True conservatives are pro-choice

[Liability]

Abortion is death, nobody deserves to die, the least of all, those living inside the womb, its torture, pure and simple, abortion is torture.

And what would you call forced pregnancy?

What do you call deflection.

In fairness, I'm not sure that was actually deflection.

It appears to have been just another way of noting that the problem is extremely thorny and that any resolution comes with very real problems.

 

[mdn2000]

ha, ha, ha, Liberal, Conservative, Neo-Con, whats with all the labels, why is it there is a group of people who must have a label for everyone. Is it not bigots who label people. Why force people into specific groups that must be defeated.

An endless argument of who people are, this never addresses the issue which is a strategy. Its like trying to shoot a moving target.

Some people in one post make a dozen accusations, if I or anyone else cannot refute every accusation we are the problem and some people proclaim they are the righteous. I use the same tactic, list a hundred facts about what I oppose and the post will be either ignored or I will be called derogatory names.

I can pretty much agree with most of this, I was just pointing out that if you are going to categorize people, you might as well be accurate about it, but then you say this:

The only thing clear is there is no compromise with the leftist liberal marxist activists. Maybe they are a small group but they are in power and proclaim to represent every Democrat.

Which directly contradicts your opening statement. I must admit, I find that to be a bit confusing.

Compromise on abortion, there is no such thing, when does life start and idiots change the debate to is an egg or sperm a human and why are we hypocrites.

Logic seems to escape these people as does fact.

There is no compromise, show me a thread were the activist liberal is compromising.

And here, I disagree. There is in fact a compromise. If we were to define life as the point at which, say, brain activity begins, that would in fact be a compromise.

The fact is that the people on both sides of this debate don't WANT there to be a compromise. It's too easy for them to use this issue as a distraction from other issues.

They will not compromise on one point, they never will, there is only one solution for us. No compromise on any issue. They are wrong we are right.

Whats the worst that happens if we prevent murder of children and teach the mothers and fathers how great children are, I guess those having babies will have to work hard and raise a family, as humans have since time began.

What is the worst that this crazy far right radical religious notion of life begins after sex, what is the worst will happen, what crazy radical thing will happen, a kid that made a choice to have sex gets to live with the gift of a baby, child, a human that will love the person forever.

That is just a radical view, to let live which begins to live. Crazy and dangerous, right. Call me radical, no compromise with those who have proven they will never compromise until they destroy what they have been taught to hate.

No more compromise, for what, so we have to defend sperm and eggs, who is the radical nut jobs.

Its clear to me.

Again, I believe there can be a compromise. The point of a compromise is that not everyone is completely satisfied because each side gives something up.

This seems to be rare response.

I am not always clear in the points I attempt to make, I did fail English in High School.

The only thing clear is there is no compromise with the leftist liberal marxist activists. Maybe they are a small group but they are in power and proclaim to represent every Democrat

Which directly contradicts your opening statement. I must admit, I find that to be a bit confusing.

Yes, this does not read as I thought, I am being constantly being interrupted by 5.5 yr old fetus and a 4 yr old fetus we failed to abort purposely. (don't take that wrong, just thought of this, not a response to you).

In that statement I did not make it clear but I am asking/stating that within the Democrats, a small group seem to be very vocal and thus seem to me to control the debate. At least on the message boards, I am not sure how the debate shapes up politically if its discussed at all. But on this board there are a select few, you seem to speak the loudest and carry or represent the view of Democrats, is this a small group within and who are these people. Are they actual democrats, or are they Liberals, are they Marxist, who are they. What is clear is the Democrat party is fast changing. I can not see the Democrat party ever being the same it ever was. So who are these people, the new Democrat party represented by Marxist or are they plain old Liberals. I guess I am asking who are those who are most vocal and in my opinion, extreme.

Yes compromise, I see billions spent on education, will we ever reach a point when people have the education to avoid the consequences of their actions. Pregnancy is the result of actions people take. Personal responsibility is living with the consequence despite ones age or position within society. As it is now, I see everything and everyone stating nothing is worst than being pregnant, as if its a civil rights issue for woman to let nature take its course. Being forced to carry to term. My wife suffered being pregnant but she also deeply, sadly, misses having a living, kicking, baby inside her. Something I will never know being a man.

Yes compromise, I say the compromise is based on the number of years we allow this atrocity continue. Abortion has been legal for decades, I compromise, its time to end abortion. People had the right to abort for decades, now its time to just let nature take its course and force people to be responsible for their actions.

No abortion is the healthy alternative. How much should I compromise on the health of Woman.

I do not believe woman should give up the ability to have babies and that is exactly the consequence for many after an abortion.

Of course we also need to address the health issues, the moral issue in relation to the future psychological state of the woman who has an abortion, its a complicated, drastic, action done to a body.

To literally rip life in any form, brain activity or not, from the body, is literally tearing a person apart in a way nature never intended.

Life is tough, its not meant to be easy, having kids is great, its fun, its natural, even sex does not compare to raising children. Is it better later in life, yes, does that mean we have to be assholes to young people, as in portraying a child as the end of their life, no.

I hope if my boys get a girl pregnant I have the money to make sure regardless of the circumstance that the child is raised by mother and father. Seems if I got taxed a lot less this will not be problem.

government and people have to much control, now we determine when life begins.

Where do I compromise when it comes to allowing government and people determine the beginning of life.

Life begins when man and woman have sex. Life its as early as when every tired little person fails to enter the egg or some point after.

Life begins with sex.

Let me say that again.

Life begins with sex.

 

[DiveCon]

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?

irony

 

[DiveCon]

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

A state can't make rules that take away constitutionally protected rights. End.

the point of the "bill of rights" wasnt to GIVE rights to anyone
it pointed out rights people already HAD and limited the governments infringement of said rights

 

[DiveCon]

Abortion is death, nobody deserves to die, the least of all, those living inside the womb, its torture, pure and simple, abortion is torture.

And what would you call forced pregnancy?

if the woman was raped, you have a point
if not, she partook of the act to become pregnant
she had her choice

 

[Ravi]

The constitution doesn't give anyone any rights, retard

A state can't make rules that take away constitutionally protected rights. End.

Protected. Not granted.

Maybe there's hope for you after all.

I'll take that as your concession.

 

[Ravi]

If they were honest, true supporters of abortion would not use innocent sounding words like "pro-choice". "Elective killing" might be a better term or "the hiring of technicians to end the life of the unborn" but that's too long and too graphic for the little girls who might be facing the decision.

Yeah, and I like to call pro-choice people forced-birthers.

 

[Ravi]

The constitution doesn't give anyone any rights, retard

A state can't make rules that take away constitutionally protected rights. End.

the point of the "bill of rights" wasnt to GIVE rights to anyone
it pointed out rights people already HAD and limited the governments infringement of said rights

However you want to phrase it or however you believe it, a state cannot take away a federal constitutional right.

 

[manifold]

If they were honest, true supporters of abortion would not use innocent sounding words like "pro-choice". "Elective killing" might be a better term or "the hiring of technicians to end the life of the unborn" but that's too long and too graphic for the little girls who might be facing the decision.

Yeah, and I like to call pro-choice people forced-birthers.

did you mean pro-life?

 

[Ravi]

If they were honest, true supporters of abortion would not use innocent sounding words like "pro-choice". "Elective killing" might be a better term or "the hiring of technicians to end the life of the unborn" but that's too long and too graphic for the little girls who might be facing the decision.

Yeah, and I like to call pro-choice people forced-birthers.

did you mean pro-life?

Yes.

 

[mdn2000]

And what would you call forced pregnancy?

What do you call deflection.

In fairness, I'm not sure that was actually deflection.

It appears to have been just another way of noting that the problem is extremely thorny and that any resolution comes with very real problems.

I was just answering questions with questions, I think thats appropriate, I was not very clever, maybe next time.

 

[mdn2000]

Its late here in Brazil, I am trying to put the Fetuses to sleep.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

Worng.

I'm pretty conservative and I just can't agree with you at all on this subject.

 

[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.

Worng.

I'm pretty conservative and I just can't agree with you at all on this subject.

So what? You apparently cannot even take due note of qualifiers. I was pretty clear in saying that true conservative "might well believe."

I did not say that it was a pre-condition of being a conservative.

Hell, you cannot even say what it is, specifically, that you disagree with.

Seriously. Is it that you think conservatives DON'T generally believe that the proper role of government is to secure life, liberty and our ability to engage in the pursuit of happiness?

As a self-proclaimed "conservative," then, tell me: what do YOU maintain conservatives believe to be the proper role of government?

 

[Hum Dinger]

The issue of abortion should not be a political issue, it should be entirely a judicial issue. It's simple:

If the Fetus is an individual, then they deserve to be protected under the Constitution, if it is not an individual then it does not deserve to be protected under the constitution.

The question really is: "What constitues an individual"?

Though my memory is vague, I believe that in 1974, the courts decided that "viability" was the criteria for determining the point at which the fetus wa sconsidered an individual.

I personally think that "viability" is a lousy standard - totally subjective.

Since 1974, technology has advanced and with it our ability to understand life.

I think that a more objective way of determining the whether a fetus is an individual is by it's DNA:

When a fetus has DNA that is unique from taht of it's mother, it is an individual.

I don't know exactly when that is. It may be within minutes of conception or weeks.

 

[DiveCon]

The issue of abortion should not be a political issue, it should be entirely a judicial issue. It's simple:

If the Fetus is an individual, then they deserve to be protected under the Constitution, if it is not an individual then it does not deserve to be protected under the constitution.

The question really is: "What constitues an individual"?

Though my memory is vague, I believe that in 1974, the courts decided that "viability" was the criteria for determining the point at which the fetus wa sconsidered an individual.

I personally think that "viability" is a lousy standard - totally subjective.

Since 1974, technology has advanced and with it our ability to understand life.

I think that a more objective way of determining the whether a fetus is an individual is by it's DNA:

When a fetus has DNA that is unique from taht of it's mother, it is an individual.

I don't know exactly when that is. It may be within minutes of conception or weeks.

biologically, it has it's own DNA at conception

 

[Liability]

The issue of abortion should not be a political issue, it should be entirely a judicial issue. It's simple:

If the Fetus is an individual, then they deserve to be protected under the Constitution, if it is not an individual then it does not deserve to be protected under the constitution.

The question really is: "What constitues an individual"?

Though my memory is vague, I believe that in 1974, the courts decided that "viability" was the criteria for determining the point at which the fetus wa sconsidered an individual.

I personally think that "viability" is a lousy standard - totally subjective.

Since 1974, technology has advanced and with it our ability to understand life.

I think that a more objective way of determining the whether a fetus is an individual is by it's DNA:

When a fetus has DNA that is unique from taht of it's mother, it is an individual.

I don't know exactly when that is. It may be within minutes of conception or weeks.

biologically, it has it's own DNA at conception

True, but it has not yet graduated medical school ... so ....

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

This is correct.
The only time you have the right to end a human life in in self-defense.
Abortion on demand is not self-defense.
:shrug:

 

[JBeukema]

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?

Because it was still a fetus.

That's like saying it's still magma and not lava. I didn't ask you where it happens to be located. I asked what fundamental aspect of its nature has changed.

Now, let's hear from you when you believe a fetus becomes a person who is from a legal view equivalent to a child who has in fact been born.

Where do you set that point?

Not applicable. Just because a child has been born doesn't mean it suddenly has any rights. Nor being half-born, or having one cell outside the womb. Location is of no more relevance than being alive or being genetically human.

I've gone over this several times in this thread. A 'person' is a sentient mind. Whether the system from which that mind arises is biological and, if so, whether it is human, is of little to no import. 'Persons'- that is, the ego or the sentient self- differ from one another not on the basis of the systems from which they emerge but on the presence of higher functions, thought, and intellect.

Ergo, a person exists when the mind exists. Since we cannot measure this directly in utero, we must err on the side of caution and draw the line at the point at which all necessary structures for the emergence of sentience in the system are present. As discussed in several other threads, this happens to fall very near the end of first trimester or perhaps a tad later, based on our current scientific knowledge. That is why, while Roe v. Wade should be thrown out and re-heard on other grounds, I support a law very much like what Roe v. Wade brought into effect.

 

[JBeukema]

There is nothing that prevents the State from taking away your rights.

Infringing your rights does not mean you no longer have rights

Classical Liberalism 101, genius


It's the entire premise of COTUS