True conservatives are pro-choice

[JBeukema]

The problem with abortion is that none of you asses on either side can ever be honest when discussing it.

Already we have someone denying that a living human organism is alive and human.

 

[JBeukema]

I disagree.

It all comes down to when you believe life begins.

Such is a scientific question and not subject to opinion or debate.

If you believe it begins at conception,

A new living organism comes into being with conception.

By definition.

Such is scientific fact and not open for argument or subject to opinon any more than whether Earth is flat or roughly spherical.

Revised: when human life begins.

A new living human organism comes into existence at conception.

That is a demonstrable scientific fact and is not open for debate or opinion any more than whether water is water.

It is alive. It is genetically human. It is a distinct organism unto itself.

These are demonstrable scientific facts.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Perhaps 'true' conservatives are pro-choice, perhaps not. The important question is, why should anyone care if they are a 'true' conservative? Believe in what you think is right, not what fits in some convenient label.

I agree completely.

Just pointing out the fallacy of claiming pro-life is a conservative ideal.

Actually, your entire argument is a complete fallacy as I already explained:

There is only one big problem with the EXTREME STUPIDITY AND IGNORANCE of arguing pro-abortion means less government.

That's because abortion came into being BECAUSE OF BIG GOVERNMENT.

Prior to that, the federal government had nothing to do with it. As in agreement with the 10th amendment, each state had it's OWN LAWS on abortion.

Roe v. Wade came into being because the Jane Roe in question sued the STATE OF TEXAS (not the federal government) over the question. She now admits SHE LIED in her brief. Claiming she had been raped, when she had not. BTW, the "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade is now AGAINST abortion.

Roe v. Wade was BIG GOVERNMENT legislating from the bench, where before each state had it's own laws.

Because of this legislating from the bench, IN VIOLATION OF THE 10TH AMENDMENT, abortion became a law forced on the country.

IF those against big government mean what they say, Roe v. Wade SHOULD BE REPEALED and the question returned to each of our sundry staates.

Now WATCH THE LIBERAL HYPOCRITES SUPPOSEDLY PUSHING LESS GOVERNMENT squeal like stuck pigs against THAT.

The LAST thing they want is that question returned to where it should be in our constitution and left up to the PEOPLE, and the legislatures in each state to decide.

Why? Because they know abortion could be made illegal in some states, especially more conservative states. It has NEVER been allowed to be decided by the actual people since the Unconstitutional Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade IS BIG GOVERNMENT, not less.

You liberal phonies who supposedly want less government, what say you now?

Watch this guys. They will either!

A) Attack me personally, because they know they can't really deny this.

B) Spin like hell trying to lie their way out of this.

C) Ignore this completely because they know it blows their lie out of the water.

Watch the fun.

 

[JBeukema]

That's because abortion came into being BECAUSE OF BIG GOVERNMENT.

Yes... abortifacients were never used before *insert evil illuminati big government program here*

 

[manifold]

The problem with abortion is that none of you asses on either side can ever be honest when discussing it.

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.

 

[uscitizen]

I disagree.

It all comes down to when you believe life begins.

Such is a scientific question and not subject to opinion or debate.

If you believe it begins at conception,

A new living organism comes into being with conception.

By definition.

Such is scientific fact and not open for argument or subject to opinon any more than whether Earth is flat or roughly spherical.

so why do not laws thaty protect born children also protect the unborn?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Such is a scientific question and not subject to opinion or debate.

A new living organism comes into being with conception.

By definition.

Such is scientific fact and not open for argument or subject to opinon any more than whether Earth is flat or roughly spherical.

Revised: when human life begins.

A new living human organism comes into existence at conception.

That is a demonstrable scientific fact and is not open for debate or opinion any more than whether water is water.

It is alive. It is genetically human. It is a distinct organism unto itself.

These are demonstrable scientific facts.

Then the law disagrees with you.

 

[DiveCon]

mani is wrong, a true conservative can be both pro-life and pro-choice
what it depends on is how they can justify their stands on the issue

 

[DiveCon]

Revised: when human life begins.

A new living human organism comes into existence at conception.

That is a demonstrable scientific fact and is not open for debate or opinion any more than whether water is water.

It is alive. It is genetically human. It is a distinct organism unto itself.

These are demonstrable scientific facts.

Then the law disagrees with you.

but science does not

 

[manifold]

mani is wrong, a true conservative can be both pro-life and pro-choice
what it depends on is how they can justify their stands on the issue

The only thing I will concede is wrong with my opening supposition is the absolutist language I chose. But without it, I doubt this thread would've gotten off the ground.

But now that it's off the ground, I still maintain that pro-choice is MORE consistent with conservative ideals than pro-life.

 

[JBeukema]

The problem with abortion is that none of you asses on either side can ever be honest when discussing it.

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?

 

[Liability]

A new living human organism comes into existence at conception.

That is a demonstrable scientific fact and is not open for debate or opinion any more than whether water is water.

It is alive. It is genetically human. It is a distinct organism unto itself.

These are demonstrable scientific facts.

Then the law disagrees with you.

but science does not

The problem with abortion is that none of you asses on either side can ever be honest when discussing it.

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.

Because the deliberate snuffing out of a human life is not akin to the deliberate snuffing out of a human life.

Yeah.

Great logic there unmanlifold.

 

[manifold]

If the difference isn't obvious, then there is no reason to believe you can be taught it.

 

[JBeukema]

I disagree.

It all comes down to when you believe life begins.

Such is a scientific question and not subject to opinion or debate.

If you believe it begins at conception,

A new living organism comes into being with conception.

By definition.

Such is scientific fact and not open for argument or subject to opinon any more than whether Earth is flat or roughly spherical.

so why do not laws thaty protect born children also protect the unborn?

Why didn't laws that protected whites protect blacks?


Because blacks aren't people? Or weren't? Did they only become human with abolition?

You really want to appeal to whatever the Law might say at any given point?

Surely, you can't be that stupid

 

[Ravi]

Why is it that men always have the strongest opinions regarding abortion? Why do they argue and flail over this topic so much?

 

[JBeukema]

Revised: when human life begins.

A new living human organism comes into existence at conception.

That is a demonstrable scientific fact and is not open for debate or opinion any more than whether water is water.

It is alive. It is genetically human. It is a distinct organism unto itself.

These are demonstrable scientific facts.

Then the law disagrees with you.

The Law once said blacks were 2/3 human for the purposes of the census

The Law once said blacks and women were property

In some places, the Law said Jews weren't human

The Law thinks (or thought; I'm not sure whether it's still on the books) a tomato is a vegetable

You really want to keep digging that hole?

 

[DiveCon]

mani is wrong, a true conservative can be both pro-life and pro-choice
what it depends on is how they can justify their stands on the issue

The only thing I will concede is wrong with my opening supposition is the absolutist language I chose. But without it, I doubt this thread would've gotten off the ground.

But now that it's off the ground, I still maintain that pro-choice is MORE consistent with conservative ideals than pro-life.

i can be both pro-choice and pro-life at the same time
i am pro-life as i believe life begins at conception and as such should be protected
i am pro-choice as i dont believe it is the federal governments position to be imposing laws that restrict the choices individuals can make
that should rest in the state and local governments to decide

 

[DiveCon]

Why is it that men always have the strongest opinions regarding abortion? Why do they argue and flail over this topic so much?

maybe because most men have stronger opinions on just about any subject?

 

[RadiomanATL]

A new living human organism comes into existence at conception.

That is a demonstrable scientific fact and is not open for debate or opinion any more than whether water is water.

It is alive. It is genetically human. It is a distinct organism unto itself.

These are demonstrable scientific facts.

Then the law disagrees with you.

The Law once said blacks were 2/3 human for the purposes of the census

The Law once said blacks and women were property

In some places, the Law said Jews weren't human

The Law thinks (or thought; I'm not sure whether it's still on the books) a tomato is a vegetable

You really want to keep digging that hole?

What hole?

I said in my post that I believe life begins at conception. However, the law disagrees. And obviously it isn't as cut and dried as it seems, otherwise the abortion argument would not have been happening for the last 40 years.

 

[asterism]

I disagree.

It all comes down to when you believe life begins.

Such is a scientific question and not subject to opinion or debate.

If you believe it begins at conception,

A new living organism comes into being with conception.

By definition.

Such is scientific fact and not open for argument or subject to opinon any more than whether Earth is flat or roughly spherical.

so why do not laws thaty protect born children also protect the unborn?

Some do, as in the case of Scott Peterson who was convicted of two murders when he killed his pregnant wife.