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.
SuperLuigi said:
A conceived child has a different DNA pattern.

That is not “your own body”.

Smokers maybe the most persecuted people of this time. When did it become the government’s responsibility to make sure people were healthy?
Click to expand...
Anything that circumvents progressive ideals often is; if nothing else, to cause division and derision while they silently implement their civilization-destroying plan.

Do you have any proof that progressives want to destroy civilization?

Do you think progressive accomplishments such as freeing the slaves or giving women the vote was all part of their evil plan?
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Anything that circumvents progressive ideals often is; if nothing else, to cause division and derision while they silently implement their civilization-destroying plan.

Do you have any proof that progressives want to destroy civilization?

Do you think progressive accomplishments such as freeing the slaves or giving women the vote was all part of their evil plan?
Click to expand...
BOTH OF YOUR EXAMPLES WERE SUPPORTED BY REPUBLICANS AND OPPOSED BY DEMOCRATS.

Facts, they sure get in the way.

FWIW I don’t think progressives WANT to destroy the civilization but that’s what their policies do.

Lisa
 
SuperLuigi said:
They seemed to do pretty well in elections in 1900, the 1920s, 1950s and 1980s.

And look at 2010.

The West, huh?

Have you seen the TFR reports in this country? Mind telling me why Mormons, Muslims and Latino/conservative Catholics are having children and why the liberal northeast can’t keep up with population growth?

Also, check at the number of electoral votes that blue states have lost versus say Texas and Florida and Arizona.

Oh, and don’t forget the Muslim growth in West-Central Europe. I suppose they are liberal and progressive though, huh?

I’d say the democrats did, since they fought a war to keep it.

How so? We’ve got Sarah and Condi today.

Wasn’t most of that was done by the KKK?—which was vastly made up of democrats. And aren’t there a lot of democrats who still support the death penalty, which can be more painful if done incorrectly than hanging?

The only people I know of who secretly won’t date interracially are either democrats or apathetic in the world of politics.

Actually, today’s liberals would be yesterday’s Tories and maybe even some slave owners and indentured servant masters-----but instead of Africans and women, it’d probably be straight white able-bodied men of Anglo-Saxon descent.

I really couldn’t see the academic elite siding with the Founding Fathers in fighting the British, especially if they had a place in the royal court.
Click to expand...
This post is fundamentally wrong in almost every area.

Before the Civil Rights Movement the Democrats were the Conservative Southern Party.

Conservatives (by definition) were not in favor of major social changes like freeing the slaves or giving women political power (on par with men).
 
SuperLuigi said:
I agree.

The problem with that being a conservative politically is different than fighting every single change in society. Political Constitutional conservatives were at the heart of many changes.

Taking someone else’s labour by force of government (slavery) or only allowing a certain group to have voting privileges flies in the face of the Constitution.

It was the republicans who wanted to end slavery, got the women’s sufferage movement going and wanted to pass civil rights legislation under IKE in the 1950s.
Click to expand...
Yes, *now that the Constitution has been changed *to make the slaves and their descendants citizens and give women the vote.
 
SuperLuigi said:
I agree.

The problem with that being a conservative politically is different than fighting every single change in society. Political Constitutional conservatives were at the heart of many changes.

Taking someone else’s labour by force of government (slavery) or only allowing a certain group to have voting privileges flies in the face of the Constitution.

It was the republicans who wanted to end slavery, got the women’s sufferage movement going and wanted to pass civil rights legislation under IKE in the 1950s.
Click to expand...
True, but back then they were essentially a progressive Northern party. Since then the Republican and Democratic parties have essentially switched places.
Now the Republican party is basically the Southern Conservative party.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Anything that circumvents progressive ideals often is; if nothing else, to cause division and derision while they silently implement their civilization-destroying plan.

Do you have any proof that progressives want to destroy civilization?

Do you think progressive accomplishments such as freeing the slaves or giving women the vote was all part of their evil plan?
LisaA said:
**BOTH OF YOUR EXAMPLES WERE SUPPORTED BY REPUBLICANS AND OPPOSED BY DEMOCRATS. **
Facts, they sure get in the way.

FWIW I don’t think progressives WANT to destroy the civilization but that’s what their policies do.

Lisa
Click to expand...
So what?

Back then Republicans were the relatively radical Northern party, and the Democrats were the Conservative Southern party. Now Republicans are the Conservative Southern party (the only thing the modern party really has in common with the party Lincoln’s time is the name).
 
The thread title is guilty of the logical fallacy - begging the question. So every single person who has posted in this thread, has just jumped on a bandwagon with a flawed premise to start with. Awesome. Maybe you should start with trying to prove that your statement is even true to start with. Never mind - I know you can’t.
 
Why?

Because the sin of Pride makes them think that they are gods and that they get to set the rules.

Because “love” in their minds consists of self-gratification at all costs rather than self-giving.

Because the sin of Lust blinded their reason and has led them to deny immortality and the reality of Hell. They must rationalize their demonic behavior at all costs.

They like to think of themselves as progressive, tolerant, rational and humane. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are as regressive, intolerant, irrational, cruel (in a civilized sort of way) as some of the most evil monsters in history.
 
HansTrappist said:
Why?

Because the sin of Pride makes them think that they are gods and that they get to set the rules.

Because “love” in their minds consists of self-gratification at all costs rather than self-giving.

Because the sin of Lust blinded their reason and has led them to deny immortality and the reality of Hell. They must rationalize their demonic behavior at all costs.

They like to think of themselves as progressive, tolerant, rational and humane. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are as regressive, intolerant, irrational, cruel (in a civilized sort of way) as some of the most evil monsters in history.
Click to expand...
Opinion.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Like the abolitionists* feeling* that no man should own another?
Click to expand...
No because the abolitionists were NOT liberal, leftist, progressive or Democrat they based their anti-slavery philosophy upon natural rights and our Constitution. This was not a matter of “feelings” but well established and consistent human rights guarantied therein

Lisa
 
Originally Posted by HansTrappist
Why?

Because the sin of Pride makes them think that they are gods and that they get to set the rules.

Because “love” in their minds consists of self-gratification at all costs rather than self-giving.

Because the sin of Lust blinded their reason and has led them to deny immortality and the reality of Hell. They must rationalize their demonic behavior at all costs.

They like to think of themselves as progressive, tolerant, rational and humane. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are as regressive, intolerant, irrational, cruel (in a civilized sort of way) as some of the most evil monsters in history.
Seeker1961 said:
Opinion.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I considered the post so obviously nothing more than his opinion that I didn’t think it was worth commenting on:shrug:
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Like the abolitionists feeling that no man should own another?
LisaA said:
No because the abolitionists were NOT liberal, leftist, progressive or Democrat they based their anti-slavery philosophy upon natural rights and our Constitution. This was not a matter of “feelings” but well established and consistent human rights guarantied therein

Lisa
Click to expand...
LOL:D

Thanks I needed that laugh.

First of all, the abolitionists were by nature NOT conservative, because they wanted to radically change society by getting rid of slavery (which was an important part of the Southern economy and culture). Therefore the Republican party (which had restricting slavery as one of its core values) was NOT conservative (at that point at least).

Secondly, the Constitution specifically allowed slavery until the Republicans altered it. Otherwise the Southerners couldn’t count their slaves (under Constitutional law) when it came to determining their representation in the House of Representatives.
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Like the abolitionists feeling that no man should own another?

LOL:D

Thanks I needed that laugh.

First of all, the abolitionists were by nature NOT conservative, because they wanted to radically change society by getting rid of slavery (which was an important part of the Southern economy and culture). Therefore the Republican party (which had restricting slavery as one of its core values) was NOT conservative (at that point at least).

Secondly, the Constitution specifically allowed slavery until the Republicans altered it. Otherwise the Southerners couldn’t count their slaves (under Constitutional law) when it came to determining their representation in the House of Representatives.
Click to expand...
It was a Republican President who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Abolitionists were Republicans. It was Republicans who championed Civil Rights.

It was Democrats who opposed both. Democrats also opposed Women’s Suffrage.

The facts are pesky aren’t they? But I am glad you find reality amusing.
Lisa
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
Originally Posted by HansTrappist

To be honest, I considered the post so obviously nothing more than his opinion that I didn’t think it was worth commenting on:shrug:
Click to expand...
Is the statement “abortion is murder” also an opinion?
 
Abortions are an entirely different matter…but regarding birth control, it’s a matter of religious freedom. My religion allows me to use birth control if I so choose. Your religion does not.

Do you want to tell me I can’t use birth control because your religion says so?

“Living without it” isn’t the issue. I can live without it. But if I want it, I will damn well lhave it. YOU can live without meat, but are you going to become a vegetarian because my religion says so?

Jala
 
Jala said:
Abortions are an entirely different matter…but regarding birth control, it’s a matter of religious freedom. My religion allows me to use birth control if I so choose. Your religion does not.

Do you want to tell me I can’t use birth control because your religion says so?

“Living without it” isn’t the issue. I can live without it. But if I want it, I will damn well lhave it. YOU can live without meat, but are you going to become a vegetarian because my religion says so?

Jala
Click to expand...
Jala you mistake a prohibition with a responsibility. True the Catholic Church does not allow artificial contraception. However nothing has been proposed about PROHIBITING the use of contraception. If you want to fill your body with chemicals to prevent a pregnancy, well it’s a free country.

OTOH you cannot ask ME to PAY for your sex life and your choices. That is the objection to the HHS Mandate.

You don’t seem to understand the difference as your example is completely irrelevant.

Lisa
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Like the abolitionists feeling that no man should own another?

LOL

Thanks I needed that laugh.

First of all, the abolitionists were by nature NOT conservative, because they wanted to radically change society by getting rid of slavery (which was an important part of the Southern economy and culture). Therefore the Republican party (which had restricting slavery as one of its core values) was NOT conservative (at that point at least).

Secondly, the Constitution specifically allowed slavery until the Republicans altered it. Otherwise the Southerners couldn’t count their slaves (under Constitutional law) when it came to determining their representation in the House of Representatives.
LisaA said:
It was a Republican President who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Abolitionists were Republicans. It was Republicans who championed Civil Rights.

It was Democrats who opposed both. Democrats also opposed Women’s Suffrage.

The facts are pesky aren’t they? But I am glad you find reality amusing.
Lisa
Click to expand...
It was a Democratic President (LBJ) who passed the Civil Rights legislation, thus turning Southerners away from the Democratic Party and allowing Republicans like Nixon to recruit Southerners offended by de-segregation for the Republican Party (it was known as the Southern Strategy).

The Republican Party has moved so far from being the party of Lincoln that Republican lawmakers feel free to say that the institution of American slavery was a ‘blessing’ (link to source: atlantadailyworld.com/index.php/viewpoints/428-republican-lawmaker-calls-slavery-a-blessing-for-blacks).

Now if you’re a Republican, I can understand you wanting to focus on what the Party was, rather than what the Republican Party is today, but that does not change the reality of the situation:shrug:
 
AngryAtheist8 said:
It was a Democratic President (LBJ) who passed the Civil Rights legislation, thus turning Southerners away from the Democratic Party and allowing Republicans like Nixon to recruit Southerners offended by de-segregation for the Republican Party (it was known as the Southern Strategy).

The Republican Party has moved so far from being the party of Lincoln that Republican lawmakers feel free to say that the institution of American slavery was a ‘blessing’ (link to source: atlantadailyworld.com/index.php/viewpoints/428-republican-lawmaker-calls-slavery-a-blessing-for-blacks).

Now if you’re a Republican, I can understand you wanting to focus on what the Party was, rather than what the Republican Party is today, but that does not change the reality of the situation:shrug:
Click to expand...
Again, while a Democrat was in office when Civil Rights were put into law, it was not because Johnson cared about black people, it was because he wanted the n*** word vote which is incidentally the words he used. Were members of the Ku Klux Klan Republicans? Robert Byrd anyone? Were the Republicans or Democrats opposed to Civil Rights legislation? Women’s Suffrage? Slavery?

You would like to revise history because the Democrats have much to be ashamed of. They have been very successful in fooling black people, and now any black who ‘leaves the plantation’ is pilloried. From Clarence Thomas to Condi Rice to Thomas Sowell, any Conservative black is demeaned and attacked.

Sorry facts are pesky things aren’t they?

Lisa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top