Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
Why lie when you are probably capable of arguing a point without doing so?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.
I love when left-wing whackaloons attempt to define conservatism.
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.
^See what I mean about mental gymnastics?
The "pre-born" ???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 buzz words you quacks come up with never cease to amuse me.
I'm a conservative through and through but pay no attention to the abortion issue.
If someone was running for an office who espoused conservatism it would make no difference to me if he or she was pro-life or pro-choice. That person would have my vote.
So you can turn it upside down, inside out all you want but you're only jerking yourself around.
I love when left-wing whackaloons attempt to define conservatism.
I love when people like yourself try to dismiss people like Mani who are far from Liberal by trying to label them as "left-wing whackaloons". Though it seems to me that you can't handle the fact that someone else has a different opinion from you and isn't a loon.
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.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.
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?
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.
That's another discussion. Unless you're trying to tell us you oppose abortion because you can't have one.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.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.
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?
Yeah but here's the rub. If my name appears in the "father" section of any birth certificate the government forces me to support that child even if I "chose" to have it aborted and the mother chose to keep it.
Just like I can't have it both ways neither can those on the other side of this issue. If it's her legal "choice" and hers alone, it should also be solely her legal responsibility.
Why use government force to compel fathers to accept responsibility for a child they never wanted to have?
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.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
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.
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."
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.
No, they all hold equal potential.
I can understand why a statist would claim they all hold equal value though.
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.
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.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 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.
That's another discussion. Unless you're trying to tell us you oppose abortion because you can't have one.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?
Yeah but here's the rub. If my name appears in the "father" section of any birth certificate the government forces me to support that child even if I "chose" to have it aborted and the mother chose to keep it.
Just like I can't have it both ways neither can those on the other side of this issue. If it's her legal "choice" and hers alone, it should also be solely her legal responsibility.
Why use government force to compel fathers to accept responsibility for a child they never wanted to have?
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.
No, they all hold equal potential.
I can understand why a statist would claim they all hold equal value though.
Even the life of a poor baby in deep Africa? Or one in Iran?
