Why do liberals act like they can't live without contraception and abortions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pete_29 said:
If this was the only circumstance in which abortion was legal, that is the high likelihood of the death of the mother, I don’t think you’d see anywhere near the protest from the pro-life movement that you see now. To tell the truth, I don’t know how I would react if it came down to a choice between my wife and my child, but it is my opinion that " pro-choicers" wouldn’t go for only that option because they see abortion as just another form of birth control.
Click to expand...
I’m glad that you admit that it wouldn’t be an easy decision.
 
pismopal said:
Yes…ruining this country’s economy is very helpful to poor people. And I disagree that every person who takes financial assistance actually deserves it. I have never understood why some people don’t get that but I refuse to surrender my common sense to people who describe me as cruel and heartless because I don’t want to give away the store. Have a nice day…that is my way of saying goodbye to you…I am sure you get that.
Click to expand...
Like subsidies for Oil companies perhaps:rolleyes:
 
Originally Posted by livingwordunity
It seems like they think having the pill and abortions is more important than having air to breathe or food to eat. I don’t know why they cling to this so much especially since the pill causes an increased risk for cancer in women.
Irishgal49 said:
They have been deceived by a culture that lies to them. They have bought the lie that my personal decisions are MY RIGHT, we know that isn’t true. They also have bought into the culture of death’s lie that unborn children are blobs of tissue not persons of sacred worth. And while you’re talking about food, the culture of death has now deemed that food and water are “extraordinary medical treatment” that can be discontinued when someone is on life support and should die. Their life is deemed “unworthy” by someone outside of them and then food and water are cut off so they can begin their “dying process”. Using these terms that are devoid of emotion/compassion is the way the death culture makes it all sound sterile/antiseptic/neutral and scientific. It’s all about selfishness, murder, and death when your life has been deemed a pain in someone’s rear or inconvenient to your family.

It’s all a big lie. So why are we surprised when people in white coats convince the masses that they should act this way? We must “show a more excellent way” and fight the culture of death’s movement toward killing those who are a “drain on the system” or who are “inconvenient”.

rosarygirl1962.blog.com/2012/08/20/hhs-a-government-that-keeps-its-promises/

I talk about it in my blog. We are headed toward more and more outright murder, it’s already happening. I’m not surprised at the ferocity of their agenda. I’m surprised at the lack of ferocity with our response. We’re starting to wake up but we must do more.
Click to expand...
Well yes.
The idea that liberals value birth control and abortion more than breathing IS a lie.

I suspect if the decision was forced on them, even the most committed female Pro-choicer would choose to have a baby instead of dying right then and there.
The survival instinct is very strong, and the idea people can commonly overcome it merely for the sake of convenience is laughable.
 
livingwordunity said:
Now it’s common that innocent babies get killed in the womb of their mother. And liberals call this progress.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Conservatives have steadily been losing ground in Western society since the American Revolution (if not long before).
Conservatives lost when slavery was abolished.
Conservatives lost when women got the vote.
Conservatives lost when lynching became unacceptable.
Conservatives lost when laws against interracial marriage were overturned.

Over and over again in American (and for that matter European society) conservatives have tried to defend the status quo and (eventually) been defeated.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Why assume the theoretical lover wants to have kids either?
That’s a big assumption.

You are showing a fundamental lack of understanding regarding sex.
There are plenty of reasons to have sex other than your own pleasure or the desire for children.

Such as:
-To bond with and/or influence a lover.
-To make somebody feel better.
-To manipulate someone into doing what you want.
-To make money.
-To make somebody else jealous.
-In order to appease somebody more powerful.

And many many other reasons.

A desire to make somebody feel better is selfish
CrimsonThorn said:
Arent there other ways to make a person feel better? Or is fornication the ONLY option?

Keep in mind that the “person whos feeling better” can also be the selfish one, using the person whos fornicating with them as a tool that is only there to make them feel better, instead of seeing them as a respectable person who theyre committed to (being married and using contraception is not being comitted).
Click to expand...
Of course.

So what?🤷

We were talking specifically about sex.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Yes.
Conservatives have steadily been losing ground in Western society since the American Revolution (if not long before).
Conservatives lost when slavery was abolished.
Conservatives lost when women got the vote.
Conservatives lost when lynching became unacceptable.
Conservatives lost when laws against interracial marriage were overturned.

Over and over again in American (and for that matter European society) conservatives have tried to defend the status quo and (eventually) been defeated.
Click to expand...
Conservatives lost when Hitler came to power
Conservatives lost when Lenin and Stalin came to power
Conservatives lost when Mao Zedong came to power.

You are correct.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Why assume the theoretical lover wants to have kids either?
That’s a big assumption.

You are showing a fundamental lack of understanding regarding sex.
There are plenty of reasons to have sex other than your own pleasure or the desire for children.

Such as:
-To bond with and/or influence a lover.
-To make somebody feel better.
-To manipulate someone into doing what you want.
-To make money.
-To make somebody else jealous.
-In order to appease somebody more powerful.

And many many other reasons.

A desire to make somebody feel better is selfish

Of course.

So what?🤷

We were talking specifically about sex.
Click to expand...
Heh youre starting to fit the description of the thread title. Valuing or emphasizing fornication and contraception as the avenue “to make someome feel good” as a first option before considering the other options.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
I notice that you don’t mention the common health exception.

And its worth noting…
If a pregnancy kills a pregnant woman, the unborn fetus is NOT saved but dies with the woman instead (generally speaking).
Click to expand...
So it is better to kill the child?

St. Gianna Bretta Molla, pray for us!
 
pismopal said:
Yes…ruining this country’s economy is very helpful to poor people. And I disagree that every person who takes financial assistance actually deserves it. I have never understood why some people don’t get that but I refuse to surrender my common sense to people who describe me as cruel and heartless because I don’t want to give away the store. Have a nice day…that is my way of saying goodbye to you…I am sure you get that.
Click to expand...
Who said that every person who takes financial assistance deserves it? No one is denying some people are playing the system. But for every person playing the system there are probably a few that are struggling to feed their kids and need ever cent of that government assistance so their kids can eat ramen and mac and cheese without going hungry. I’m not willing to punish those people so people playing the system don’t get theirs. That doesn’t sound much like something Jesus would do either, does it?
 
interestedman said:
You obviously don’t understand trickle down economics! Don’t give the money to the poor, you give money to big corporations. Just like Jesus preached in the gospels.
Click to expand...
Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day. But teach a man to fish, and he can provide for himself for a lifetime. Doing something to improve the economy so that the poor can find a decent job is a whole lot better than the liberal solution of keeping people poor and dependent on government welfare. Most people want to work and don’t want to live their life dependent on the state to take care of them. They care more about being able to find work so that*** they***, not the government, can provide food to their family. Free contraception and abortion coupons doesn’t put food on the table and hasn’t helped this disastrous economy under the current incompetent white house administration.
 
pete_29 said:
Conservatives lost when Hitler came to power
Conservatives lost when Lenin and Stalin came to power
Conservatives lost when Mao Zedong came to power.

You are correct.
Click to expand...
Yes, it wasn’t their century.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Why assume the theoretical lover wants to have kids either?
That’s a big assumption.

You are showing a fundamental lack of understanding regarding sex.
There are plenty of reasons to have sex other than your own pleasure or the desire for children.

Such as:
-To bond with and/or influence a lover.
-To make somebody feel better.
-To manipulate someone into doing what you want.
-To make money.
-To make somebody else jealous.
-In order to appease somebody more powerful.

And many many other reasons.

A desire to make somebody feel better is selfish

Of course.

So what?

We were talking specifically about sex.
CrimsonThorn said:
Heh youre starting to fit the description of the thread title. Valuing or emphasizing fornication and contraception as the avenue “to make someome feel good” as a first option before considering the other options.
Click to expand...
You would have a point **IF **the thread wasn’t about sex and you were not talking about sex.
But considering the context:rolleyes:
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I notice that you don’t mention the common health exception.

And its worth noting…
If a pregnancy kills a pregnant woman, the unborn fetus is NOT saved but dies with the woman instead (generally speaking).
LaMusicaSenior said:
So it is better to kill the child?

St. Gianna Bretta Molla, pray for us!
Click to expand...
Yes.

Better one death than two.
Moreover, I personally think its more useful (and perhaps more noble) for mothers to live for their children than die for them.
 
livingwordunity said:
Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day. But teach a man to fish, and he can provide for himself for a lifetime. Doing something to improve the economy so that the poor can find a decent job is a whole lot better than the liberal solution of keeping people poor and dependent on government welfare. Most people want to work and don’t want to live their life dependent on the state to take care of them. They care more about being able to find work so that*** they***, not the government, can provide food to their family. Free contraception and abortion coupons doesn’t put food on the table and hasn’t helped this disastrous economy under the current incompetent white house administration.
Click to expand...
So you’re pro-corporate welfare but against welfare for the poor…
Okay.
Its pretty clear what your priorities are:rolleyes:
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I notice that you don’t mention the common health exception.

And its worth noting…
If a pregnancy kills a pregnant woman, the unborn fetus is NOT saved but dies with the woman instead (generally speaking).

Yes.

Better one death than two.
Moreover, I personally think its more useful (and perhaps more noble) for mothers to live for their children than die for them.
Click to expand...
No! Murdering your child is not love. Love is sacrifice - love is what Christ showed us on the cross - and killing your child is not sacrifical love of a mother. It is not noble for a mother to kill her child. It is noble and honorabe and courageous for a mother to value the life of her child over her own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top