maybe his Buddy's survival, and is reduced to the animal state in this pursuit. Two soldiers being pushed to fight and forced to fight to the death. But even if the cause is wrong, the murdering of humans is not. The enemy is not doing anything you are not doing, so you have no moral high ground here. A life is a life.

In the end, no one life is better than another, they all hold equal value.
I think that all lives being equal is preposterous. But that's another discussion. I didn't argue your view on that, I argued your logic. You said that it's contradictory to oppose abortion while supporting "war" and capital punishment. Nothing you said here contradicts their logic, it just says that it's your view that all lives are the same. It is perfectly logical to oppose killing an innocent fetus while supporting a war for defense against an aggressor or punishing a murderer with death.

I do think it's illogical to argue that government cannot make people's choices for them with their wallet, but they can with their bodies. That's why I go that route

We will just have to disagree on the point. I showed you the logic behind humanity, and our difference is you place a variable value on human life, involving all kinds of exceptions.


No doubt we would be far better off if government had no choice, yet they are the glue.
 
Wars kill innocents, and executions kill innocents. It comes down to life and humanity having an equal value regardless of cause. Morally we cannot say one life is better than another. Kant (philosopher) demonstrates this in his life-boat scenario.

Would the fetus be the world's next Hitler? We cannot say it is entirely innocent, even feeding in the womb it might take the life of its host, and at best drains life of its host. Would it be innocent?

The soldier feels he is fighting to die for a cause he believes is correct, regardless of which side of the battlefield he is on. Both side's cause is just in this insane world of murdering one another for a cause. In most cases the soldier on the battlefield is not thinking of glory of his cause while he is butchering his enemy. He is thinking about his own survival and maybe his Buddy's survival, and is reduced to the animal state in this pursuit. Two soldiers being pushed to fight and forced to fight to the death. But even if the cause is wrong, the murdering of humans is not. The enemy is not doing anything you are not doing, so you have no moral high ground here. A life is a life.

In the end, no one life is better than another, they all hold equal value.
I think that all lives being equal is preposterous. But that's another discussion. I didn't argue your view on that, I argued your logic. You said that it's contradictory to oppose abortion while supporting "war" and capital punishment. Nothing you said here contradicts their logic, it just says that it's your view that all lives are the same. It is perfectly logical to oppose killing an innocent fetus while supporting a war for defense against an aggressor or punishing a murderer with death.

I do think it's illogical to argue that government cannot make people's choices for them with their wallet, but they can with their bodies. That's why I go that route

We will just have to disagree on the point. I showed you the logic behind humanity, and our difference is you place a variable value on human life, involving all kinds of exceptions.


No doubt we would be far better off if government had no choice, yet they are the glue.

Real life is messy that way.
 
False.

True conservatives also recognize that the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the role of government. True conservatives recognize that there are times where some interests overlap and come into conflict.

Thus, a true conservative might very well believe that the government has an obligation to preserve the life of the pre-born.

In other words, a true conservative is for bigger government. Got it!!:eusa_angel:

Those are not "other words" for anything I said nor are they a reasonable or honestly arrived at inference from anything I said.

I am sorry the complexity of the abortion debate fails to meet your urgent and ever-present need for over-simplification, though.
 
True conservatives believe that a government that governs least governs best.

And that would naturally mean an opposition to a government forcing newly pregnant women to carry to term.

Alleged conservatives perform a lot of mental gymnastics to try to rationalize away this simple fact. But they're still wrong and they're not true conservatives.

And that's just the way it is.

Mental gymnastics is what it takes to call the killing of babies anything other than murder. Obama's policy while Illinois state senator was if a baby lived after abortion that child must die. The woman's first choice to murder the baby must be upheld as her, "right to chose".

Newly pregnant women all made the same choice (outside of rape), to have sex, the point at which a woman has a right to do with her body as she choices is before her body becomes the life support system of another human being.

Mental gymnastics is performed when the pro-abortion-murder lobby and activist determine when the exact time a baby is not a human being and is to be called a fetus.

Imagine, we had to fight to end late term abortions.

Quick warning, any person who gets an abortion is potentially destroying their ability to have a health baby, ever.


You're entitled to your opinions.

But you sure as shit ain't no real conservative.


True story :thup:

Funny, for some the message board is a mirror.
 
Most cons also seem to support a lot of for your own good laws. child seats in cars, anti-smoking regs, etc.
They love the parts of a Nanny govt that suits their wants.
 
False.

True conservatives also recognize that the securing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the role of government. True conservatives recognize that there are times where some interests overlap and come into conflict.

Thus, a true conservative might very well believe that the government has an obligation to preserve the life of the pre-born.
The "pre-born" ???

The buzz words you quacks come up with never cease to amuse me.
 

Forum List

Back
Top