Liberals On Abortion

[rightwinger]

NorthKoreaChic doesn't want to live in a free society. Maybe she should move back to you know where.

Sez the native American Indian Chief? (I doubt it.)
Political Chic is an asset to America, dear. Put the bong down. Can you say the same for yourself?

The Queen of Cut and Paste

But we love her

 

[night_son]

The postmodernists want to enshrine abortion as a hallowed institution thus equating all dissenting voices as equal political heresy to holocaust denial. For instance, and unless you've got an already established fan base of millions, you will not be published as a new fiction author should your future publisher catch you out as pro-life on social media. De facto American social credit system. Because we all want to be censored for our Constitutional right to free speech, right? Nowadays it's free speech . . . but at great professional and personal cost.

 

[beautress]

Oh, boy, another round of Number-pointed Crazy from the Mail Order Bride From Hell.
Okay, one more time. You guys get your ban on abortion, how are you going to enforce it?
Are you going to lock up women for getting abortions? Because honestly, I don't see anything less than that as being a deterrent, now that we have DIY abortion pills.

#1 Mail order brides made this country worth living to generations of men who have admitted they were unworthy of the services of giving them beautiful children that lit their old age with love and laughter.
#2 Political chic is a guardian of freedoms the founders determined were the best for mankind.
#3 This forum is dedicated to facts being produced by free expression of what is on the minds of people who live here, and welcomes people from all walks of life.
#4 Political chic is courageous in her peeling back the layers of lies and scandals.

And finally, #5, your debating tactics could be refined if you spoke sans all the judgmental strata of patronization of others who post relevant topics of discussion that can be resolved in an orderly process of give and take of ideas. Come on, try harder to reach across the table. If you can.

 

[beautress]

NorthKoreaChic doesn't want to live in a free society. Maybe she should move back to you know where.

Sez the native American Indian Chief? (I doubt it.)
Political Chic is an asset to America, dear. Put the bong down. Can you say the same for yourself?

The Queen of Cut and Paste

But we love her

Then show it.

 

[dblack]

Oh, boy, another round of Number-pointed Crazy from the Mail Order Bride From Hell.

Okay, one more time. You guys get your ban on abortion, how are you going to enforce it?

Are you going to lock up women for getting abortions? Because honestly, I don't see anything less than that as being a deterrent, now that we have DIY abortion pills.

Well, first we'll need to create a new federal agency (Department of Procreation?). Women of child-bearing age will need to register, of course, and then submit to regular check ups. See, society has a vested interest in the womb, and no selfish bitch has any right to resist.

You'll love it, Joe. Jackbooted thugs will be everywhere telling us how to live. Right up your alley.

 

[PoliticalChic]

NorthKoreaChic doesn't want to live in a free society. Maybe she should move back to you know where.

Sez the native American Indian Chief? (I doubt it.)
Political Chic is an asset to America, dear. Put the bong down. Can you say the same for yourself?

A kiss and a hug!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The postmodernists want to enshrine abortion as a hallowed institution thus equating all dissenting voices as equal political heresy to holocaust denial. For instance, and unless you've got an already established fan base of millions, you will not be published as a new fiction author should your future publisher catch you out as pro-life on social media. De facto American social credit system. Because we all want to be censored for our Constitutional right to free speech, right? Nowadays it's free speech . . . but at great professional and personal cost.

"The postmodernists want to enshrine abortion as a hallowed institution..."

Well....it is a sacrament in their view....



From the Amazon review of Godless, by Coulter…


Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted.
And....Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "...the Socialist Savior of the Democratic Party."

the Catechism: you didn't build that.....any success is just dumb luck

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, boy, another round of Number-pointed Crazy from the Mail Order Bride From Hell.
Okay, one more time. You guys get your ban on abortion, how are you going to enforce it?
Are you going to lock up women for getting abortions? Because honestly, I don't see anything less than that as being a deterrent, now that we have DIY abortion pills.

#1 Mail order brides made this country worth living to generations of men who have admitted they were unworthy of the services of giving them beautiful children that lit their old age with love and laughter.
#2 Political chic is a guardian of freedoms the founders determined were the best for mankind.
#3 This forum is dedicated to facts being produced by free expression of what is on the minds of people who live here, and welcomes people from all walks of life.
#4 Political chic is courageous in her peeling back the layers of lies and scandals.

And finally, #5, your debating tactics could be refined if you spoke sans all the judgmental strata of patronization of others who post relevant topics of discussion that can be resolved in an orderly process of give and take of ideas. Come on, try harder to reach across the table. If you can.

Yer a peach, B!!

 

[rightwinger]

NorthKoreaChic doesn't want to live in a free society. Maybe she should move back to you know where.

Sez the native American Indian Chief? (I doubt it.)
Political Chic is an asset to America, dear. Put the bong down. Can you say the same for yourself?

The Queen of Cut and Paste

But we love her

Then show it.

I do

Her posts are so tedious
I always try to rescue her threads

 

[PoliticalChic]

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.




1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.





I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.




4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."




Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

I fear the dangerous delusions of your brain.....

"
1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting."


As a proud lib-prog I can assure you that I can analyze rationally and logically the things I support;

1. legalize pot
2. pro gay marriage
3. pro gay rights
4. pro strong military
5. pro death penalty for murderers and traitors
6. anti-religious laws
7. anti -"one nation under god" in our pledge
8. anti religion in schools(except in comparative religion classes)
9. affordable health care
10. affordable education
11. workfare
12. legalize prostitution

I can and have logically and rationally defended each of these positions.

"1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting."



And I accuse YOU and your fellow moronicons of the same crime!


"I hate liberals"
or
"stick it to liberals"


are NOT logical, rational reasons for supporting or opposing any position.

"I fear the dangerous delusions of your brain....."

I can see why you'd consider me an underachiever's worst nightmare.

 

[Taz]

Too bad for you that abortion isn't murder.

Too bad you weren't aborted.

You have no more point to make so you resort to petty insults. Your concession is duly noted.

 

[Taz]

NorthKoreaChic doesn't want to live in a free society. Maybe she should move back to you know where.

Sez the native American Indian Chief? (I doubt it.)
Political Chic is an asset to America, dear. Put the bong down. Can you say the same for yourself?

NorthKoreaChic hates everything about America, don't you read her posts?

 

[Crepitus]

Liberals On Abortion

Conservatives On Crack

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberals On Abortion

Conservatives On Crack

This is the level of 'clever' the Liberals aspire to.....

....I really need more educated opposition.

 

[JoeB131]

Does ''you guys" refer to the actual Liberal who wrote the piece?

Yes, it does. How are you going to enforce these laws? You'd have to investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide. You'd have to establish a pregnancy police.

What I think a fetus is or what you think it is really doesn't matter at the end of the day. It only matters to the woman it is inside. And unless you are willing to impose truly draconian laws to terrify women into compliance, such laws would be largely unenforceable.

"One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this." I believe this summarizes the OP.

Fetuses aren't babies.

Again, I wonder if you have ever known a woman who has had an abortion. I mean other than some brainwashed idiot who feels regret a decade latter and screams in the Churches about "sin".

 

[alang1216]

One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this.

Two: There is nothing wrong with removing "tissue" from the body of the person who wants it removed.

Three: At some point in time between ejaculation and live birth, the product of that copulation ceases being "tissue" and becomes a legal person, for Constitutional purposes.

Four: The position staked out by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade (1973) was that the conversion from Tissue to Baby occurred at the time when the baby became arguably viable: that is, able to survive outside the womb. This was based on his reading of the medical science at the time of the decision. There have been new developments in neonatal care, and one could argue that viability now occurs prior to six months, but that is not relevant to this discussion.

Most of the people howling that they NEVER want Roe v. Wade overturned - that it is a "Super Precedent" - completely reject Justice Blackmun's line of demarkation, and insist that the Tissue/Baby line is drawn AT BIRTH. So they really don't want Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land; they want their own twisted version of RvW to prevail.

Five: Roe v. Wade is completely made-up law, based on a completely made-up Constitutional "right": the Right of Privacy. It is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is, legally speaking, an abomination, because it defies definition. A "right" that is based on a Constitutional Amendment that protects us from eavesdropping and unreasonable searches is trotted out to overturn sodomy laws? To void thousands of years of marriage laws? And then to prevent States from prohibiting abortions which, parenthetically, are forbidden by the Oath of Hippocrates? Good God, is there any better example of a Supreme Court run amok?

In a rational world (where no Leftists reside), one could have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn. At one extreme, there is a tenable argument that once the DNA of the person is established (i.e., at conception), it is a baby. At the other extreme, one could argue for the moment when that baby takes its first breath outside the womb. All sorts of considerations could be brought to bear, but two things are manifest: The Line should be between those two figurative goal posts, and the line should be drawn, not by a court of life-appointed jurists, but by the Peoples' representatives in either Congress or the State Legislatures.

Six: A couple of developments have raised this issue to a higher profile than usual: The conservative shift in the USSC (possibly shifting even a little bit further if the infamous RBG does the Right Thing in a timely manner), and the passage of a couple of state laws that, in effect draw the Tissue/Baby line much earlier than States have dared to draw it since the publication of RvW.

But the Left refuses to have this rational discussion. It insists that the WOMAN (don't you dare call her a "mother") has an absolute right to "remove the tissue" up to and even after the moment of live birth, according to her absolute discretion. Further, THEY DENY THE OPPOSING SIDE EVEN THE RIGHT TO RAISE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITION. If they take any position other than the Leftist position, they are horrible bigots, misogynists, haters, deniers, and whatever other absurd insults they can gin up.

And note that in this, as in every other "discussion," they present no arguments on their own behalf. It is merely, "If you disagree with us, you are a [choose your ad hominem insult]!"

Leftists are scum.

I'm a lefty that agrees with much of what you say. However, you should save some of your anger for the Right-to-Lifers that claim there is no 'tissue', only baby.

One cannot have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn because they don't recognize a set of chromosomes as being any different from an adult human being.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does ''you guys" refer to the actual Liberal who wrote the piece?

Yes, it does. How are you going to enforce these laws? You'd have to investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide. You'd have to establish a pregnancy police.

What I think a fetus is or what you think it is really doesn't matter at the end of the day. It only matters to the woman it is inside. And unless you are willing to impose truly draconian laws to terrify women into compliance, such laws would be largely unenforceable.

"One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this." I believe this summarizes the OP.

Fetuses aren't babies.

Again, I wonder if you have ever known a woman who has had an abortion. I mean other than some brainwashed idiot who feels regret a decade latter and screams in the Churches about "sin".

So 'you guys' means both Liberals and conservatives?


Excellent.....that leaves you with brainless, rabid, and insane savages.

 

[PoliticalChic]

One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this.

Two: There is nothing wrong with removing "tissue" from the body of the person who wants it removed.

Three: At some point in time between ejaculation and live birth, the product of that copulation ceases being "tissue" and becomes a legal person, for Constitutional purposes.

Four: The position staked out by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade (1973) was that the conversion from Tissue to Baby occurred at the time when the baby became arguably viable: that is, able to survive outside the womb. This was based on his reading of the medical science at the time of the decision. There have been new developments in neonatal care, and one could argue that viability now occurs prior to six months, but that is not relevant to this discussion.

Most of the people howling that they NEVER want Roe v. Wade overturned - that it is a "Super Precedent" - completely reject Justice Blackmun's line of demarkation, and insist that the Tissue/Baby line is drawn AT BIRTH. So they really don't want Roe v. Wade to be the law of the land; they want their own twisted version of RvW to prevail.

Five: Roe v. Wade is completely made-up law, based on a completely made-up Constitutional "right": the Right of Privacy. It is nowhere in the Constitution, and it is, legally speaking, an abomination, because it defies definition. A "right" that is based on a Constitutional Amendment that protects us from eavesdropping and unreasonable searches is trotted out to overturn sodomy laws? To void thousands of years of marriage laws? And then to prevent States from prohibiting abortions which, parenthetically, are forbidden by the Oath of Hippocrates? Good God, is there any better example of a Supreme Court run amok?

In a rational world (where no Leftists reside), one could have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn. At one extreme, there is a tenable argument that once the DNA of the person is established (i.e., at conception), it is a baby. At the other extreme, one could argue for the moment when that baby takes its first breath outside the womb. All sorts of considerations could be brought to bear, but two things are manifest: The Line should be between those two figurative goal posts, and the line should be drawn, not by a court of life-appointed jurists, but by the Peoples' representatives in either Congress or the State Legislatures.

Six: A couple of developments have raised this issue to a higher profile than usual: The conservative shift in the USSC (possibly shifting even a little bit further if the infamous RBG does the Right Thing in a timely manner), and the passage of a couple of state laws that, in effect draw the Tissue/Baby line much earlier than States have dared to draw it since the publication of RvW.

But the Left refuses to have this rational discussion. It insists that the WOMAN (don't you dare call her a "mother") has an absolute right to "remove the tissue" up to and even after the moment of live birth, according to her absolute discretion. Further, THEY DENY THE OPPOSING SIDE EVEN THE RIGHT TO RAISE POINTS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR POSITION. If they take any position other than the Leftist position, they are horrible bigots, misogynists, haters, deniers, and whatever other absurd insults they can gin up.

And note that in this, as in every other "discussion," they present no arguments on their own behalf. It is merely, "If you disagree with us, you are a [choose your ad hominem insult]!"

Leftists are scum.

I'm a lefty that agrees with much of what you say. However, you should save some of your anger for the Right-to-Lifers that claim there is no 'tissue', only baby.

One cannot have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn because they don't recognize a set of chromosomes as being any different from an adult human being.

Link or lie?


Oh...wait....you always lie.


Carry on.

 

[alang1216]

[I'm a lefty that agrees with much of what you say. However, you should save some of your anger for the Right-to-Lifers that claim there is no 'tissue', only baby.

One cannot have a rational argument about where the aforesaid line of Tissue/Baby demarkation should be drawn because they don't recognize a set of chromosomes as being any different from an adult human being.

Link or lie?


Oh...wait....you always lie.


Carry on.

Did you have a brain freeze? What did I write that you would you like a link for?

Do you deny that some Right-to-Lifers that claim that a 'person' begins at conception?

 

[22lcidw]

Does ''you guys" refer to the actual Liberal who wrote the piece?

Yes, it does. How are you going to enforce these laws? You'd have to investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide. You'd have to establish a pregnancy police.

What I think a fetus is or what you think it is really doesn't matter at the end of the day. It only matters to the woman it is inside. And unless you are willing to impose truly draconian laws to terrify women into compliance, such laws would be largely unenforceable.

"One: It is "wrong" to kill babies. Even Leftists mainly agree with this." I believe this summarizes the OP.

Fetuses aren't babies.

Again, I wonder if you have ever known a woman who has had an abortion. I mean other than some brainwashed idiot who feels regret a decade latter and screams in the Churches about "sin".

A million abortions a year is convenience. There are women who have had several of them. I owe nothing to no one. Especially by you. Screw your Church references. You take out rancor for people who warn about moral choices because you have none. And when one of them falls down and screws up it becomes a Hollywood drama that lasts for months. The illigitimate children and abortions seem to be a race and the taxpayer pays for it and is called every name in the book for having an opinion on it. For me. Stop charging me. You pay for the abortions and the children of single moms engineered by progressive agendas in our utopia for the last fifty five years that should not exist at least in these numbers. Obamacare was a warning that resources are needed. And the suckers who pay the freight rebelled.