Liberals On Abortion

[Chuz Life]

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.

The left has misrepresented Roe v Wade, the landmark case on abortion. The Sup Ct did not say all abortions are legal. They said no state may ban abortion for the 1st 3 months of pregnancy. After that, the states may regulate abortion as they see fit.

That is not entirely accurate, either.

 

[pknopp]

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 thos ite 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.

The left has misrepresented Roe v Wade, the landmark case on abortion. The Sup Ct did not say all abortions are legal. They said no state may ban abortion for the 1st 3 months of pregnancy. After that, the states may regulate abortion as they see fit.

That's not what it says either. It states that regulations may be put in place during the 2nd trimester in the interest of the woman. The third allowed restrictions in the interest of the fetus.

 

[Chuz Life]

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 thos ite 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.

The left has misrepresented Roe v Wade, the landmark case on abortion. The Sup Ct did not say all abortions are legal. They said no state may ban abortion for the 1st 3 months of pregnancy. After that, the states may regulate abortion as they see fit.

That's not what it says either. It states that regulations may be put in place during the 2nd trimester in the interest of the woman. The third allowed restrictions in the interest of the fetus.

The Supreme Court said that States have the authority (I would add the responsibility) to regulate abortions when it (any State) has a compelling interest in the preservation of the child's life.

 

[alang1216]

Fucktard, zoom in.

The sperm in your image is OUTSIDE of the fucking egg.

Derp.

News flash, human fertilization involves millions (billions? trillions?) of sperm. You see one outside and assume there are none inside? You know what happens when you assume?

Fuckingtard. . . If the image that you posted is meant to illustrate a person in the zygote stage of their life, it fails to do so. Deceptively.

THIS is an example of the image of what you describe.

View attachment 353816

Note the difference.

The point you'll never get is that a human egg, fertilized or not, is not a person. Just like the chicken egg, fertilized or not, is not a chicken.

 

[Chuz Life]

Fucktard, zoom in.

The sperm in your image is OUTSIDE of the fucking egg.

Derp.

News flash, human fertilization involves millions (billions? trillions?) of sperm. You see one outside and assume there are none inside? You know what happens when you assume?

Fuckingtard. . . If the image that you posted is meant to illustrate a person in the zygote stage of their life, it fails to do so. Deceptively.

THIS is an example of the image of what you describe.

View attachment 353816

Note the difference.

The point you'll never get is that a human egg, fertilized or not, is not a person. Just like the chicken egg, fertilized or not, is not a chicken.

The point that YOU will never fucking get is that BIOLOGICALLY, a person in the first days of their life is "a PERSON" even in the first days of their life and BIOLOGICALLY, a chicken in the first days of it's life is in fact a CHICKEN, even in the first days of its life.

Your incessant denial of the biological facts is not going to change those facts.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fucktard, zoom in.

The sperm in your image is OUTSIDE of the fucking egg.

Derp.

News flash, human fertilization involves millions (billions? trillions?) of sperm. You see one outside and assume there are none inside? You know what happens when you assume?

Fuckingtard. . . If the image that you posted is meant to illustrate a person in the zygote stage of their life, it fails to do so. Deceptively.

THIS is an example of the image of what you describe.

View attachment 353816

Note the difference.

The point you'll never get is that a human egg, fertilized or not, is not a person. Just like the chicken egg, fertilized or not, is not a chicken.

What would that 'egg' be if you didn't interfere by murdering it?

 

[alang1216]

Fucktard, zoom in.

The sperm in your image is OUTSIDE of the fucking egg.

Derp.

News flash, human fertilization involves millions (billions? trillions?) of sperm. You see one outside and assume there are none inside? You know what happens when you assume?

Fuckingtard. . . If the image that you posted is meant to illustrate a person in the zygote stage of their life, it fails to do so. Deceptively.

THIS is an example of the image of what you describe.

View attachment 353816

Note the difference.

The point you'll never get is that a human egg, fertilized or not, is not a person. Just like the chicken egg, fertilized or not, is not a chicken.

The point that YOU will never fucking get is that BIOLOGICALLY, a person in the first days of their life is "a PERSON" even in the first days of their life and BIOLOGICALLY, a chicken in the first days of it's life is in fact a CHICKEN, even in the first days of its life.

Your incessant denial of the biological facts is not going to change those facts.

The point you'll never get is that a person is MORE than their biology. It is a factor but not the most important factor. Identical twins share a biology but they are still different persons.

 

[Chuz Life]

The point you'll never get is that a person is MORE than their biology. It is a factor but not the most important factor. Identical twins share a biology but they are still different persons.

You ass-u-me, incorrectly, that identical (sic) twins are actually, absolutely identical.

Newsflash.

They aren't.

Go ahead, show us how simple minded you are, some more.

Double down on it.

You are being a great foil for me to use to educate others.

 

[alang1216]

Fucktard, zoom in.

The sperm in your image is OUTSIDE of the fucking egg.

Derp.

News flash, human fertilization involves millions (billions? trillions?) of sperm. You see one outside and assume there are none inside? You know what happens when you assume?

Fuckingtard. . . If the image that you posted is meant to illustrate a person in the zygote stage of their life, it fails to do so. Deceptively.

THIS is an example of the image of what you describe.

View attachment 353816

Note the difference.

The point you'll never get is that a human egg, fertilized or not, is not a person. Just like the chicken egg, fertilized or not, is not a chicken.

What would that 'egg' be if you didn't interfere by murdering it?

It would be something it is currently not. That egg has DNA that is like a blueprint for a building. If I left that blueprint alone it might become a home someday but that blueprint is not a home.

 

[Kondor3]

None of this $hit matters in the slightest...

Abortion is a side-show compared to other issues at-stake here...

The vacuum of leadership by Rump during multiple national crises is enough to sideline a great many issues that would figure more prominently in normal times.

He's toast on November 3rd, and we'll be well-rid of the critter on January 20, 2021...

All the whining and kvetching about abortion and illegal aliens and foreign trade and jobs isn't going to do you the slightest bit of good this year...

Your boy is genuinely unfit for the high office which he presently occupies, and the Republic is preparing to make a Market Correction in that context.

 

[Chuz Life]

Fucktard, zoom in.

The sperm in your image is OUTSIDE of the fucking egg.

Derp.

News flash, human fertilization involves millions (billions? trillions?) of sperm. You see one outside and assume there are none inside? You know what happens when you assume?

Fuckingtard. . . If the image that you posted is meant to illustrate a person in the zygote stage of their life, it fails to do so. Deceptively.

THIS is an example of the image of what you describe.

View attachment 353816

Note the difference.

The point you'll never get is that a human egg, fertilized or not, is not a person. Just like the chicken egg, fertilized or not, is not a chicken.

What would that 'egg' be if you didn't interfere by murdering it?

It would be something it is currently not. That egg has DNA that is like a blueprint for a building. If I left that blueprint alone it might become a home someday but that blueprint is not a home.

Simpleton is as simpleton does.

Do you honestly think equating a non organism (like a building) with an actual living organism (like a child in the first stages of development) is going to logically play out in your favor?

Here's a fun fact for you, if "buildings" were organism's and their lives AS ORGANISMS began with the successful union of a nail and a piece of wood (for example) and they grew and developed from that point on?

You might just have something to compare.

I'm betting you already know the level of your deceit though. Don't you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fucktard, zoom in.

The sperm in your image is OUTSIDE of the fucking egg.

Derp.

News flash, human fertilization involves millions (billions? trillions?) of sperm. You see one outside and assume there are none inside? You know what happens when you assume?

Fuckingtard. . . If the image that you posted is meant to illustrate a person in the zygote stage of their life, it fails to do so. Deceptively.

THIS is an example of the image of what you describe.

View attachment 353816

Note the difference.

The point you'll never get is that a human egg, fertilized or not, is not a person. Just like the chicken egg, fertilized or not, is not a chicken.

What would that 'egg' be if you didn't interfere by murdering it?

It would be something it is currently not. That egg has DNA that is like a blueprint for a building. If I left that blueprint alone it might become a home someday but that blueprint is not a home.

I understand why you are afraid to provide the clear and obvious answer to that question.

It reveals you as the savage you are.

 

[alang1216]

Fucktard, zoom in.

The sperm in your image is OUTSIDE of the fucking egg.

Derp.

News flash, human fertilization involves millions (billions? trillions?) of sperm. You see one outside and assume there are none inside? You know what happens when you assume?

Fuckingtard. . . If the image that you posted is meant to illustrate a person in the zygote stage of their life, it fails to do so. Deceptively.

THIS is an example of the image of what you describe.

View attachment 353816

Note the difference.

The point you'll never get is that a human egg, fertilized or not, is not a person. Just like the chicken egg, fertilized or not, is not a chicken.

What would that 'egg' be if you didn't interfere by murdering it?

It would be something it is currently not. That egg has DNA that is like a blueprint for a building. If I left that blueprint alone it might become a home someday but that blueprint is not a home.

Simpleton is as simpleton does.

Do you honestly think equating a non organism (like a building) with an actual living organism (like a child in the first stages of development) is going to logically play out in your favor?

Here's a fun fact for you, if "buildings" were organism's and their lives AS ORGANISMS began with the successful union of a nail and a piece of wood (for example) and they grew and developed from that point on?

You might just have something to compare.

I'm betting you already know the level of your deceit though. Don't you.

Buildings don't just 'develop' but neither does life. Both building and egg need an externally provided and maintained construction site/womb with a constant supply of raw materials.

 

[alang1216]

Fucktard, zoom in.

The sperm in your image is OUTSIDE of the fucking egg.

Derp.

News flash, human fertilization involves millions (billions? trillions?) of sperm. You see one outside and assume there are none inside? You know what happens when you assume?

Fuckingtard. . . If the image that you posted is meant to illustrate a person in the zygote stage of their life, it fails to do so. Deceptively.

THIS is an example of the image of what you describe.

View attachment 353816

Note the difference.

The point you'll never get is that a human egg, fertilized or not, is not a person. Just like the chicken egg, fertilized or not, is not a chicken.

What would that 'egg' be if you didn't interfere by murdering it?

It would be something it is currently not. That egg has DNA that is like a blueprint for a building. If I left that blueprint alone it might become a home someday but that blueprint is not a home.

I understand why you are afraid to provide the clear and obvious answer to that question.

It reveals you as the savage you are.

Was there anything in my post that was not 100% accurate?

Is tearing up a blueprint the same as blowing up a house?

 

[Chuz Life]

Buildings don't just 'develop' but neither does life. Both building and egg need an externally provided and maintained construction site/womb with a constant supply of raw materials.

Are buildings "organism's" fucktard?

Yes or no.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Fucktard, zoom in.

The sperm in your image is OUTSIDE of the fucking egg.

Derp.

News flash, human fertilization involves millions (billions? trillions?) of sperm. You see one outside and assume there are none inside? You know what happens when you assume?

Fuckingtard. . . If the image that you posted is meant to illustrate a person in the zygote stage of their life, it fails to do so. Deceptively.

THIS is an example of the image of what you describe.

View attachment 353816

Note the difference.

The point you'll never get is that a human egg, fertilized or not, is not a person. Just like the chicken egg, fertilized or not, is not a chicken.

What would that 'egg' be if you didn't interfere by murdering it?

It would be something it is currently not. That egg has DNA that is like a blueprint for a building. If I left that blueprint alone it might become a home someday but that blueprint is not a home.

I understand why you are afraid to provide the clear and obvious answer to that question.

It reveals you as the savage you are.

Was there anything in my post that was not 100% accurate?

Is tearing up a blueprint the same as blowing up a house?

You Leftists equate human beings with inanimate objects......astounding.


What ever happened to upbringing, values, class???????

 

[Chuz Life]

Fucktard, zoom in.

The sperm in your image is OUTSIDE of the fucking egg.

Derp.

News flash, human fertilization involves millions (billions? trillions?) of sperm. You see one outside and assume there are none inside? You know what happens when you assume?

Fuckingtard. . . If the image that you posted is meant to illustrate a person in the zygote stage of their life, it fails to do so. Deceptively.

THIS is an example of the image of what you describe.

View attachment 353816

Note the difference.

The point you'll never get is that a human egg, fertilized or not, is not a person. Just like the chicken egg, fertilized or not, is not a chicken.

What would that 'egg' be if you didn't interfere by murdering it?

It would be something it is currently not. That egg has DNA that is like a blueprint for a building. If I left that blueprint alone it might become a home someday but that blueprint is not a home.

I understand why you are afraid to provide the clear and obvious answer to that question.

It reveals you as the savage you are.

Was there anything in my post that was not 100% accurate?

Is tearing up a blueprint the same as blowing up a house?

You Leftists equate human beings with inanimate objects......astounding.


What ever happened to upbringing, values, class???????

One has to wonder if they believe the shit they post? Clearly, they haven't put much thought into any of it. They make no attempt to reconcile any inconsistencies, take things to their logical conclusion or even answer any of their own questions.

 

[alang1216]

Buildings don't just 'develop' but neither does life. Both building and egg need an externally provided and maintained construction site/womb with a constant supply of raw materials.

Are buildings "organism's" fucktard?

Yes or no.

a·nal·o·gy /əˈnaləjē/

noun

1. a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
   "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
   • a correspondence or partial similarity.
     "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
   • a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
     "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

 

[Chuz Life]

Buildings don't just 'develop' but neither does life. Both building and egg need an externally provided and maintained construction site/womb with a constant supply of raw materials.

Are buildings "organism's" fucktard?

Yes or no.

a·nal·o·gy /əˈnaləjē/

noun

1. a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
   "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
   • a correspondence or partial similarity.
     "the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
   • a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
     "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"

Definition of equivocation

: deliberate evasiveness in wording : the use of ambiguous or equivocal language

Example of equivocation: "Is tearing up a blueprint the same as blowing up a house?" - Used to deny the fact that a child in the first days of their life is a CHILD in the first days of their life.

 

[alang1216]

Definition of equivocation

: deliberate evasiveness in wording : the use of ambiguous or equivocal language

Example of equivocation: "Is tearing up a blueprint the same as blowing up a house?" - Used to deny the fact that a child in the first days of their life is a CHILD in the first days of their life.

No equivocation, I clearly stated my position and provided an analogy. You don't agree but you do understand me if not:

A fertilized egg is NOT a PERSON. IMHO of course.