Liberals On Abortion

[ph3iron]

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.

Dunno, my corporate buds and I just go by the real Latin def
Liber, free, for the individual and small gov.
No need to cut and paste reams

 

[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.

Dunno, my corporate buds and I just go by the real Latin def
Liber, free, for the individual and small gov.
No need to cut and paste reams

You mean 'no need to learn.'


That's your problem, not mine.

 

[JoeB131]

You murder children to piss people off. As I have always said, you are a lowlife sack of shit, and thats all you ever will be

Sweetie, fetuses aren't children. Or do you think that 900K women a year murder their own children?

Actually, I don't 'argue' with ErroneousJoe....I post the truth for others to read.

My mission.

This is true, you don't argue. That would actually require you to understand what is being said, and i don't think they put that in your programming.

Domo Arigato, Ms. Roboto!

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[JoeB131]

Fetuses still aren't people.

 

[danielpalos]

...prevention is always better!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Some people seem uneasy with the idea of killing the unborn, but they are unsure about the “grey areas” around restricting the rights of others and “legislating morality”.
the unborn are not alive, they are only “potential life.”

The Bible does not support that idea. Read Psalm 139. Science does not support that idea either. The world, the flesh and the devil, however, do support that idea.

13For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,"
When a nation supports the killing of their own children, the future is bleak

 

[JoeB131]

The Bible does not support that idea. Read Psalm 139. Science does not support that idea either. The world, the flesh and the devil, however, do support that idea.

Psalm 137:9 celebrates smashing the heads of babies against rocks... not sure you want to go there as a source.

The bible also said to slaughter pregnant women who got knocked up through adultery. Slaughter men women and children when taking their land. God killed David's baby to teach him that Adultery was bad.

Not sure you want to go there as a source of morality.

(Please note, the Weird Robot will not address these points. She'll call some names instead... wait for it... wait for it....)

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Reporter stunned as top abortionist admits he has no problem killing ‘babies’
A top US abortionist has left a BBC reporter lost for words after admitting he has no problem killing “babies.”

...Ms Andersson asked Carhart how late in the pregnancy he would perform an abortion. Carhart refused to respond on camera, but then left Ms Andersson visibly stunned by saying:
The baby has no input in this as far as I’m concerned.”

Ms Andersson then pointed out Carhart’s use of the word “baby” rather than “fetus”, asking why he would use that word when others prefer more dehumanizing terms.

“I think that it is a baby,” Carhart interrupted. “And I use [the word baby] with patients.”

Ms Andersson then asked if Carhart had any problem with killing a baby?

“Absolutely not,” Carhart coldly replied.


Much time and energy is spent trying to persuade pro-abortion apologists that an unborn baby is a human life, as though that fact wasn’t bleeding obvious to everyone."
WATCH: Reporter stunned as top abortionist admits he has no problem killing ‘babies’

 

[JoeB131]

"Reporter stunned as top abortionist admits he has no problem killing ‘babies’
A top US abortionist has left a BBC reporter lost for words after admitting he has no problem killing “babies.”

Here's the problem you guys have.

The women the fetuses are inside have no problem killing them.

So one more time, how are you going to stop them?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Reporter stunned as top abortionist admits he has no problem killing ‘babies’
A top US abortionist has left a BBC reporter lost for words after admitting he has no problem killing “babies.”

Here's the problem you guys have.

The women the fetuses are inside have no problem killing them.

So one more time, how are you going to stop them?

Seems you believe we should revoke laws against bank robbery, too, huh....you dunce.

 

[dblack]

"Reporter stunned as top abortionist admits he has no problem killing ‘babies’
A top US abortionist has left a BBC reporter lost for words after admitting he has no problem killing “babies.”

Here's the problem you guys have.

The women the fetuses are inside have no problem killing them.

So one more time, how are you going to stop them?

Seems you believe we should revoke laws against bank robbery, too, huh....you dunce.

If the bank being robbed was inside a woman's body, and she was the one "robbing" it, yeah - we should revoke such a law.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Reporter stunned as top abortionist admits he has no problem killing ‘babies’
A top US abortionist has left a BBC reporter lost for words after admitting he has no problem killing “babies.”

Here's the problem you guys have.

The women the fetuses are inside have no problem killing them.

So one more time, how are you going to stop them?

Seems you believe we should revoke laws against bank robbery, too, huh....you dunce.

If the bank being robbed was inside a woman's body, and she was the one "robbing" it, yeah - we should revoke such a law.

What a stupid response.

You blood thirsty savages will do anything to validate the murders you desire, huh?

Too bad you never had the upbringing teaching you the difference between right and wrong.

Too late now, dunce.

 

[dblack]

"Reporter stunned as top abortionist admits he has no problem killing ‘babies’
A top US abortionist has left a BBC reporter lost for words after admitting he has no problem killing “babies.”

Here's the problem you guys have.

The women the fetuses are inside have no problem killing them.

So one more time, how are you going to stop them?

Seems you believe we should revoke laws against bank robbery, too, huh....you dunce.

If the bank being robbed was inside a woman's body, and she was the one "robbing" it, yeah - we should revoke such a law.

What a stupid response.

Good answer, good answer!

 

[JoeB131]

Seems you believe we should revoke laws against bank robbery, too, huh....you dunce.

Here's the thing about it..

ANd you keep ignoring this because you are a dishonest person, I guess..

We can enforce laws against bank robberies because everyone agrees robbing banks is wrong. Witnesses will testify, cops will arrest, prosecutors will prosecute and juries WILL convict.

We aren't there with abortion.

I'm sorry you are dense to realize it, so let me make the question more clear to you.

CONSIDERING THAT 70% OF THE POPULATION THINKS ABORTION IS ACCEPTABLE AT LEAST UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ENFORCE YOUR LAW?

 

[JoeB131]

What a stupid response.

You blood thirsty savages will do anything to validate the murders you desire, huh?

Too bad you never had the upbringing teaching you the difference between right and wrong.

Too late now, dunce.

But this is the problem. Not everyone agree with you that abortion is wrong.

IN fact, most people disagree with you.

Under certain circumstances, abortion can be a GOOD thing.

So one more time, how are you going to enforce a law that the majority disagrees with?

Again, I give you the example of the Philippines, where there is more agreement that abortion is wrong than here, but they STILL have 500-800K illegal abortions a year....

 

[Taz]

View attachment 265141

A Mooselimb meme would say: I made it! Now my father can sell me!

 

[Taz]

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

Ripping viable children out of their mothers and selling their body parts to research ghouls is your idea of "free society"? you are one sick fuck, boy.

So what exactly would you do? I hear lots of bitchin' but not very often any solutions to stop abortions from happening.

 

[Taz]

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.

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


I believe this summarizes the OP.

How do they deal with abortion in North Korea?

 

[dblack]

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.

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


I believe this summarizes the OP.

How do they deal with abortion in North Korea?

It's only legal there after birth.