What it means to be a liberal

[Joeychgo]

5. If the females have the right to decide between a baby's life or death because they are biologically linked, shouldn't the father, who is just as biologically linked, have an equal say in the decision? Why, then, are fathers prohibited from deciding between life or death?

One this one, I completely agree with you. This is a huge hipocracy. The father has no rights after he gets out of bed. If she aborts, he has no say, if she keeps the child, he's stuck with 18 years of support regardless of his wishes. This is completely unfair across the board. I agree that women claim they want the right to control their body, but they sure dont seem to want to the financial responsibility that comes with that control.

Beyond that - Your argument about illegal drugs is just plain stupid. By your logic, why does a woman have a right to choose natural childbirth vs a C-section. Why can a woman refuse medical treatment for an injury or elect to have a boob job? If she doesnt have the right to take illegal drugs why should she be able to get a boob job?

I wont even get into the rest of your points.

Look, if you want to debate the constitutionality of this, I am more then willing to do so. But I wont engage in a constitutional debate about points that are not constitutional based. How an abortion is performed has no bearing on the constitutionality of the woman's right to control what happens with her body.

 

[Frogman]

I was in seattle many years ago, visiting some friends up there. We were walking through seattle, and came upon an abortion clinic. A bunch of pro-life protesters were chanting their... chants outside the clinic. As I walked by, I could not help but smile. One of them saw me, and said something to the effect of "what are you s laughing at?" I told the lady I was not laughing, but merely smiling. She again, inquired as to why I was "smiling". I told her, my Girlfriend is pregnant, and she does not want the baby. The Birth c control methods we used failed. She was thinking about aborting the fetus. This lady went ape:q:q:q:q on me. I then told her "I'll tell you what. I can talk her into keeping the baby, IF you adopt it when it's born. Would you care to adopt the child? that way she won't have to get an abortion". The lady looked at me and said "well, no, why should I adopt it?" I said, "you are the one who's trying to tell me and my girlfriend what she should do with her unwanted child. We're offering to bring it in this world, but only if YOU adopt it" She sais "well, there are orphanages out there that will take the baby". I said "I don't see any of these orphanages out here with you, picketing. You maam are a hypocryte". She stammered something as I walked away, but I made my point to her. Now granted, my Girlfriend was not pregnant. But should I father a child (scary thought), I would support whatever decission the mother will make. Simple as that. I dont believe that a fetus has rights. If it had rights, it could vote, drink merrily own a firearm, and drive.

Yeah, I know, I know. Kids have all sorts or rights. But I can't qualify something that is not aware of it's surroundings and can talk to me (even on a babytalk level) a child.

Now, we're talking about children here, not some pet monkey, or any other member of the animal or bird kingdom.

 

[fossten]

Yeah, I know, I know. Kids have all sorts or rights. But I can't qualify something that is not aware of it's surroundings and can talk to me (even on a babytalk level) a child.

Now, we're talking about children here, not some pet monkey, or any other member of the animal or bird kingdom.

Sounds like you have a nasty streak, setting up a phony straw man just so you could heckle a right-to-lifer exercising her free speech rights. If that's not hate, I don't know what is. But being a phony liar is typical of liberals as well.

You are absolutely incorrect to assume that an unborn baby is not aware of its surroundings. Have you not ever heard of babies kicking while still in the womb? And physically responding to the voices of their mothers, fathers, and even classical music? Scientific research has shown that unborn babies can learn, hear, respond to parents' voices and moods, and feel lonely or loved.

Furthermore, who made you judge, jury and executioner based on whether or not someone is aware of their surroundings? I wouldn't let a person with your level of hate anywhere near legislation. Who knows what types of people you'd try to have killed.

 

[fossten]

One this one, I completely agree with you. This is a huge hipocracy. The father has no rights after he gets out of bed. If she aborts, he has no say, if she keeps the child, he's stuck with 18 years of support regardless of his wishes. This is completely unfair across the board. I agree that women claim they want the right to control their body, but they sure dont seem to want to the financial responsibility that comes with that control.

Beyond that - Your argument about illegal drugs is just plain stupid. By your logic, why does a woman have a right to choose natural childbirth vs a C-section. Why can a woman refuse medical treatment for an injury or elect to have a boob job? If she doesnt have the right to take illegal drugs why should she be able to get a boob job?

I wont even get into the rest of your points.

Look, if you want to debate the constitutionality of this, I am more then willing to do so. But I wont engage in a constitutional debate about points that are not constitutional based. How an abortion is performed has no bearing on the constitutionality of the woman's right to control what happens with her body.

Don't make me laugh about constitutionally based abortion laws. I just have one challenge for you:

Show me where it actually says in the Constitution that a woman has a right to an abortion. Then I'll listen to your STUPID constitutionality argument.

Face it, Joey: You know you're wrong. Killing babies is murder. It was murder long before 5 unelected people in black robes decided it was legal. It's still immoral, and 1,500,000 babies are murdered in this country every year. So don't get sanctimonious with me about how you sympathize with the father and all that crap. The fact is that your arguments are baloney and your belief in abortion is abhorrent.

Furthermore, the fact that my description of how abortions are performed doesn't appear to bother you speaks volumes about you as a person.

 

[Frogman]

Voltaire once said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I have been a staunch believer of those words for the better part of my life. The difference between us Fossten, is that I don't have a problem with death. Be it an old man, or be it an unborn... Child, as you call them. I do have some morals about actual children and women, but make no mistake. If that child or a woman poses a real threat to myself or others, he or she is going down... fast.

I don't see how I actually set that lady up. I was fine with just walking by and letting her spew her chants. She is the one that challenged my right to free speech (or smile in this case). But no, she had to challenge me and what I was thinking. So I told her what was on my mind. Ofcourse, I get labeled as a liberal because I think differently than you and pro lifers in general. Sad. That's the problem with political jealots nowadays, be the liberals, democrats and republicans. When someone doesn't agree with their views, they start the name calling. Again, sad...

A plant has also been shown to respond to music in studies. Does that make plants aware of their surroundings? A mimosa plant responds to touch by folding up the leaf you touch. Does that make it aware of it's surroundings?

Pitcher plants will trap and eat small insects. Are they aware of their surroundings as well? Or are they only acting on some primitive self preservation code built into their DNA?

Just because something moves or reacts to music does not make it aware of it's surroundings.

Oh, and don't worry. I'd never want to be in legislation. And if I ever have an unwanted child, I'm calling you up so you can adopt him or her, ok, Fossten? It's either that, or here comes the coat hanger.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Ofcourse, I get labeled as a liberal because I think differently than you and pro lifers in general. Sad. That's the problem with political jealots nowadays, be the liberals, democrats and republicans. When someone doesn't agree with their views, they start the name calling. Again, sad...

Agreed. Sad, but par for the course w/ these types.

 

[fossten]

Voltaire once said "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I have been a staunch believer of those words for the better part of my life. The difference between us Fossten, is that I don't have a problem with death. Be it an old man, or be it an unborn... Child, as you call them. I do have some morals about actual children and women, but make no mistake. If that child or a woman poses a real threat to myself or others, he or she is going down... fast.

I don't see how I actually set that lady up. I was fine with just walking by and letting her spew her chants. She is the one that challenged my right to free speech (or smile in this case). But no, she had to challenge me and what I was thinking. So I told her what was on my mind. Ofcourse, I get labeled as a liberal because I think differently than you and pro lifers in general. Sad. That's the problem with political jealots nowadays, be the liberals, democrats and republicans. When someone doesn't agree with their views, they start the name calling. Again, sad...

A plant has also been shown to respond to music in studies. Does that make plants aware of their surroundings? A mimosa plant responds to touch by folding up the leaf you touch. Does that make it aware of it's surroundings?

Pitcher plants will trap and eat small insects. Are they aware of their surroundings as well? Or are they only acting on some primitive self preservation code built into their DNA?

Just because something moves or reacts to music does not make it aware of it's surroundings.

Oh, and don't worry. I'd never want to be in legislation. And if I ever have an unwanted child, I'm calling you up so you can adopt him or her, ok, Fossten? It's either that, or here comes the coat hanger.

It's interesting that you equate being called a liberal with name-calling. It must be a pejorative in your eyes, but what does that say about liberalism?

Your comparison of a human baby to a plant shows your colossal ignorance of science in general and biology in particular. But, whatever. If you think you came from a plant, even the evolutionists raise their eyebrows at your banality.

And your sick attitude toward abortion just illustrates your liberal views, which are perfectly in line with liberalism's viewpoint toward choice: They want only one choice, and that is more abortions.

Read my lips: You, sir, are a liberal. Might as well be proud of it. After all, you're already proud of being a liar.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

You can't be serious. The comment wasn't funny. And it makes you look completely unhinged. Now'd be a good to time to retract the comment.

Furthermore, if you really think there is some link between anyone here and the Islamo-extremist groups that have declared War on civilization, you have demonstrated to us all just how little you understand about the world. You're screaming out just how unable you are to comprehend the actual threats that exist in the world. You're announcing your gross ignorance and flawed world view.

If religious Christians are no different in your mind from Islamist who want to cut your head off, you've been brainwashed.

I thought that comment was hilarious, because it was YOU who took the whole point out of context (as you typically do) and attempted to link it to the "beheading" behavior. YOU went there, I just took it a bit further. Now the fact that he hasn't yet defended himself over the last day or so could imply that my comment is true.

Re-read my original post but crank up your comprehension gain a bit futher. Here, I'll help:

Exactly WHO's (out of the thousands of "religions" in practice on this planet) GOD are we supposed to get our morals from? They don't ALL agree on the same set of morals, OBVIOUSLY given all the religious wars that have been going on for thousands of years. Are you saying YOUR "god" is the ONE ALMIGHTY??? ROTFLMAO Put down the kool-aid. You are no better than the islamofacists.

TRANSLATION: Bible-beating Christian zealots who disrespect other religions and refuse to recognize that the US is a FREE country where it's people are FREE to believe in ANY religion / GOD without persecution or prejudice are no less anti-AMERICAN than those radical muslims who think the same way. Our founding fathers had enough forethought to ensure that the foundation of this country allowed freedom of religious practice, and the ONLY way to preserve this freedom was to dis-assiciate the laws from any particular GOD or religion. That is not to say that some laws aren't or cannot be founded on some moral principles that all religions can agree on. That only makes sense for the common good. However, where the differing religions DON'T agree, the laws must be very careful to no exclude one at the preference of the other. Otherwise it would undermine the foundation of religious freedom.

 

[fossten]

Johnny eats kittens and babies for breakfast and rapes 10-year-old Catholic schoolboys on a daily basis.

Either defend yourself, Johnny, or you will be implying that the above statement is true.

Like anybody should have to defend themselves over your petty personal attacks.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

blah blah blah and blah blah blah

Did you say something?

 

[fossten]

Did you say something?

...said the troll.

Thank you once again, Johnny, for noncontributing to this thread.

 

[TheDude]

TRANSLATION: Bible-beating Christian zealots who disrespect other religions and refuse to recognize that the US is a FREE country where it's people are FREE to believe in ANY religion / GOD without persecution or prejudice are no less anti-AMERICAN than those radical muslims who think the same way. Our founding fathers had enough forethought to ensure that the foundation of this country allowed freedom of religious practice, and the ONLY way to preserve this freedom was to dis-assiciate the laws from any particular GOD or religion. That is not to say that some laws aren't or cannot be founded on some moral principles that all religions can agree on. That only makes sense for the common good. However, where the differing religions DON'T agree, the laws must be very careful to no exclude one at the preference of the other. Otherwise it would undermine the foundation of religious freedom.

Didn't early settlers come to the 'New World' to be free of religious prosecution? Sounds hypocritical to turn around and then say "Christianty first and foremost!"

 

[Frogman]

So? You want the kid or not? You still haven't answered my question.
I like how pro lifers dance around that question. You sir are no different. :lol: You guys cry bloody murder when it comes to a woman's right to chose, yet when you are faced with the hard fact of having to adopt an unwanted child to save its life, you skirt around the issue... And I must admit, you all do a damned fine job at it.

Where did I say I thought humans came from plants? I was merely giving you an example of other living things that REACT to their surroundings without actually being aware of them. Plants are living things, no? Unborn fetuses are as well, right? What about all the bacteria that lives on your skin that you kill every day when you take a shower? Shouldn't you not shower, so you don't kill all those microorganisms? My point is, that just because it's alive, and it reacts to its surroundings, it doesn't necessarily make it aware of said surroundings.

I guess according to you, I'm a liberal because I am pro choice... What an ingorant deduction there, Fossten. If it were up to types like you, we wouldn't be able to eat a greasy cheeseburger now and then, because hey! you all know what's best for our bodies, and cheeseburgers are bad.

Why do I bother, you only pick and choose to reply to what you THINK I say or mean.

 

[fossten]

Didn't early settlers come to the 'New World' to be free of religious prosecution? Sounds hypocritical to turn around and then say "Christianty first and foremost!"

That's not the issue. The first half of Johnny's post is correct. But he is wrong when he asserts, without any evidence, that the best way to preserve the right to religious freedom is to remove God from any public place, including our state-mandated schools. But this issue has been debated before. I would like to point out to you all that the increased violence in schools coincides with the removal of prayer from schools.