True conservatives are pro-choice

[manifold]

I Conservative generally supports government interference where many social matters (Gay Marriage, Abortion, Nation Building, etc) are concerned, but does not support government interference where financial or economic matters are concerned.

What you describe is a neocon, not a true conservative.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For your edification, here's a tidbit of reality you evidently never learned:

Analogies are supposed to be predicated on analogs.

Well if you want to argue that 2 human cells are a person, feel free.

Then enlighten us. What, exactly, is a person?

My personal definition of a person is a human who has been born, who is no longer a fetus. The differentiation to me - on topic - is that upon being born the human acquires certain rights and protections that it did not have as a fetus.

 

[Vast LWC]

I Conservative generally supports government interference where many social matters (Gay Marriage, Abortion, Nation Building, etc) are concerned, but does not support government interference where financial or economic matters are concerned.

What you describe is a neocon, not a true conservative.

Actually, I believe I am correct. I have several friends who are both Libertarians and Conservatives, and they agree on the distinction.

If you are in support of no governmental interference in anything, then you would probably be labeled as more of a Libertarian, if you choose to be labeled.

True Liberals, on the other hand, are for the most part, in support of governmental control over economic matters and regulation, while being firmly against regulation of social matters.

And at the fourth corner of the political spectrum we have totalitarians, who support strong governmental interference in both social and economic matters.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Conservative is a generally term. There is no true conservative. You can either be a retarded prick who wants the old standards of racism, sexism, and religious fundamentalism to come back or you don't think the government can afford anyting but they can afford to give out tax cuts.

Liberal is a generally term. There is no true liberal. You can either be a retarded prick who wants the new standards of racism, sexism, and anti-religious hatred instituted through political correctness or you think the government should run everything and control everyone.

 

[asterism]

Well if you want to argue that 2 human cells are a person, feel free.

Then enlighten us. What, exactly, is a person?

My personal definition of a person is a human who has been born, who is no longer a fetus. The differentiation to me - on topic - is that upon being born the human acquires certain rights and protections that it did not have as a fetus.

So what are your thoughts on those killed after they were born?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then enlighten us. What, exactly, is a person?

My personal definition of a person is a human who has been born, who is no longer a fetus. The differentiation to me - on topic - is that upon being born the human acquires certain rights and protections that it did not have as a fetus.

So what are your thoughts on those killed after they were born?

You mean what? Fetuses that are being aborted that are still alive after being removed from the mother? That's not a birth it's an abortion.

 

[Liability]

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.

wrong, this is not a real conservative.This is authoritarian-social conservative, the retarded cousin of conservatives.

Actually, while I see your general point, I fear you are confusing your terms. What you are describing is a Libertarian, not a Conservative.

I Conservative generally supports government interference where many social matters (Gay Marriage, Abortion, Nation Building, etc) are concerned, but does not support government interference where financial or economic matters are concerned.

A Libertarian does not support any interference period.

That's why, even though I'm of the leftish persuasion, I have a good amount of respect for people like Ron Paul.

I think your definition of "conservative" is self-serving from the perspective of partisan liberals. I am a conservative. While I know several libertarians, and I tend to respect their logical consistency on many matters, I do not agree with their political conclusions all the time. I am a conservative (Gumby insists I am just a neocon, but he too suffers from an inability to define his terms, and he's wrong).

There ARE some matters of what YOU call "social matters" which may come within the ambit of appropriate governmental concern. But there are also some of those matters that, in my estimation, simply do not.

Again, conservatives do not march in lock step. Conservatism is not a monolithic entity. It is not the conclusion one reaches that is the hallmark of one's conservative political philosophy. It is the commitment to principles in general.

I am assuming that many folks who would put on themselves the label of "liberal" or "progressive" (or whatever) would also choose to say that they do so on the basis of their general principles.

My political beliefs put me outside the group that SOME folks call "conservatives" because I come to my own conclusions. I am mostly what a social conservative would call "pro-life," for example, yet my willingness to embrace some exceptions would make some of them disown me entirely as a conservative. I am not interested very much in the labels. I am more interested in the principles and where the logic takes us. At the same time, I do not shrink from exceptions that may not always be defensible entirely on the basis of pure logic.

 

[JBeukema]

To say that a human egg upon fertilization is a person is like saying that the blueprint for a building is a building.

It isn't 'like' a human being. It is a human being by definition.

as for 'person', I've explained my views here

 

[JBeukema]

To say that a human egg upon fertilization is a person is like saying that the blueprint for a building is a building.

Uh-huh...nevermind the building process that has been mapped by the Blueprint of DNA.

Idiots as you are clueless...and destroy to suit your whim...regardless.

So I guess one human sperm cell and one human egg cell are a person, simply waiting to be assembled.

Now you're just being an idiot

 

[JBeukema]

Well if you want to argue that 2 human cells are a person, feel free.

Argue that your multi cells are an arm or a leg...they disgust you...LOP them off.

Abortion is legal.

So was slavery

What's your point?

 

[JBeukema]

To say that a human egg upon fertilization is a person is like saying that the blueprint for a building is a building.

Or an acorn is a tree.

And for all the ones that want their state or city to decide...too bad. A woman's body either is hers to govern or it isn't. A state can't make rules that take away constitutionally given rights.

The constitution doesn't give anyone any rights, retard

 

[JBeukema]

Hmmmm...See also Obamacare Death Panels and Government PAYING FOR ABORTIONS

Idiot.

Asshole, there are no death panels and the government doesn't pay for abortions. But insurance should since it is a valid medical procedure.

Idiot...and Taxpayers shouldn't be supporting DEATH for convenience...

*looks over at Kuwait*

 

[NYcarbineer]

To say that a human egg upon fertilization is a person is like saying that the blueprint for a building is a building.

Or an acorn is a tree.

And for all the ones that want their state or city to decide...too bad. A woman's body either is hers to govern or it isn't. A state can't make rules that take away constitutionally given rights.

The constitution doesn't give anyone any rights, retard

Then they mis-named it the Bill of Rights?

 

[JBeukema]

Irony, thy name is JB.

You are 100% correct, most people cannot discuss the issue honestly, including you when you equate abortion with someone invading your home and putting a bullet in your head.

Both are, by definition, homicide

S: (n) homicide (the killing of a human being by another human being)

Care to explain the difference?

The probem with the definition you use is that one can use this to say someone protecting themselves by killing their attacker is commiting homicide.

They are. By definition.

Also to say a woman that gets an abortion because her life is in danger if she continues the pregnancy is saying she is commiting homicide by protecting herself.

She is. By definition.

So when is 'the killing of a human being by another human being' NOT homicide?

Never. That's the ******* definition of homicide, you illiterate twit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Argue that your multi cells are an arm or a leg...they disgust you...LOP them off.

Abortion is legal.

So was slavery

What's your point?

My point is that abortion is legal. There was once no Constitution. What is your point?

 

[JBeukema]

Or an acorn is a tree.

And for all the ones that want their state or city to decide...too bad. A woman's body either is hers to govern or it isn't. A state can't make rules that take away constitutionally given rights.

The constitution doesn't give anyone any rights, retard

Then they mis-named it the Bill of Rights?

You fail Civics 101

go back to the 6th grade and get a clue

 

[NYcarbineer]

Uh-huh...nevermind the building process that has been mapped by the Blueprint of DNA.

Idiots as you are clueless...and destroy to suit your whim...regardless.

So I guess one human sperm cell and one human egg cell are a person, simply waiting to be assembled.

Now you're just being an idiot

Do you believe that a 2 cell human zygote ought to be treated as though it's a person, in reference to all the rights, protections, etc., that a person in the U.S. generally enjoys?

 

[JBeukema]

Abortion is legal.

So was slavery

What's your point?

My point is that abortion is legal. There was once no Constitution. What is your point?

Just noting that you're an imbecile

 

[JBeukema]

So I guess one human sperm cell and one human egg cell are a person, simply waiting to be assembled.

Now you're just being an idiot

Do you believe that a 2 cell human zygote ought to be treated as though it's a person, in reference to all the rights, protections, etc., that a person in the U.S. generally enjoys?

I've already said that being human is neither necessary nor sufficient; same with being alive.

Go back and ready my posts in this thread

 

[JBeukema]

Well if you want to argue that 2 human cells are a person, feel free.

Then enlighten us. What, exactly, is a person?

My personal definition of a person is a human who has been born, who is no longer a fetus. The differentiation to me - on topic - is that upon being born the human acquires certain rights and protections that it did not have as a fetus.

What changes about the child's fundamental nature as it leaves the womb?

How is it any different than 10 seconds earlier that means it now has rights and didn't ten seconds ago?