Why do people on CAF seem to think liberals are evil?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jump4Joy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being.

You mentioned upthread that the embryo is an organism. This is correct. So what kind of organism is s/he, if not a human being?

That’s the simple science part.

I don’t think it’s OK to kill a human being just because X, Y, or Z excuse is used to discriminate against him/her in order claim that the killing is ethically acceptable.

“The embryo is unconscious.”
Do we walk into hospitals and slash the throats of the unconscious?

“The embryo is as small as X.”
Does your right not to get killed increase as you grow taller?

Etc. The discrimination just isn’t right.

Now here’s my softie, liberal, gonna-get-flamed-on-CAF side: I don’t believe in addressing this issue with punitive policies. There are much better and more compassionate ways to help desperate women, especially by addressing the obstacles that keep them from having their babies. See this fabulous organization for details. http://www.feministsforlife.org/

But you won’t hear me justify abortion. The science for doing so doesn’t hold up, and pro-choice logic just gets too sloppy. Sorry.

ETA: I have to go now - so be please be patient for a response to any future posts. 😚
 
Last edited:
Because they’re both human beings, and, as such, deserve the right to life.
 
I partially agree. However, doesn’t the same intolerance happen in the other direction: that is, don’t most (Christian) conservatives want liberals to believe what conservatives believe in, including opposition to abortion and euthanasia under all circumstances, no gay marriage, no gun control regulations that are stricter than what the NRA wants, no big business regulations, and so on? From my perspective, both groups are intolerant of the other’s political, cultural, and moral beliefs, and both groups want to impose THEIR views on the whole society.
 
Last edited:
Just be confident in who you are, don’t worry about others.

I am a Democrat and am not ashamed. I do not agree with everything the Democratic party stands for, but I agree with it more than the Republican party, especially in the age of Trump (who is a model for each of the 7 deadly sins). Neither party is perfect and never will be, so just do your best and don’t worry about others, especially those who use blanket statements like “all liberals are evil” or “all conservatives are heartless”. It shows a lack of nuance and lack of critical thinking. A Democrat may hold more conservative views on certain issues, like abortion or guns while at the same time aligning with the party on trade and taxation. A conservative may disagree with the Republican party’s stance on gay marriage, not for religious reasons, but based on a libertarian stance that the government should not decide who can and cannot get married.

Nuance, give it a try. Think for yourself and vote as you see appropriate.
 
That’s basically a baby. She couldn’t wait a few more weeks to deliver the baby and give it up
 
Last edited:
I always wondered why less strict gun control is a conservative issue/stance. I think everyone wants the world ran their way.
 
Jump4Joy said:
Why is abortion so important to Catholics? No other issue generates so much sympathy. I wish I saw this amount of concern for the living
Click to expand...
You wish there was more concern for the living? What do you think an unborn child is if not alive?

Protection of the most innocent and vulnerable from being deliberately slaughtered is vital. There is nobody more innocent or more vulnerable than a child in his/her mother’s womb. About 40 million children are slaughtered each year in their mothers’ wombs. 40 million innocent, vulnerable children killed in the place they should feel safest, in their mother’s womb.

Is that not something worth getting passionate about? These are human beings, tens of millions of the most vulnerable, innocent children.
 
Last edited:
Let’s frame the question differently:
Q: “Why do ‘liberals’ think people on CAF hate them?”
A: The question is a non sequitur - the Catholic Church is technically apolitical. However, her teachings are becoming increasingly counter-cultural. Thus, a faithful Catholic may appear liberal to a conservative and conservative to a liberal.
 
The politically liberal may appear to be disliked for many reasons such as the incompetence found in the places where they’ve been allowed perpetual rule (Detroit for example), not to mention the totalitarianism found in liberal thought and action today, as well as the general lack of respect toward basic western values. Lying abound, since from a liberal’s perspective; hey, what’s wrong with that anyways? Could never trust a politically liberal person who would align themselves with the same political party as those believing in absolute far-left degeneracy.

 
misstherese said:
A desire for equality of outcome is evil. Equality of opportunity is what we should aim for.

Many leftists say they want equality of opportunity when in reality, what they really want is equality of outcome. In first world countries we are already fairly equal. Women are equal to men as far as being able to get the same jobs and same pay (gender wage gap is a myth). Those of other races are treated with fairness based on how they hold themselves, not on their skin color. However, leftists still make the same claim. They don’t want true equality. They want communism (though they may not outright say it).

They say they want women to be in work fields dominated by men and still don’t realize that maybe women CHOOSE not to be in those fields, not because they aren’t given the opportunity. The social hierarchy is a natural phenomenon. There will always be the rich and the poor. There will always be differences in gender. Those who are in positions of power, earned their way to the top through hard work and intelligence. If we all gave out participation awards, the world would be an awful place with no progression.
Click to expand...
Few women apply hot tar to roofs in August,
 
Last edited:
Mark121359 said:
Great post! If you don’t mind, I would make one correction. In the very first sentence of your post, I would remove “a perceived,” and then you’d be really on to something.
Click to expand...
I was trying to be gentle and take my audience into consideration, but seeing that my audience totally didn’t try to address my point, so much for that conversation! 🙂

People on one side are wary, because they know the real issue goes beyond the soda, or beyond the guns, or beyond the public prayer, or whatever else the issue at hand is. But you can’t make that mental leap on behalf of people who can’t see the bigger picture-- and you can’t paint with a broad brush by saying “everyone on your side” wants to take away my soda/guns/public prayer! But you point to it and say, “See, here are three specific instances where people get the feeling people on that side are trying to overreach into their lives—” and there’s no arguing with it being phrased that way. 🙂

And then you can go from there to other things in history— “let’s get rid of the stigma of unwed motherhood” starts off as a kindhearted gesture, but in reality, ultimately evolves into 4 out of 10 babies being born in the US to unwed mothers. (And 7 out of 10 in some cultural groups.) (Compare that to about 7 in 100 before WWII, when the statistic first started being tracked in the US, or a careful downward slide in England and Wales that peaked at 19% in 1850 and was down to 6% right before WWII in 1940.) “Let’s not conflate “unwed” with “single”!” is the response to that, and the response to that is , “I see you’re not involved in the Justice system! Or the school system! to think that it doesn’t have an effect.” 😛
 
Dacinom said:
When is it really a baby and when does taking it’s life amount to cruelty?
Click to expand...
Peter Singer, Princeton University’s professor of bioethics, suggested that even after infants are born they’re not yet “persons.” His colleague, Helga Kuhse, suggested that: “a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others.”
“Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.” But animals are self-aware, and therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”
~Peter Singer from his book; “Practical Ethics”~
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So do you disagree with the premise that both are human and should be treated as such?
 
Did you know that the U.S. Has NO official language? Nowhere is it stated that English is an official language. So why would we suddenly adopt 2 official languages? Makes no sense. As it is, foreign languages are a requirement in high school and even many middle and elementary schools teach them.
 
A baby is only an embryo for 8 weeks. If you do believe abortion is ok do you think it’s only ok during the first 8 weeks? I’ve just noticed that you always say embryo. So I don’t know whether that’s what you believe or if it’s more that “embryo” makes you feel better.
 
I don’t equate an embryo to a five year old human. If you think abortion is immoral I can agree to that, they are worlds away from being the same.
 
In the third trimester. The closer they are to childbirth, the more human characteristics they have. Terminating a pregnancy at three weeks is not the same as terminating at the last few weeks up to the birth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top