Audacity of Truth
Rahmbo:
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
-Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) on Obama's COS, 3/7/10
Velvet Lair- Legends March 18, 2010
- Some things are just not cute March 18, 2010
- The adventures of the lady spider killer continue March 11, 2010
- Intermission February 19, 2010
- People who allow their dogs to poop in other people’s yards February 16, 2010
- Big Government
- Hot Air
- Open thread: House votes coming; Update: Ryan, Pence videos added
- Last gasp: GOP may try to kill the bill by forcing a vote on Stupak’s language; Update: Pro-life group strips Stupak of award
- Pence to Stupak: You traded 30 years of pro-life law for a promise from the most pro-abortion president in history
- Michelle Malkin
- Consequences: Stupak stripped of “Defender of Life” award
- The vote: Open thread; Reports: Dems don’t have the votes; STUPAK CAVES; video flashback: the big lie exposed; 6:04pm Procedural votes underway; 8:20pm Debate turns ugly; 9:50pm Closing statements; Boehner: “Heavy heart;” “Have you read the bill…Hell, no, you haven’t!”
- Wreckonciliation Sunday: The Demcare schedule in the House
- Jake Tapper
- Legal Insurrection
- Lynn Sweet
Red meat post of the day: Emotional liberals versus logical conservatives
I wonder how much hate email John Hawkins will receive after writing this piece:
It takes a lot more integrity, character, and courage to be a conservative than it does to be a liberal. That’s because at its most basic level, liberalism is nothing more than childlike emotionalism applied to adult issues.
Going to war is mean, so we shouldn’t do it. That person is poor and it would be nice to give him money, so the government should do it. Somebody wants to have an abortion, have a gay marriage, or wants to come into the U.S. illegally and it would be mean to say, “no,” so we should let them. I am nice because I care about global warming! Those people want to kill us? But, don’t they know we’re nice? If they did, they would like us! Bill has more toys, money than Harry, so take half of Bill’s money and give it to Harry.
The only exception to this rule is for people who aren’t liberals. They’re racists, bigots, homophobes, Nazis, fascists, etc., etc., etc. They might as well just say that conservatives have “cooties” for disagreeing with them, because there really isn’t any more thought or reasoning that goes into it than that.
Now, that’s not to say that conservatives never make emotion based arguments or that emotion based arguments are always wrong. But, when you try to deal with complex, real world issues, using little more than simplistic emotionalism that’s primarily designed to make the people advocating it feel good rather than to deal with problems, it can, and often has had disastrous consequences. Liberals never seem to learn from this.
Why don’t they learn anything from failed liberal policies? Because there is nothing underpinning them other than feelings and so even when they don’t work, their good intentions are treated, by other liberals at least, as more important than the results of their actions.
Heh. Make sure to read it all.
I’m always amazed at how the left loves to take credit for ‘how great America is.’ You argue with one about how bad liberal ideas are for this country, and they’ll turn right back around and tell you how it was supposedly ‘liberal ideas’ that made this country so great.
Strangely, though, when you play along with their game, and in turn note that some of those same policies – like the “Great Society” programs of the 60s that were supposed to help the poor, decrease illegitimacy rates and disease when in actuality they increased poverty and illegitimacy rates (John noted the stats in his article), and had a disastrous impact on the family – and then ask them to acknowledge that some of their policies have been failures, they won’t accept responsibility for the part they played in it and try to blame conservatives.
Simple translation: all the good things in this country that happened were the result of liberal policies ‘for the people.’ Anything bad that happens is the result of ‘conservative interference.’ Liberals would rather ‘feel good’ about what they do and drone on and on about how they did it out of the goodness of their hearts rather than acknowledge that their ideas were wrong. That’s not a great recipe for learning from your mistakes, but then again, when you can’t acknowledge you’ve made a mistake, it’s not hard to understand why you wouldn’t ‘learn’ from it.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
91 Responses to “Red meat post of the day: Emotional liberals versus logical conservatives”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Lets clarify your thoughts a bit more bob.
What do you consider a baby? A fully fledged human being?
You said:
Cells don’t possess a nervous system, a brain, or any of that.
SO if an unborn baby has a nervous system, or a brain, or “any of that” (maybe a heart beat?) but still is in the womb, do you consider that a human being?
What do you consider “alive”?
heh, never thought I did. But your arguments are complete nonsense. You obviously have no knowledge of baby’s that are still in the uterus.
As far as the liberals and their “feelings” go. The only reason that there is an argument as to whether or not a baby is alive from conception, from birth, or from in between is because there are people that don’t want to take responsibility for having sex. They have a tendency to bring up the case of women that are raped, and how they shouldn’t have to live with a constant reminder of person who raped them in the form of a living breathing child. This is a pathetic argument without meaning, just like the rest of their arguments. It’s a, “what about her feelings?” thing. In this case, it’s found that even women who were raped and have an abortion go through depression. There is no good argument in favor of “Pro-Choice”. At least, to this date I have read none. They don’t hold up to scrutiny, ever.
Don’t you know silly Sanity… it’s a few cells right up until it pops out. Then it has a heart and brain and nervous system.
And… some leftists have called the baby a “parasite” (ST shared that one with us).
My turn.
Bob needs to look at the potential of that single cell. If the single cell is the fertilized ovum, it is automatically on its way to a nice condo in a retirement village in Florida. But that is neither here nor there. It is simply a human being by virtue of the fact that it came to be through the activity designed by God (or nature for you heathens) for the purpose of procreation. It’s value is not in the number of limbs it has, the number of cells it has, or whether it is self-aware, but it’s value is that it is human life. It is a person because it was invited into this world through the action meant to do just that. But Bob and Tommy in NYC should withhold their opinion on the subject until they can come up with some scientific evidence to support their opinion. Try to find some embryology textbook that says a fetus ISN’T a human being. We’ll wait here. Also, Tommy should be aware that a fetus doesn’t have “more” rights than the mother, just equal rights. Like the right to life. Quite frankly, I can’t think of an pro-abortion argument that isn’t a cheap rationalization. Lefty celebs enjoy listing these lame reasons for having shame about America or the Bush Admin. If there’s any reason for which I feel shame for my country, it’s that there are so many people in it who are so obsessed with pleasuring their nether regions that they will vocalize such pathetic arguments to rationalize the sacrifice of the most innocent and vulnerable of our kind to do so.
Don’t you know silly Sanity… it’s a few cells right up until it pops out. Then it has a heart and brain and nervous system.
Yeah, except on the media where when its in the womb its a fetus, but a killer stabs the mother, cuts her open and steals her baby..well, it was suddenly a baby then.
And… some leftists have called the baby a “parasite” (ST shared that one with us).
But Nooooo they would never apply the same reasoning for those who are career welfare recipients now would they…
Never hear welfare recipients (chronic or career) are parasites on the system…but they assign such labels to babies.
I guess if babies are parasites, some parasites even when they are born still stay as parasites….I think we call them senators and congressmen.
[chuckles]
John omitted one important factor from his analysis: liberals’ self-anointment as morally infallible. Being the possessor of absolute moral rectitude means never having to say you’re sorry.
The problem in trying to disuss abortion rights is that different people see things so differently. I can respect the fact that some people truly believe that a fertilized egg or early-stage embryo is already a human being because it would be destined to grow into one. I can respect their view that abortion (or even contraception) is wrong because it interferes with God’s will. People who belive in this way are completely free to put those views into practice. Nobody is being forced to have abortions or use contraceptives if they don’t want to.
But I’m not a religious person, and my views are different. To me, it’s not logical to invoke the supposed will of a God that I don’t believe in. To me, a single cell or a human embryo is not a person. It’s an unconscious clump of cells. The fact that it might eventually become a human being is irrelevant, like saying that a sperm cell might become a human being. Such potentialities are not my concern. The Supreme Court put a lot of thought into deciding where to draw the line in allowing abortions. The decision to make this line the point at which a fetus could survive outside of the womb was a thoughtful and logical choice. I support that view.
You can disagree with me. I respect your right to hold different views than me. But you have no basis to tell me that I’m wrong. My views are just different than yours. Please try to respect my views, the way I respect yours.
You can disagree with me. I respect your right to hold different views than me. But you have no basis to tell me that I’m wrong. My views are just different than yours. Please try to respect my views, the way I respect yours.
Ah, moral relativism at it’s finest. And totally unsurprising. Not that I’ve seen much evidence that you respect anyone else’s views.
You still have not answered the question I put forth Bob.
While I understand your view of hte start of hte process of fertilization, you still have yet to address my questions that refer to later development and to find out where you stand on what you consider “alive”?
Link
Ya, it seems to me that Bob’s not the type of person to ever question his own beliefs on any given topic. You can ask him though provoking questions all you want, and he’ll just ignore them, because he’s already made his decision.
Ya, it seems to me that Bob’s not the type of person to ever question his own beliefs on any given topic.
Boy, you hit the nail on the head with that comment. No matter how compelling the evidence contrary to the typical liberals belief, it rolls off their backs like water off a ducks.
I get tired of trying to be respectful to people who never seem to respect my right to have my own views about subjects like this one. Like I said, nobody’s forcing you to live your life according to my views on this subject. This is one of those fortunate situations where the law allows different people the choice to decide for themselves. But I suppose that’s never good enough for people who always have to tell other people how to live their lives.
I don’t believe that sperm cells, egg cells, early-stage embryos or early-stage fetuses are human beings. They are alive, certainly. So are ants and snails and the fetuses of any other mammal. If left to develop, they will eventually become full-fledged human beings. I’m satisfied with the Supreme Court’s decision to define the start of a person’s life as a human being to be when the individual is able to survive outside the mother’s womb. I realize that many people will not agree with this definition, and that’s fine with me. Like I said, people with different views are not being forced to accept the Supreme Court’s decision for the purposes of their own lives.
I hope that explains my views a little better.
Severian, is there something wrong with you that you’re incapable of having a civil and respectful discussion with people you disagree with? If you want to have a respectful discussion, instead of taking cheap shots at things that other people say, why not tell us your own views on the subject so we can discuss it?
Yes and No Bob.
Believe me, I am not railing on you or picking on you. I honestly want to know when you consider a baby, a baby?
Your talking early stages…ok, I understand your thoughts and won’t press that point.
But, later development where you see arms, activity, when you hear a heartbeat…do you not consider this a baby yet or do you only condier a baby…a baby only when it is delivered?
You mentioned:
I don’t believe that sperm cells, egg cells, early-stage embryos or early-stage fetuses are human beings. They are alive, certainly. So are ants and snails and the fetuses of any other mammal. If left to develop, they will eventually become full-fledged human beings.
So you do consider a baby alive or to have life when an abortion happens then? You just don’t consider it actually a human being yet, alive, but not human is what I garner from your explanation?
Do you consider partial birth abortion, when they actually partially deliver the baby and then collapse its head still not a baby, or do you still consider that a fetus?
Again Bob, we may not agree, but I do want to honestly know your stance of when and where you consider a baby a baby and when you consider a baby alive. I am not attacking you, just trying to get a full understanding of where you believe a babies life begins.
I am a guy, but it rips me apart to see what is done because people don’t seem to understand where and when life begins.
I get tired of trying to be respectful to people who never seem to respect my right to have my own views about subjects like this one.
Well, given your startling lack of success in your attempts to be respectful, no wonder you’re tired, failure is tiring and depressing. But I doubt you are tired, you haven’t made any attempt at all from what I can see. Ever since you came on this discussion section it’s been one insult or another from you, you disparage people and say their beliefs and facts are worthless. You’ve not actually engaged in an honest debate since you’ve been here.
You seem now to mis-state things again, a cell doesn’t have nerves of course, nerves are made up of cells, not the inverse, but if differentiation is your idea of when a fetus becomes human, do you even have any idea of when a fetus becomes differentiated enough to have nerve tissue?
Guys, in case you haven’t noticed, he doesn’t actually know anything on the topic. He just has an opinion. I understand being respectful of others beliefs, and I’m not trying to be disrespectful anymore than he is, but it really gets on my nerves when people have an opinion on something that they know nothing about. If you don’t know, you should keep your mouth shut.
“Better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt”
Severian, I started out this abortion discussion trying to be respectful about other peoples’ beliefs, not trying to claim the province of righteousness strictly for my own views. I sincerely appreciate that other people will disagree with me, but the abortion debate doesn’t require that we all have to reach the same conclusion. Why should I insist that other people be forced to accept my atheist views? But rather than give me an ounce of credit for trying to be fair and respectful, you immediately dismissed it as “moral relativism” and threw in a gratuitous cheap shot about “Not that I’ve seen much evidence that you respect anyone else’s views.” Well my, my, look who’s talking. And look who’s casting the first aspersions in this discussion. Now your most recent statement is “Ever since you came on this discussion section it’s been one insult or another from you, you disparage people and say their beliefs and facts are worthless.” Severian, I won’t mince words: you’re a complete hypocrite. If you’re actually interested in a respectful discussion, why not try avoiding the snotty commentary right off the bat and see if things go any differently. And why don’t you share your own views about abortion? You’re not religious, right? It might be interesting to know more about how you decide such an issue as a non-religious conservative.
And “reading nonsense” I’ve actually tried to discuss the issues here, not just offering insults like you. What should we gather about how much you know, considering that you haven’t yet made a single intelligent comment?
OK, sanity. I’ll try to be more specific. I definitely believe that zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc., are alive. By definition, they’re human, but I don’t believe that they’re persons until they’ve reached the Supreme Court definition. However, this transition from embryo to person obviously doesn’t happen at a specific moment, and setting that boundary is necessarily somewhat arbitrary. I think that there is a moral gray area about where to set “personhood” in later-stage fetal development, and for that reason, I’m uncomfortable with late-term abortions. My ideal for dealing with unwanted pregnancies, if they are to be terminated, would be to try to do it as early in pregnancy as possible. I’d like to see the use of anti-implantation treatments like “morning after” pills and very early stage abortion treatments like RU486 as much as possible, and if surgical abortions are to be done, to try to do them in the first few weeks. The concern would be to avoid entering any moral gray areas. Those are my views, but I still prefer to stick with the parameters that the Supreme Court has set, to allow people to make that choice according to their own views. Some flexibility is important.
Bob,
You default to the Supreme Court, but they are not using science to arrive at their decision, only personal feelings, or rather, that personal feelings should be the deciding factor. This is pretty selfish considering we’re talking about human life. It’s perfectly convenient, though, for those who so cherish the self-gratification of sex, that they are willing to throw in with this position in order to abdicate repsonsibility and discipline. And all this could be avoided if the debate over when one becomes a “person” was ever even considered. This should have been the first order of business. From the slavery days, we dealt with the personhood of blacks. The Germans learned about the personhood of Jews. Now, apparently, some in this country and elsewhere in the world need to learn about the personhood of the embryo and zygote. (BTW, the sperm and ovum are not “persons” because they ARE parts of their host people. Those parts do not have separate DNA.) The bottom line is that this debate is a false one due to a culture that has come to cherish sexuality above all else that some have chosen to deprive one of it’s “personhood” due to it’s size and stage of development. All to get laid. What could be more shameful? What could be a more heinous attitude toward the most vulnerable and innocent of our kind?
One more thing, Bob.
As I’ve stated in the past, there is no such thing as an “unwanted pregnancy” when two people engage in the very activity designed by nature (for you heathens) to bring about a new “person”. Just by engaging in intercourse, the debate of personhood should be a moot issue.
Marshall Art, I have no doubt that you’re sincere in your beliefs. But there are many different ways to view these complicated issues. There are different weights that we can give to the scientific, social, moral, ethical sides of the abortion debate. You take a very moralistic view, it seems to me, that seeks to belittle and condemn people for being “heathens” who “cherish sexuality above all else.” Well, pardon me, Marshall Art, but mind your own goddam business. You certainly don’t know me well enough to presume to judge my sexual ethics. It’s fine if you want to view zygotes and embryos as persons, but there are perfectly legitimate beliefs that don’t agree with you. We don’t all have to be arrogant, intolerant, moral absolutists like you.
The Supreme Court is a deliberative body that uses everything but gut feelings to reach their decisions. They used legal and medical science in a very thoughtful and responsible way to reach their abortion ruling, and I’m sure that each one of them agonized over their decision. Just because you disagree with their decision, or with people who have different views about abortion than you, does not give you the right to demean and condemn those people.
“Just because you disagree with
their decision, or with people who have different views about abortion than you,
does not give you the right to demean and condemn those people.”
That’s a very scary statement, Bob. Are you saying that people shouldn’t have the right to ‘demean and condemn’ people they don’t agree with?
I probably could have worded that better, Sister. Of course he has the free speech right to say whatever he wants. What I mean is more in the sense of moral authority. Marshall Art tries to claim the absolute moral authority to condemn people as heathens because they view the abortion issue differently than he does. I don’t recognize his moral authority to make such judgments about other people. Marshall Art has his own opinion, but it’s just that: his opinion. It carries no more weight than anyone else’s opinion, and in his case, probably less.
And please spare me the “scary” comment. You know perfectly well that I have no wish or power to keep people from voicing their opinions.
Oh gee, Bob. I didn’t realize you were so sensitive. Here. I’ve just opened up a big can of LIGHTEN UP!!! You’re the one who said you don’t believe in God. By definition, that makes you a heathen. When I used the term, I would normally have said “designed by God or nature for you heathens”. You’re free to take offense if you like, but please, first grant me the opportunity to first be offensive.
Also, I don’t buy the notion that those on the Court who sided with the decision spent a whole lot of time debating the truth of what constitutes a person. That decision coincided with a change in the moral direction of this culture following the first salvos against the mention of God or prayer in the public square. (What a remarkable coincidence!) What people do in their bedrooms, heathen or otherwise, is of little concern to me in my day to day life. We can debate the effects of sex between unmarried adults on the culture some other time. But for now, if those people produce a PERSON and abort it (and I use “it” in the same way as him/her), they’ve murdered, plain and simple. Because all you talk of “different weights that we can give to the scientific, social, moral, ethical sides of the abortion debate” is subjective crapola than puts the parents of the soon to be dead child well above the child for subjective reasons, not scientific reasons. So I once again challenge you to find some science that backs your position or contradicts mine. Good luck with that.
“So I once again challenge you to find some science that backs your position or contradicts mine.”
–M.A.
According to any reasonable scientific or logical analysis, it’s easy to maintain that a clump of cells is not a human being. Is a removed appendix a human being? No. Is a circumcized foreskin a human being? No. Are those lumps of human tissue entitled to any rights under the constitution? No. This is a perfectly legitimate way of analyzing the situation, Marshall Art. It may work for you to say that because a human embryo will eventually become a human being, that it should be considered a human being now. But that’s your view, and it probably derives largely from a religious point of view. I’m fine to let you define the issue for yourself. But I wish you would show me the same respect and let me call it how I see it. Like I said, there is no requirement that we all have to see this issue the same. You can yell “murder” all you want, but a majority of Americans will properly see such statements as the extremist and intolerant rhetoric that it is.
You’re a typical liberal Bob. As soon as your beliefs get questioned, you get flustered and are unable to defend them, so you try and take the argument sideways, suddenly it’s how poor little you is being treated. It’s a transparent scam Bob to try and deflect attention away from the weakness of your arguments. Once again, the amazing hubris of you claiming to speak for “a majority of Americans” when you can’t even properly speak for or defend yourself.
Hiding behind your cheap insults again, Severian? Wouldn’t it be a refreshing change to engage in the actual topic of discussion and try to kick your addiction to insults and invective? Why do you refuse to tell us your own views on abortion? Do you have any? Why not offer something positive for a change?
Why not offer something positive for a change?
Interesting comment coming from someone who supports a party and a philosophy that hasn’t offered anything positive on a single national issue in more than a decade.
Sorry Bob,
I’m with GWR on this one. When will the dems offer something positive for a change. It seems to me, that you do have some honorable and reasonable men/women in your party.
For one reason or another, it seems like the nutjobs in your party get all the airtime in the msm. If the democratic party would let the good people in thier party to the forefront, I might actually consider voting for a democrat.
Ok Bob, I can understand to a degree your thoughts on the earliest stages preganacy.
But I am curious, please tell me, where do believe a baby becomes a baby? Do you believe it only becomes a baby when it is finally delivered?
You acknowledge that it lives, while inside the womb, but there are stages where you can no longer consider this a simple lump of flesh as so many wish to regulate that to (mainly through the whole pregnancy until brith). When a baby in the womb has a heart beat, would you still consider this a lump flesh? Or moving its arms, or kicking…is it still a lump of flesh..or is it acting out, thinking, kicking, reacting to stimuli?
At what stage in the pregnancy do you consider a baby to be a baby? is it only when the baby is born?
OK, sanity. I’ll try to be more specific. I definitely believe that zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc., are alive. By definition, they’re human, but I don’t believe that they’re persons until they’ve reached the Supreme Court definition.
Ok, unfortunately the supreme court is not the end all for medical science, and though I would hope that came into play when roe vs wade was being deliberated on, I really don’t think it was in my opinion.
Roe vs wade was decided January 22, 1973. That was 34 years ago!!!
I believe that the medical information that the supreme courts were given was old, and medical science has advanced quite a bit in determining many things…I also believe that roe vs wade should be revisited on the medical basis in itself. Should it be overturned, that isn’t my decision, but I think before we lock it down into “the supreme court decided end of story”, we are also talking medical science – and we are also talking about medical science the law was decided on that is 34 years old.
In some ways I believe many do not want this revisted for one major reason….If medical science proves a baby is a baby in the womb, that can feel stimuli and can can react to its surrounding…..then what is the obvious outcome of the decision? That for many years people have been murdering unborn babies because of a bad decision based on old medical science.
What will happen when or if it ever comes to that? How many people comforted themsleves in saying it was just a lump of flesh….and then to have something like this tell them…no, it was a baby you killed?
I want things like that to stop, not only because of my incredible desire to protect children, especially those that should be protected but aren’t, but because of the natural outcome of such things where these mothers who abort their unborn babies are mentally scarred and physically scarred for the rest of their lives. Some cannot have children no longer because of having an abortion…the mental and physical problems that occur just in that is something why this needs to be revisited also.
It really is something that is downplayed. We hear so much of “it’s a woman body, her right to do what she wants with it”, but you never hear of the other side, the stories of women who are emotionally and physically scarred by this when they have it done. Yes, an ugly truth that never gets any real media or reporting time….because it doesn’t help them promote their cause.
I think that there is a moral gray area about where to set “personhood” in later-stage fetal development, and for that reason, I’m uncomfortable with late-term abortions.
I am glad you actually feel unfortable bob. I am not saying that in a mean way, but I am honest to God glad you feel something in that makes you feel unconfortable, because so many still consider that a lump of flesh and feel nothing because that is all they get inudated with…it’s just a lump of flesh, just get rid of it.
Bob, I want you to read this HERE on the procedure of late term abortions.
I also want you to read this story HERE:
I can tell you this, I had the SAME THING, exact same thing happen to me and my wife. We went in and they saw a small anomaly in the ultrasound and tried to tell us it was a common symptom of downs syndrom and wanted us to consider aborting.
We decided against it, not only because of our belief but because down syndrom babies can live perfectly normal happy lives. Just because of a defect or a problem doesn’t mean we kill a baby off till we get the perfect little baby everyone wants.
I am very furious because as it turned out it was a small vien in my sons testicles that was pulling his penis off to the right, and he had hypospadia (a split down the middle of his penis), both of which were easily corrected with some minor surgery. But their specialists suggested aborting my son.
Here is my son HERE, this is the person, my baby boy, whom they recommended to abort.
If they can’t get shit right today, who is to say what they looked at and determined roe vs wade on medically 34 years ago wasn’t alot worse?
Lastly Bob, I want you to look at these photos Warning very graphic:
photographs of aborted babies, most killed in the second and third trimesters.
I want you to fully understand what the cost of abortion is.
Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Charlie Rangel, Chuck Schumer and John Murtha are all very obnoxious and are not the dems that I consider reasonable/honorable, nor could I ever in good conscience vote for these people.
These are 10 dems out of like 400 that sit in congress today. I rarely here anything about anyone else in congress. These 10 are always so busy hogging the cameras. I’d like to hear from others on both sides of the aisle.
Thier views and opinions on all types of things, including thier honest voting record on subjects that might be of concern to the general public.
Sanity, I’m very glad that you made the right decision with your son, and that he turned out fine. He’s an adorable kid, by the way. And thank you for sharing these very personal details of your life. I know that the stakes are high, and I know how sincere people with pro-life views are in their desire to protect. I sincerely respect those views.
I think it is a key question to decide at what point full-fledged personhood should be accepted for developing fetuses. But I think that we’d be kidding ourselves to say that any scientific, logical or moral process could precisely set that point in a way that everyone would agree on. I think it’s a moral gray area not because science is somehow lacking, but because even defining the terms for such a decision is an arbitrary process. The conceptual target for this decision is inherently fuzzy. But the legal situation requires that a point be set, and that’s what the Supreme Court tried to do. I accept that decision knowing that it is arbitrary, and I think there’s no way around it.
People with absolute views have the comfort of never having to compromise. It really does make the decision easier. I can imagine how unsatisfying it must be to hold absolute views and have to face someone else who talks about “gray areas.” And of course, the reason that abortion will always be such a hot-button issue is the completely irreconcilable nature of this disagreement. I suppose all I can offer is the reassurance that pro-choice people are not just intellectually lazy, callous, promiscuous people. I would caution anyone against presuming to claim absolute moral authority over an issue like this. And I think that all sides of this issue need to try to respect those on the other side, or at least respect their right to make such a decision for themselves.
And by the way, Severian, why do we keep not hearing your views about this subject? I mean, enough about me, for chrissakes. I’m practically spilling my guts here. Why don’t you present your views and I can sit back and take pot shots at them from the sidelines. Come on, be a sport.
“According to any reasonable scientific or logical analysis…” Both are already on my side, or rather, the children’s side. What you have is subjective interpretation based on personal agenda. Science already says that the product of intercourse is another human being. Objective logic can say nothing else. This isn’t hubris. This isn’t Christian fundamentalism. This is fact. Unvarnished and unasailable fact. What you’ve got is the notion that because these people are microscopic, too early in their development to feel or think, that somehow they have no value, or far less value than the parent who’s about to put them to death. By that standard, the older one gets, the greater his value. Is that where you’re going? Or perhaps the larger and more developed one is? The sorriest part is the reason behind it all. Is gettin’ jiggy all that important that lives have to be sacrificed? Don’t give me the 1% or less that abort due to rape or incest. Health of the mother? What health condition requires killing the child if the mother’s life isn’t also in danger? No, muh man. Roe v Wade is a foul stain on American law and a shameful moment in our history. There is nothing noble or honorable in supporting it. Period.
Bob, your reasoning has been continuously circular, and contradictory. I was not insulting you, but merely pointing out your lack of thought on this topic. If you want insults then you can go to a liberal site, and start saying stuff like, “abortion is bad” or “Jesus loves you”. Then you’ll see what insults are really like.
As for my lack of “intelligent” things to say. I already asked the questions necessary for you to start doing your own thinking on the topic that goes beyond what you supposedly “believe” as you’ve said. Your inability to make the connections necessary to reach the next step are not my fault.
1. If you were never born, then you would have never had a chance to say anything here.
2. Abortion is a way of avoiding the responsibility involved in raising a child.
3. Contraception is not abortion, because if you prevent an egg from being fertilized in the first place then that egg is no different from any egg that passes though a womans system normally (by way of a period).
4. If a person truly exams what it is to be alive, then they can easily discover that a baby is alive from conception on forward. The point here is to ACTUALLY examine it.
5. You can’t depend on science to tell you the answer to the question, “when is a baby truly alive”, because a few years ago scientists and/or doctors were saying that a baby wasn’t alive till birth, and now they say a baby is alive from the end of the first trimester on forward.
6. Isn’t it obvious that a child is alive inside the womb, whenever a man gets a sentence for the murder of a woman AND her unborn child?
7. Number six makes you wonder why women aren’t convicted for the murder of their own unborn children.
8. If you’ve ever seen a child within the womb during a sonogram, you can’t possibly say “that’s just a fetus, and it isn’t alive”.
9. The worst argument I’ve ever heard in favor of abortion, and against the death penalty, was the accusation that Republicans are contributing to population decline by continuing to have the death penalty, so it’s illogical of us to be against abortion, but for the death penalty. The person that made the argument got it completely backwards. The person being given the death penalty has already had their chance at life, and they screwed it up. The child that hasn’t been born, and is given the death penalty hasn’t had their chance at life, so I would consider it to be an unfair verdict, considering that the child has done nothing wrong, other than to exist at an unfortunate moment in the mothers life. On top of which, if you consider the number of abortions in comparison to the number of people killed on death row per year, you will find a stark difference in the numbers. Abortions: over 1 million per year in the US alone. Executions: between 1000 and 5000 per year. Seriously, worst argument in favor of abortion I’ve ever seen.
10. My quote on foolishness was a way of suggesting that you stop talking until you actually inform yourself on this topic.
11. I’ve never heard a single argument by people on the left that could hold water in regards to abortion.
Bob, I’ve said it before, but you are a caricature of the modern liberal. First, you casually drop into a thread, this one about abortion, and drop a quick, elitist, I’m right and you all are wrong kind of comment, then you get called on it, then you sling a little pseudo-scientific sounding bullbarf on cells, life, whatever, with your usual “any reasonable scientific or logical analysis” crap (yeah, only Bob’s sources can be reasonable), then when you get called on it, you deflect. Suddenly it’s about how you’re treated or whatever, well, cry us a river. We get tired of your typical liberal actions, like trying to change the subject whenever you’re on the defensive. You let your mouth write checks your brain can’t cash, then flail around throwing more red herrings than an animal trainer at a sea lion show.
So, the question back to you that you’re squirming around is, when does a fetus become a person, what’s YOUR view, not what everybody says, not what the IPCC says, for once in your pitiful life actually make a statement based on your beliefs without looking for a net. Take a piece of paper, draw a 9 inch line on it, label one end conception, the other birth, and stick a pin in it somewhere, where you think it becomes a baby.
But stop whining, it’s a transparent attempt to derail debate and we’re on to your tricks.
As for my lack of “intelligent” things to say. I already asked the questions necessary for you to start doing your own thinking on the topic that goes beyond what you supposedly “believe” as you’ve said. Your inability to make the connections necessary to reach the next step are not my fault.
That’s Bob’s, and most typical liberals, usual response, don’t expect him to actually think for himself. He’s got a long reputation here of running off to Google to see what he can find to give him an excuse not to have to think for himself, he can’t give you his opinion until the DNC gives it to him.
Severian, you’re just frickin weird. You seem to be so obsessively spiteful that you refuse the simplest request to share your own views on abortion. I’m sure everybody’s getting bored with your endless and pointless criticisms about me and all liberals everywhere in the universe that they may exist. Enough already. Put up with your own views or shut up, you hypocrite. You’re starting to look like someone with several loose screws.
I’ve told you all enough about my views on abortion for now. I’ve tried to be respectful and responsive, but it often seems like casting pearls before swine. What’s the point when you all refuse to accept or respect those views? I’m not required to satisfy your concerns. I appreciate those who’ve been able to discuss this with me without belittling and insulting me. As for the rest of you, shove it. Your endless whining is boring me.
Keep flappin your gums Bob, all you’re doing is yet, once again, trying to detract attention from yourself now that you’ve backed yourself into a corner, again. You can’t or won’t explain your position further, so you’re desperately trying to change the subject. Once again, you like to talk for other people, I suspect you are getting bored with being called every time you try and slip sideways, I’m sure it’s galling to not be allowed to get away with anything, but you’re not in a good position to talk about other people’s opinions, when you don’t even hold honest opinions yourself, you have to have someone else tell you what they are and how to defend them.
You are the one who is so ineloquent that you can’t present your own views properly, what my views are isn’t going to help you out there, except as a transparent attempt to get attention off yourself and your weak minded opinions.
Plus, it’s always amusing to get you to jump thru hoops Bob. I can force a response out of you no matter what, you can’t resist, you obsess over what’s said about you, a traditional weakness of the narcissist.
Bob, you got nailed by Sev and described to a T. If you never post here again, it is no loss in that another True believing lefty Democrat will drag us over the same ground again with the same result.
You emotionalism betrays you and will always corner you into making bad decisions.
I think it’s time to close this thread.