Are liberals rabidly pro-abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dmelosi said:
Not sure what you are asking?
Click to expand...
I’m asking how many abortions are some people willing to overlook in order for (or at least the promise of) free health care, free univeristy tuition, and so on. In other words, how many babies have to die in order of that $0.25 raise in the minimum wage? Not that that a raise is a bad thing, but do the ends (some sort of monetary benefit) justify the means (allowing great evils to happen)?
 
SoCalRC said:
Another good example of the Protestant foundation in modern US conservative thought. Notice that the Protestant view is that salvation is via a relationship between self and Christ, while the Catholic view is that salvation can only come through a community in Christ. As the Pope recently noted, there is no such thing as Catholicism in isolation and our call to Christ cannot be answered solely in our heads.
Click to expand...
Blah, blah, blah.

Another attempt to paint anyone who upholds the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constition is a “protestant.”😉

Answer me this – would it be “protestant” to say an unborn child is an individual human being?

Would it be “protestant” to say every person accused of a crime has a right to be tried as an individual?

Would it be “protestant” to say every person has an individual right to freedom of speech?
 
vern_humphrey said:
Which is why they support things like gun control, confiscatory tax rates, laws that forbid people on Medicare from paying for their own medical treatment, and so on.😛
Click to expand...
Point taken.
But I considered it rude to say ‘just plain crazy.’

Besides, there is a logical pattern to the belief structure…just a warped one.

As you said…Group over individual.
 
SoCalRC said:
Notice that the Protestant view is that salvation is via a relationship between self and Christ, while the Catholic view is that salvation can only come through a community in Christ.
Click to expand...
Really??

I always thought salvation came from God alone.
I believe the CCC says something to that effect…perhaps even using those exact words…“God alone.”

Paragraph 169 anyone ?
169 Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation."55 Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.
Click to expand...
 
buffalo said:
Show me a self professed liberal that is not pro-death.
Click to expand...
My father-in-law.

He is deeply ashamed that the party that most espouses his views also embraces abortion.

I am uncertain how he reconciles this, but it would appear he can.
 
vz71 said:
My father-in-law.

He is deeply ashamed that the party that most espouses his views also embraces abortion.

I am uncertain how he reconciles this, but it would appear he can.
Click to expand...
I have asked again and again – no matter what you consider yourself, no matter which party you choose, work to purge your party of pro-abortion candidates. Work to cultivate pro-life candidates at every level, from city council to the White House. Work to gain the nomination for those candidates and support their election, and deny nomination and election to the pro-choice crowd.
 
“Liberal” is no longer a word with any meaning. Depending on the context it can mean one thing and in another context, its direct opposite. I propose we simply throw it out altogether.

Abortion has nothing to do with political worldview. Abortion is nothing other than the latest manifestation of the oldest deception in human history.

What do the US civil war, the Nazi holocaust, the treatment of American Indians during the Manifest Destiny era, the Yugoslav 'ethnic cleansing, the Darfur massacres and abortion have in common? Everything.

The pattern is the same in every case.
  1. The aggressor group perceives some sort of threat from another group.
  2. The aggressor group begins to agitate against the threat this group poses to their own rights.
  3. The aggressor group adopts dehumanizing language for the victim group.
  4. The aggessor group downplays or denies the human dignity of the victim group.
  5. The aggressor group begins to rationalize physical harm of the victim group in particular cases, often elaborately “justified”.
  6. Wholesale genocide.
When I was a kid, I couldn’t figure out how anyone in the 1860’s could support chattel slavery. Then I got older and learned that humanity hasn’t changed a single bit.

The political left today simply jumped on the bandwagon sooner because the exaggerated threat in item 1 and 2 above spoke louder to their support base.

Wanna be a hero of history? Simply watch for the developing pattern and FIGHT it! And avoid partisanship. Bad as the Left party is today, the Right party shows signs of progressing down the chain on the immigration issue.
 
SoCalRC said:
That I would be interested in seeing. It was, after all, the Protestant Reformation that thought to elliminate the Church’s divine authority, and modern US conservatism is overwhelmingly Evangelical Protestant in its moral thinking today.

You might be confusing Progressivism with Liberalism. Because ‘liberal’ has become a bad word, labeling oneself a ‘progressive’ has become popular these days. But the liberal movement was never connected to communism, but the early progressive movement was.

Progressive thinking splintered and can be seen in both major US political parties today. For example, Socialists and Republicans joined forces with regards to the eugenics movement here in the US. We (the US) provided the template for Nazi purity laws.

Strangely, the ‘imposed social order’ crowd seems to have fostered neoconservatism. It is amazing how many modern neoconservative thinkers were speculating about the need for violent rebellion here in the US just a few decades ago.
Click to expand...
When I think of Liberalism I think of this definitions understood by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors, esp. Section IV, VI, and X.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

And the condemnations found in Pope Pius X, Lamentabili Sane.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm

CDL
 
manualman said:
“Liberal” is no longer a word with any meaning. Depending on the context it can mean one thing and in another context, its direct opposite. I propose we simply throw it out altogether.

Abortion has nothing to do with political worldview. Abortion is nothing other than the latest manifestation of the oldest deception in human history.

What do the US civil war, the Nazi holocaust, the treatment of American Indians during the Manifest Destiny era, the Yugoslav 'ethnic cleansing, the Darfur massacres and abortion have in common? Everything.

The pattern is the same in every case.
  1. The aggressor group perceives some sort of threat from another group.
  2. The aggressor group begins to agitate against the threat this group poses to their own rights.
  3. The aggressor group adopts dehumanizing language for the victim group.
  4. The aggessor group downplays or denies the human dignity of the victim group.
  5. The aggressor group begins to rationalize physical harm of the victim group in particular cases, often elaborately “justified”.
  6. Wholesale genocide.
When I was a kid, I couldn’t figure out how anyone in the 1860’s could support chattel slavery. Then I got older and learned that humanity hasn’t changed a single bit.

The political left today simply jumped on the bandwagon sooner because the exaggerated threat in item 1 and 2 above spoke louder to their support base.

Wanna be a hero of history? Simply watch for the developing pattern and FIGHT it! And avoid partisanship. Bad as the Left party is today, the Right party shows signs of progressing down the chain on the immigration issue.
Click to expand...
All right let’s look at it this way. Are there any conservatives that are pro-death?

I submit if you are pro-death you are liberal.
 
Being a liberal, I thought I’d share my thoughts, so you probably won’t like them. I am not rapid about abortion, but I am pro-choice up thru 12-14 weeks. My reason is the process of fetal development and the death of sentient beings. Research I have read seems to show that there is not enought nerve and brain development for the fetus to be conscious of self or pain until the second trimester. To me, then, this gives the woman, who is a sentient being, the authority and right to terminate the pregnancy (please, I’m familiar with “silent scream” and have read and posted scientific information debunking the emotionalist claims).

The problem I have with most pro-life people is that they don’t seem to be concerned with the born folks who, as sentient beings, are conscious of their suffering in both a mental and physical way. When we cut social programs, the children and elderly suffer the most - the very ones least able to help themselves. Yet, the pro-life folks generally vote for conservative candidates who view most social programs as a waste of money. So those very children they wanted to be born so badly often end up living in abject poverty and/or dying young as a result of crime, inadequate health care, or improper nutrition. I live in Los Angeles, we have homeless kids here - they live on the streets because there are no programs (or program funding) to house them. They are innocent victims. If they manage to make it to adulthood many will have turned to crime and wind up in prison - a rather costly solution to the problem (we can always build new prisons, it seems, but heaven forbid we should provide more low cost housing or money for education and after school programs). As a liberal, I think that if the energy spent on the unborn were focused instead on ending poverty in this country that the abortion issue would, in many cases, take care of itself - we could team up a really be pro-life (the right to a life of dignity and a fair chance for all - when you do that, I’ll be with you). I myself had an abortion about 25 years ago for health and financial reasons. Many folks see this as their only alternative to increased poverty. Abortion is often the symptom of a much larger problem. It’s not so much that people don’t value the life of the unborn as that they don’t value the life of the born - IMO.
 
buffalo said:
All right let’s look at it this way. Are there any conservatives that are pro-death?

I submit if you are pro-death you are liberal.
Click to expand...
What does that even mean? This is your private definition of liberal? If you want to use the term today, the burden of defining it is on you. But I’d suggest your current working definition needs work!
 
Swan said:
Being a liberal, I thought I’d share my thoughts, so you probably won’t like them. I am not rapid about abortion, but I am pro-choice up thru 12-14 weeks. My reason is the process of fetal development and the death of sentient beings. Research I have read seems to show that there is not enought nerve and brain development for the fetus to be conscious of self or pain until the second trimester. To me, then, this gives the woman, who is a sentient being, the authority and right to terminate the pregnancy (please, I’m familiar with “silent scream” and have read and posted scientific information debunking the emotionalist claims).

The problem I have with most pro-life people is that they don’t seem to be concerned with the born folks who, as sentient beings, are conscious of their suffering in both a mental and physical way. When we cut social programs, the children and elderly suffer the most - the very ones least able to help themselves. Yet, the pro-life folks generally vote for conservative candidates who view most social programs as a waste of money. So those very children they wanted to be born so badly often end up living in abject poverty and/or dying young as a result of crime, inadequate health care, or improper nutrition. I live in Los Angeles, we have homeless kids here - they live on the streets because there are no programs (or program funding) to house them. They are innocent victims. If they manage to make it to adulthood many will have turned to crime and wind up in prison - a rather costly solution to the problem (we can always build new prisons, it seems, but heaven forbid we should provide more low cost housing or money for education and after school programs). As a liberal, I think that if the energy spent on the unborn were focused instead on ending poverty in this country that the abortion issue would, in many cases, take care of itself - we could team up a really be pro-life (the right to a life of dignity and a fair chance for all - when you do that, I’ll be with you). I myself had an abortion about 25 years ago for health and financial reasons. Many folks see this as their only alternative to increased poverty. Abortion is often the symptom of a much larger problem. It’s not so much that people don’t value the life of the unborn as that they don’t value the life of the born - IMO.
Click to expand...
You have in your profile that you are Christian. Just curious where you got your definition that abortion is ok if there is a reason? How do you back that up biblically?
 
Swan said:
…
Many folks see this as their only alternative to increased poverty. Abortion is often the symptom of a much larger problem. It’s not so much that people don’t value the life of the unborn as that they don’t value the life of the born - IMO.
Click to expand...
See my stage 5 explanation above. Southerners, of course made the exact same argument about how emancipation was a northern scheme to undercut their ability to compete economically and that northerners would do nothing to help the (presumed at the time) ‘feeble-minded black man’ survive on his own once freed. Such criticism of northern motives might even have been true, but the motivation was rather irrelevant to the moral principle at hand.

I often find it very helpful when trying to discern a moral issue that affects me personally to find an analogous situation that DOESN’T affect me personally. Much easier to avoid rationalizing to get the answer my emotions want.

Kudos to you Swan for at least attempting to explain why you don’t feel abortion victims rate human person status (though I obviously don’t agree). Most abortion defenders simply default to rants about their own rights. Food for thought: what crime should someone be charged with who stabs a 2.5 month pregnant woman (one joyfully pregnant) in the stomach and kills her child?
 
It is clear that many of the positions commonly defined as “liberal” in this country are at odds with the pro-abortion position most liberals take. This applies to the liberal’s professed concern for the weak and also to the fact that liberals are generally not staunch defenders of personal autonomy and its related “prochoic” positions about any other issues beside abortion.

It can be useful to appropriate some of the “liberal vocabulary” and apply it to abortion. This can include connecting unborn children to categories like “the vulnerable,” the “weak,” the “defenseless,” the “voiceless,” etc. If these people are indeed solid in their support for such categories of people, they should, logically, extend their compassion and protection to those who are the most vulnerable, weak, defenseless, and voiceless. Challenge liberals on this!

I often throw my opposition to the death penalty at liberals, as most of them also oppose capital punishment. My reasoning is simple:
“I am not in favor of killing child-raping serial murderers or Osama bin Laden, so I’m sure as heck not in favor of killing some innocent kid.”
 
It’s not good enough for liberals to say conservatives don’t have programs to help pregnant women. I’ll agree. But Dems haven’t done anything for them either. So, is providing public funds to help them kill their children a morally superior answer?

I agree that liberals aren’t necessary pro-abortion. But one has to admit that the Dem party is the home of virtually all liberals, and the Dem party is a totally pro-abortion party. If most liberals weren’t pro-abortion, the party wouldn’t be that way. If most conservatives weren’t prolife, the Repub party wouldn’t be overtly prolife.

So, while there are doubtless outliers on both ends, it’s plain that most liberals favor abortion.
 
dmelosi said:
You have in your profile that you are Christian. Just curious where you got your definition that abortion is ok if there is a reason? How do you back that up biblically?
Click to expand...
I actually know a lot of Christians who agree with me - or who at least belive it should be up to the woman. I wasn’t aware that the Bible mentioned abortion. Perhaps you can point that out to me. However, if you are going with “thou shalt not kill” I don’t believe the fetus has a soul until fairly late in development so I don’t see it as “murder”. No soul, no person, IMO. And I’ve given this a lot of thought and prayer. I “forced” myself to be pro-life for a while, too. I even donated money to pro-life charities. But, in the end, I just can’t equate a fetus, especially one in the early stages of development, with a fully developed, born, human child. But I can see the born ones suffering and for that I find no excuse - not in a society as wealthy as ours. To me, this is a true sin. I know this is a vastly unpopular opinion here, however.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top