Liberals being Pro-Choice :/

Lemmewinks

Hi,

Was having a discussion today with a few people, and I brought up that I would have thought it logical (based on their other moral & ethical beliefs) to assume that liberals would be Pro-Life - but most of them are Pro-Choice.

I would have just assumed that being all for protecting life would have tied in more consistently with their ethics and beliefs; everyone is equal, be nice, protect trees, etc (<generalising in jest BTW).

But seriously - this is not a abortion discussion at all - but more a case of whether it would be logical to assume this? Most liberals I know will argue against any harm to life; the death penalty, animal poaching, animal testing, fox hunting, etc; they they seem fine with aborting babies... It just strikes me an inconsistent.

Anyway - opinions welcome!

EverEvolving

I refer you to the meaning of the word Liberal:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

adjective 1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2.(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3.of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4.favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5.favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Number 4 sums it up for me really.

Lemmewinks

EverEvolving wrote: »

I refer you to the meaning of the word Liberal:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal



Number 5 sums it up for me really.

Right, so the freedom... to kill a baby. I see... I understood it to be freedom of actions that don't harm others.

Now I'm not saying I'm for or against abortion - I'm just trying to see how this view is consistent with all of their other views.

southsiderosie

Lemmewinks wrote: »

Right, so the freedom... to kill a baby. I see... I understood it to be freedom of actions that don't harm others.

Now I'm not saying I'm for or against abortion

Um, I think you have made yourself pretty clear on that account.

gurramok

Maybe i'm a liberal as i'm tolerant of social issues as I believe in the freedom to think without religious interference but I am against uncontrolled immigration and have Irish nationalist views. I ain't a leftie or a righty or a centrist , where does that put me?

Kasabian

Lemmewinks wrote: »

Right, so the freedom... to kill a baby. I see... I understood it to be freedom of actions that don't harm others.

Now I'm not saying I'm for or against abortion - I'm just trying to see how this view is consistent with all of their other views.

Try reading the second post and follow the links, this will save you a headache, as your assumption is incorrect.

sock puppet

For starters you've confused left wing and liberal. And for some other issues you mentioned the divide is really urban/rural.

EverEvolving

Lemmewinks wrote: »

Right, so the freedom... to kill a baby. I see... I understood it to be freedom of actions that don't harm others.

Now I'm not saying I'm for or against abortion - I'm just trying to see how this view is consistent with all of their other views.

favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible

The individual being the person deciding whether or not to have the 'baby'.

Ghost Buster

Lemmewinks wrote: »

Right, so the freedom... to kill a baby. I see... I understood it to be freedom of actions that don't harm others.

Now I'm not saying I'm for or against abortion - I'm just trying to see how this view is consistent with all of their other views.

You come right out and call abortion the killing of a baby which is malicious, mis representative and provocative and indicates a very definite opinion on the subject and then say that you are not taking a stance for or against abortion. Hmmmmmmm i sense and agenda.

Kasabian

Subtle troll.

Wait I might be in the wrong thread, I'll be back just have to check.

MungBean

Your problem is you've already made your mind up in regards abortion and class it as killing a baby.

I'd see it as a women making a decision in regards to her own body and aborting a foetus which is part of that body. Pro choice liberals would think she should be able to make that decision on whether to carry that foetus full term or not.

But as said your mistaking left wing and liberalism and already determined the act is wrong.

Killer Pigeon

I think a woman should have the choice as to whether or not she'd like to abort the pregnancy during the first and second trimester.

I'm not sure about third trimester abortions because children have been born during that period and lived perfectly healthy lives afterward. Third trimester abortions should only be conducted if the mother's life is in danger or if the fetus will not survive the duration of the pregnancy, in my opinion.

So basically, I agree with pro-choice until the point in the pregnancy where the fetus has developed some form of consciousness, after which it should be down to medical reasons.

pragmatic1

I think labels like liberal and conservative are pretty meaningless. Most people will have a mix of conservative and liberal views.

Teclo

Political arguments on what 'liberalism' means isn't really the issue. Those who style themselves as liberals like to be seen by the general public as being nice people, only in favour of nice things. The hypocrisy can be seen in the likes of the British Liberal Party, who can argue against medical experiments on goldfish and for abortion on demand.

John Doe1

Lemmewinks wrote: »

Hi,

Was having a discussion today with a few people, and I brought up that I would have thought it logical (based on their other moral & ethical beliefs) to assume that liberals would be Pro-Life - but most of them are Pro-Choice.

I would have just assumed that being all for protecting life would have tied in more consistently with their ethics and beliefs; everyone is equal, be nice, protect trees, etc (<generalising in jest BTW).

But seriously - this is not a abortion discussion at all - but more a case of whether it would be logical to assume this? Most liberals I know will argue against any harm to life; the death penalty, animal poaching, animal testing, fox hunting, etc; they they seem fine with aborting babies... It just strikes me an inconsistent.

Anyway - opinions welcome!

You really dont understand what liberalism means do you, please go back to reading the daily mail

Logical Fallacy

Lemmewinks wrote: »

Hi,

Was having a discussion today with a few people, and I brought up that I would have thought it logical (based on their other moral & ethical beliefs) to assume that liberals would be Pro-Life - but most of them are Pro-Choice.

I would have just assumed that being all for protecting life would have tied in more consistently with their ethics and beliefs; everyone is equal, be nice, protect trees, etc (<generalising in jest BTW).

But seriously - this is not a abortion discussion at all - but more a case of whether it would be logical to assume this? Most liberals I know will argue against any harm to life; the death penalty, animal poaching, animal testing, fox hunting, etc; they they seem fine with aborting babies... It just strikes me an inconsistent.

Anyway - opinions welcome!

You are falling into the common trap of trying to simplify the complex. I understand it's the norm now with regard to political leaning but it's a mistake.

Teclo wrote: »

Political arguments on what 'liberalism' means isn't really the issue. Those who style themselves as liberals like to be seen by the general public as being nice people, only in favour of nice things. The hypocrisy can be seen in the likes of the British Liberal Party, who can argue against medical experiments on goldfish and for abortion on demand.

Once again, too desperate to simplify the complex in an effort to put people down.

Must try harder.

Lemmewinks

Okay people - I digress - I was wrong.

MungBean

Teclo wrote: »

Political arguments on what 'liberalism' means isn't really the issue. Those who style themselves as liberals like to be seen by the general public as being nice people, only in favour of nice things. The hypocrisy can be seen in the likes of the British Liberal Party, who can argue against medical experiments on goldfish and for abortion on demand.

Being a liberal person is to be in favour of personal freedom. Every rational person is against cruelty. The issue is how people see abortion. Some will see it as a choice for the woman who's carrying the foetus and others will see it different.

Being a liberal doesnt automatically put you on any side of the abortion argument. Its not hypocritical to believe abortion isnt cruel because you think it is.

MrPudding

Kasabian wrote: »

Subtle troll.

Subtle troll is not subtle.

MrP

Gyalist

In reply to Lemmewinks

Why do conservatives care so much for the unborn and so little after they are born?

Lemmewinks

Gyalist wrote: »

In reply to Lemmewinks

Why do conservatives care so much for the unborn and so little after they are born?

You should ask a conservative.

mcmoustache

Lemmewinks wrote: »

Hi,
I don't like liberals and just thought I'd start a thread to express that.

What was your previous boards.ie username?

galwayrush

It's saturday night, i have a lot of wine to get through, thid is too serious to be thinking about. i think.sod it. i'm confused.

dilbert2

Yeah damn liberals, how dare anybody suggest that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy within her own body, a process which has the safe backup and approval of the scientific and medical professions, while ignoring the religious crowd.

starbelgrade

Everybody's Pro-Life.

Only some people believe in allowing people have the right to choose to have an abortion if they so wish.

thee glitz

MungBean wrote: »

I'd see it as a women making a decision in regards to her own body and aborting a foetus which is part of that body. Pro choice liberals would think she should be able to make that decision on whether to carry that foetus full term or not.

I'd see it as a woman making a decision in regards to her own and her and partner's child's body and scrambling a child which she and him created. Pro choice liberals would think she should be able to make that decision on whether to kill her and her partner's child or not.

MungBean

thee glitz wrote: »

I'd see it as a woman making a decision in regards to her own and her and partner's child's body and scrambling a child which she and him created. Pro choice liberals would think she should be able to make that decision on whether to kill her and her partner's child or not.

The fact you see it as killing a child is the issue then. Unless you think its ok for a child to be killed when both parents consent your argument is rubbish. Your "pro life" and think abortion is the killing of a child.

Someone who thinks abortion should be the right of the mother as its her body isnt arguing to take any decision away from the potential father. Its an argument in favour of the freedom of the women who should be able to make a choice that affects her body.

Terry

Lemmewinks wrote: »

Hi,

Was having a discussion today with a few people, and I brought up that I would have thought it logical (based on their other moral & ethical beliefs) to assume that liberals would be Pro-Life - but most of them are Pro-Choice.

I would have just assumed that being all for protecting life would have tied in more consistently with their ethics and beliefs; everyone is equal, be nice, protect trees, etc (<generalising in jest BTW).

But seriously - this is not a abortion discussion at all - but more a case of whether it would be logical to assume this? Most liberals I know will argue against any harm to life; the death penalty, animal poaching, animal testing, fox hunting, etc; they they seem fine with aborting babies... It just strikes me an inconsistent.

Anyway - opinions welcome!

A great adventure is waiting for you ahead.

It's called life.

Allow me to sum it up for you: Sometimes you'll be wrong, sometimes you'll be right.
When you're wrong, people will disagree with you. When you're right, people will disagree with you.

As for abortion, I'm sure that Kang will have a miniature American flag for you.

Teclo

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Once again, too desperate to simplify the complex in an effort to put people down.

Must try harder.

People generally use the word 'complex' in relation to abortion when they want to ignore the reality that a human life must be taken for the right to choose to be vindicated.

MungBean wrote: »

Being a liberal person is to be in favour of personal freedom.

But many, if not all, liberals are against giving people the right to choose to hunt foxes, bait badgers etc. on the basis that another creature dies as a result of that choice being made.

Teclo

Teclo wrote: »

But many, if not all, liberals are against giving people the right to choose to hunt foxes, bait badgers etc. on the basis that another creature dies as a result of that choice being made.

But if the foxes had to live inside a person's womb for nine months being supported by that person's internal systems, culminating in an excruciatingly painful potentially damaging birth whereby the fox would have to be pushed out of the person's vagina, leaving them with a lifetime of emotional and financial strain, that's a different story than them being hunted for sport.

You cannot liken fox hunting to having a child.

philologos

Do you realise what you've done OP?

dilbert2

Teclo wrote: »

But many, if not all, liberals are against giving people the right to choose to hunt foxes, bait badgers etc. on the basis that another creature dies as a result of that choice being made.

But abortion performed at the early stages of pregnancy does not result in the death of a human, haven't doctors made this perfectly clear for long enough?

thee glitz

MungBean wrote: »

The fact you see it as killing a child is the issue then.

Yes, that's clear to me.

Unless you think its ok for a child to be killed when both parents consent your argument is rubbish.

No. I don't think it's ok for a child to be killed when both parents consent.

Your "pro life" and think abortion is the killing of a child.

See above.

Someone who thinks abortion should be the right of the mother as its her body isnt arguing to take any decision away from the potential father.
Its an argument in favour of the freedom of the women who should be able to make a choice that affects her body.

So should it be her decision alone or not

nlgbbbblth

Lemmewinks wrote: »

Hi,

Was having a discussion today with a few people, and I brought up that I would have thought it logical (based on their other moral & ethical beliefs) to assume that liberals would be Pro-Life - but most of them are Pro-Choice.

I would have just assumed that being all for protecting life would have tied in more consistently with their ethics and beliefs; everyone is equal, be nice, protect trees, etc (<generalising in jest BTW).

But seriously - this is not a abortion discussion at all - but more a case of whether it would be logical to assume this? Most liberals I know will argue against any harm to life; the death penalty, animal poaching, animal testing, fox hunting, etc; they they seem fine with aborting babies... It just strikes me an inconsistent.

Anyway - opinions welcome!

Youth Defence, Youth Defence F*UCK OFF.

Pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion

MungBean

thee glitz wrote: »

Yes, that's clear to me.

So should it be her decision alone or not

Why would it be anyone elses decision if you think its part of her body and not yet a child of both parties ?

Logical Fallacy

Teclo wrote: »

People generally use the word 'complex' in relation to abortion when they want to ignore the reality that a human life must be taken for the right to choose to be vindicated.

Weird, i wasn't using the word complex in relation to abortion, i was using it in relation to political leaning and your dire attempt to simplify things down to a couple of words.

Once again, you really must try harder.

thee glitz

MungBean wrote: »

Why would it be anyone elses decision if you think its part of her body and not yet a child of both parties ?

When does it become a child of both parties?

I might have got confused by

Someone who thinks abortion should be the right of the mother as its her body isnt arguing to take any decision away from the potential father.

partyatmygaff

dilbert2 wrote: »

But abortion performed at the early stages of pregnancy does not result in the death of a human, haven't doctors made this perfectly clear for long enough?

Doctors? Which doctors are these? The ones without a medical degree or the ones who bought their degrees off of an online university?


From a purely biological point of view, a distinct and disparate human individual begins life at fertilisation. Their life does not begin at some arbitrary "x" number of weeks. There's no ambiguity as far as i'm concerned. Changing the conditions surrounding an individual organism to ensure it does not survive is killing regardless of how long said organism has been alive for.

The point at which said human being becomes viable and highly likely to survive is what clinicians and scientists debate. It's an inaccurate euphemism to call abortion anything but the termination of a life. Killing if you will.

MungBean

thee glitz wrote: »

When does it become a child of both parties?

I might have got confused by

Someone who thinks abortion should be the right of the mother as its her body isnt arguing to take any decision away from the potential father.

When it ceases to be part of the woman’s body and becomes an independent entity.

Edit: Remember now we are discussing if being pro choice is consistent with being a liberal. We are not arguing about whether abortion is right or wrong only how its perceived by certain people and why.

Mark200

partyatmygaff wrote: »

From a purely biological point of view, a distinct and disparate human individual begins life at fertilisation. Their life does not begin at some arbitrary "x" number of weeks. There's no ambiguity as far as i'm concerned. Changing the conditions surrounding an individual organism to ensure it does not survive is killing regardless of how long said organism has been alive for.

But you've just defined an arbitrary number of weeks that a life begins - week 1 of pregnancy.

Just because a foetus is not a human life does not mean it should not have some degree of protection. This seems to be forgotten in all of these arguments. One side argues that a foetus is not a human to justify doing whatever they want to it. The other side argues that it is a human in order to stop people from doing anything to it.

It's quite clear, in my opinion, that a foetus is not a human. That's why we don't count them in the census. That's why a woman doesn't say "I have 3 kids" instead of "I have 2 and 1 on the way". The only time that a foetus gets labelled as a human is in the abortion debate.

But just because it's not a human does not make it ok to do whatever you want to it. I doubt many people in this topic (including pro-choicers) would be ok with the idea of killing a foetus just seconds before birth.

I also doubt many pro-lifers here have any particular problem with the morning-after pill. Although the morning-after pill doesn't technically count as abortion, it's very close.

There is no certain week or day that a foetus becomes this protected thing that we can't touch. It's a gradual process. It's like asking when does a boy become a man - it happens over time, not at one specific money.

partyatmygaff

Mark200 wrote: »

But you've just defined an arbitrary number of weeks that a life begins - week 1 of pregnancy.

I haven't. The point of fertilisation is not an arbitrarily chosen point in time. On the contrary it's a very specific, fixed point in time that no two people competent in the life sciences could reasonably argue on.

thee glitz

MungBean wrote: »

When it ceases to be part of the woman’s body and becomes an independent entity.

Edit: Remember now we are discussing if being pro choice is consistent with being a liberal. We are not arguing about whether abortion is right or wrong only how its perceived by certain people and why.

Ok, staying on topic...
Being pro-choice is consistent with being hypocritically liberal.

Terry

God helps those who help themselves.

Foetii are fairly helpless.
Praise Jesus.

Logical Fallacy

thee glitz wrote: »

Being pro-choice is consistent with being hypocritically liberal.

Not really though, it's just fun to think so in broad terms.

It would help if people would agree upon a definition of Liberal with regard to politics, but as this is the internet it's just gonna be a big cluster **** of a thread.

MungBean

thee glitz wrote: »

Ok, staying on topic...
Being pro-choice is consistent with being hypocritically liberal.

Actually you havent shown how they are hypocritical, only why you think they are wrong.

Terry

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Not really though, it's just fun to think so in broad terms.

It would help if people would agree upon a definition of Liberal with regard to politics, but as this is the internet it's just gonna be a big cluster **** of a thread.

It's an abortion thread in AH.
It has the shelf life of a 16 week old aborted foetus.


On first reading, the second sentence there seems quite shocking. In reality 16 week abortions are quite common. It's just the way I phrased it that makes it seem shocking.

It wasn't intended to shock. Just the first thing that came into my head. Also, it's on topic.

The point is that abortion threads do not last long in AH. This really isn't the place for this type of discussion.

Also, it has just turned midnight. That means it's my birthday. Happy birthday to me. Praise Jesus.

thee glitz

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Not really though, it's just fun to think so in broad terms.

Ah it is, how liberated would you feel if someone came up and killed you!

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

It would help if people would agree upon a definition of Liberal with regard to politics, but as this is the internet it's just gonna be a big cluster **** of a thread.

Ye, how liberal is it seen to be to favour low taxes. But I have hope for this thread.

thee glitz

MungBean wrote: »

Actually you havent shown how they are hypocritical, only why you think they are wrong.

My thinking is that liberalism is the belief in the importance of freedom and equal rights.
And being a pro-choice 'liberal' meaning that you think some people are more equal than others.

rossie1977

thee glitz wrote: »

Ok, staying on topic...
Being pro-choice is consistent with being hypocritically liberal.

speaking of hypocrites, pro-lifers :rolleyes:

http://tech.mit.edu/V116/N13/salvi.13w.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1902838,00.html
http://articles.cnn.com/1998-10-24/us/9810_24_doctor.killed.02_1_abortion-providers-abortion-rights-advocates-clinic-spokeswoman?_s=PM:US
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118212/

bronte

rossie1977 wrote: »

speaking of hypocrites, pro-lifers :rolleyes:

http://tech.mit.edu/V116/N13/salvi.13w.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1902838,00.html
http://articles.cnn.com/1998-10-24/us/9810_24_doctor.killed.02_1_abortion-providers-abortion-rights-advocates-clinic-spokeswoman?_s=PM:US
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118212/

Oh but that's okay...they were doin gawwwds work.

Praiiiiise the lawwwrd.

*chews straw*

thee glitz

rossie1977 wrote: »

speaking of hypocrites, pro-lifers :rolleyes:

http://tech.mit.edu/V116/N13/salvi.13w.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1902838,00.html
http://articles.cnn.com/1998-10-24/us/9810_24_doctor.killed.02_1_abortion-providers-abortion-rights-advocates-clinic-spokeswoman?_s=PM:US
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118212/

Their abhorrent actions can't be defended but their motivations understood.