Dem. vs. Rep. Views on abortion and logic
Options
_John_
Posts: 8,642 Member
I know logic and politics don't mix, but logically the stereotypical stance on abortion by the parties seems backwards to me.
Republicans are in support of keeping every fetus alive, but less likely to support the babies with public funds after birth.
Democrats seems to goble every fringe group they can in support of underprivileged/special rights/animal rights, but somehow view a fetus as an animal unworthy of support.
Logically, it would make sense for the two parties to flip flop their "company line" stance on abortion.
Republicans are in support of keeping every fetus alive, but less likely to support the babies with public funds after birth.
Democrats seems to goble every fringe group they can in support of underprivileged/special rights/animal rights, but somehow view a fetus as an animal unworthy of support.
Logically, it would make sense for the two parties to flip flop their "company line" stance on abortion.
0
Replies
-
Bill Maher said something along those lines. I forget his exact quote, but here's a butchered paraphrasing:
"Dems don't GAF about you until you come out the birth canal and then wants to welfare and nanny-state the fawk outta you. GOP wants to guard you from conception but once you're born... *kitten* you, you're on your own! Pull yourself up by your bootstraps... or diaper tabs... whatever. But don't even think of ending your life or getting someone to help you end your life, because we've exclusive rights to warmongering and death penalty!"0 -
Honestly, nothing either party does ever makes sense.
I really wish a true independent contender could step up to the plate, and put the government where it needs to be. The public wants moderation. But you can't get any sense of moderation from either party because they all are rigid along party lines. One of the things that made Reagan such a great president was his ability to compromise.
Where are the moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats to find compromise in modern politics?0 -
I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).
Edited for clarification.0 -
You know, I'd also like to further add that the ideals of both parties have evolved over time so I'm thinking that perhaps they will eventually evolve again. If each party can get their head out of their *kitten* and learn to work together.0
-
I would love to see every member of the government thrown out and made to compete for their jobs on a fair playing field with new contenders. It's so broken up there.Honestly, nothing either party does ever makes sense.
I really wish a true independent contender could step up to the plate, and put the government where it needs to be. The public wants moderation. But you can't get any sense of moderation from either party because they all are rigid along party lines. One of the things that made Reagan such a great president was his ability to compromise.
Where are the moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats to find compromise in modern politics?
As far as the thread topic, I don't think anything is so black and white and I also don't think either side presents an honest picture.0 -
We need moderates as the party whips... then I think you would see some better congruency in party ideals.0
-
I would love to see every member of the government thrown out and made to compete for their jobs on a fair playing field with new contenders. It's so broken up there.Honestly, nothing either party does ever makes sense.
I really wish a true independent contender could step up to the plate, and put the government where it needs to be. The public wants moderation. But you can't get any sense of moderation from either party because they all are rigid along party lines. One of the things that made Reagan such a great president was his ability to compromise.
Where are the moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats to find compromise in modern politics?
As far as the thread topic, I don't think anything is so black and white and I also don't think either side presents an honest picture.
Presidential Elections by way of the Hunger Games!!0 -
I would love to see every member of the government thrown out and made to compete for their jobs on a fair playing field with new contenders. It's so broken up there.Honestly, nothing either party does ever makes sense.
I really wish a true independent contender could step up to the plate, and put the government where it needs to be. The public wants moderation. But you can't get any sense of moderation from either party because they all are rigid along party lines. One of the things that made Reagan such a great president was his ability to compromise.
Where are the moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats to find compromise in modern politics?
As far as the thread topic, I don't think anything is so black and white and I also don't think either side presents an honest picture.
Presidential Elections by way of the Hunger Games!!
I vote Pistol Duel0 -
I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).
Edited for clarification.
I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.0 -
I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).
Edited for clarification.
I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.
so positions like this lead to the obvious logistical question of "when does life begin", since it seems you support that life is sacred. So it's implied that a fetus is only "sacred" and an independent life if the woman chooses to "want" it. That choice makes it "sacred" vs. a life not worth protecting?0 -
I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).
Edited for clarification.
I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.
so positions like this lead to the obvious logistical question of "when does life begin", since it seems you support that life is sacred. So it's implied that a fetus is only "sacred" and an independent life if the woman chooses to "want" it. That choice makes it "sacred" vs. a life not worth protecting?
You are making the presumption that life is always optimal. Sure, on a primary level, every living thing wants to continue living. But life isn't always easy or pretty.0 -
You are making the presumption that life is always optimal. Sure, on a primary level, every living thing wants to continue living. But life isn't always easy or pretty.
[/quote]
See, here we could get into an "I Robot" type debate, where "optimal" could be a moving target. I use managing my pond as example. I'm culling small bluegill because I want to optimize the growth of the larger ones by reducing competition for food. We can't do this on a human population, for obvious reasons.
The truth of all the matters in life is that as unique and precious as we are, had we never existed someone else would have been able to do whatever we did in society. Again, I use my pond. If i remove a very large bluegill from my population, this just allows room for smaller bluegill to take its place.0 -
You are making the presumption that life is always optimal. Sure, on a primary level, every living thing wants to continue living. But life isn't always easy or pretty.
See, here we could get into an "I Robot" type debate, where "optimal" could be a moving target. I use managing my pond as example. I'm culling small bluegill because I want to optimize the growth of the larger ones by reducing competition for food. We can't do this on a human population, for obvious reasons.
The truth of all the matters in life is that as unique and precious as we are, had we never existed someone else would have been able to do whatever we did in society. Again, I use my pond. If i remove a very large bluegill from my population, this just allows room for smaller bluegill to take its place.
I honestly didn't follow that.
The point is this... women are made to be powerless. I know it doesn't seem like it could be possible in this day and age... but it is. There is an immense psychological component to the way society treats the sexes that could lead to a woman being completely oppressed. Her decision to abort could be about protecting the child from an unpleasant future. You could suggest adoption as the answer, but look how overloaded the foster care system already is, and on top of that, the father could have the power and ability to interfere with the adoption. We would all love to think that men who would make that effort and have that ability really love their children and could offer a good life, but sometimes, the motivations could be in their own best interest and not the child's.
I know have several friends that will disagree with me, and that's fine. We all have different stories to tell. I think that it is sad, though, that the potential evil motivations of the few can disrupt the opportunities of the many, but I honestly believe that the woman's right to choose is in the best interests of all.
That being said, I completely support the death penalty for murderers and rapists. Some just simply can't be allowed any further opportunities to harm others. Consequently, my justification for the death penalty is right in line with my justification for legal abortion.
But that puts me at middle of the road for this discussion. I can't feasibly argue both sides, can I?0 -
You are making the presumption that life is always optimal. Sure, on a primary level, every living thing wants to continue living. But life isn't always easy or pretty.
See, here we could get into an "I Robot" type debate, where "optimal" could be a moving target. I use managing my pond as example. I'm culling small bluegill because I want to optimize the growth of the larger ones by reducing competition for food. We can't do this on a human population, for obvious reasons.
The truth of all the matters in life is that as unique and precious as we are, had we never existed someone else would have been able to do whatever we did in society. Again, I use my pond. If i remove a very large bluegill from my population, this just allows room for smaller bluegill to take its place.
I honestly didn't follow that.
The point is this... women are made to be powerless. I know it doesn't seem like it could be possible in this day and age... but it is. There is an immense psychological component to the way society treats the sexes that could lead to a woman being completely oppressed. Her decision to abort could be about protecting the child from an unpleasant future. You could suggest adoption as the answer, but look how overloaded the foster care system already is, and on top of that, the father could have the power and ability to interfere with the adoption. We would all love to think that men who would make that effort and have that ability really love their children and could offer a good life, but sometimes, the motivations could be in their own best interest and not the child's.
I know have several friends that will disagree with me, and that's fine. We all have different stories to tell. I think that it is sad, though, that the potential evil motivations of the few can disrupt the opportunities of the many, but I honestly believe that the woman's right to choose is in the best interests of all.
That being said, I completely support the death penalty for murderers and rapists. Some just simply can't be allowed any further opportunities to harm others. Consequently, my justification for the death penalty is right in line with my justification for legal abortion.
But that puts me at middle of the road for this discussion. I can't feasibly argue both sides, can I?
I think the right to choose is absolutely the most logical choice of our legal system as far as what is legal, but to get back to the discussion title, I find it ironic which side argues for this.0 -
You are making the presumption that life is always optimal. Sure, on a primary level, every living thing wants to continue living. But life isn't always easy or pretty.
See, here we could get into an "I Robot" type debate, where "optimal" could be a moving target. I use managing my pond as example. I'm culling small bluegill because I want to optimize the growth of the larger ones by reducing competition for food. We can't do this on a human population, for obvious reasons.
The truth of all the matters in life is that as unique and precious as we are, had we never existed someone else would have been able to do whatever we did in society. Again, I use my pond. If i remove a very large bluegill from my population, this just allows room for smaller bluegill to take its place.
I honestly didn't follow that.
The point is this... women are made to be powerless. I know it doesn't seem like it could be possible in this day and age... but it is. There is an immense psychological component to the way society treats the sexes that could lead to a woman being completely oppressed. Her decision to abort could be about protecting the child from an unpleasant future. You could suggest adoption as the answer, but look how overloaded the foster care system already is, and on top of that, the father could have the power and ability to interfere with the adoption. We would all love to think that men who would make that effort and have that ability really love their children and could offer a good life, but sometimes, the motivations could be in their own best interest and not the child's.
I know have several friends that will disagree with me, and that's fine. We all have different stories to tell. I think that it is sad, though, that the potential evil motivations of the few can disrupt the opportunities of the many, but I honestly believe that the woman's right to choose is in the best interests of all.
That being said, I completely support the death penalty for murderers and rapists. Some just simply can't be allowed any further opportunities to harm others. Consequently, my justification for the death penalty is right in line with my justification for legal abortion.
But that puts me at middle of the road for this discussion. I can't feasibly argue both sides, can I?
I think the right to choose is absolutely the most logical choice of our legal system as far as what is legal, but to get back to the discussion title, I find it ironic which side argues for this.
Yes, the contradictions in extremist politics is amazing.0 -
I know logic and politics don't mix, but logically the stereotypical stance on abortion by the parties seems backwards to me.
Republicans are in support of keeping every fetus alive, but less likely to support the babies with public funds after birth.
Democrats seems to goble every fringe group they can in support of underprivileged/special rights/animal rights, but somehow view a fetus as an animal unworthy of support.
Logically, it would make sense for the two parties to flip flop their "company line" stance on abortion.
Not sure it is illogical, depending on how you frame the debate. The republican view is more traditional/conservative in that women's behavior is controlled. The democrat view is more egalitarian. Do you really think there would be a debate if men bore children?0 -
I support the right to life for an unborn that has committed no crime, but also support the death penalty to those that have committed crimes against humanity (murder, rape being prime examples).
Edited for clarification.
I feel the exact opposite way, I feel a woman should have a right to choose if she wants to carry a baby or not, however, I am 100% against the government ordered murder of human beings.
so positions like this lead to the obvious logistical question of "when does life begin", since it seems you support that life is sacred. So it's implied that a fetus is only "sacred" and an independent life if the woman chooses to "want" it. That choice makes it "sacred" vs. a life not worth protecting?
Personally, as I can only speak for myself, I believe that life starts when the first breath is taken or is able to be taken outside the mother.
Genesis 2:7, He “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being”.
After someone is alive, nobody, including the government, should have the right to end that life.
Also,. there are many other problems with the death penalty, but as per this discussion, that is the opinion I share for now.0 -
You could suggest adoption as the answer, but look how overloaded the foster care system already is, and on top of that, the father could have the power and ability to interfere with the adoption.
The foster care system is overloaded with older children who were removed from homes where they were abused.
It uis not overloaded with cute babies that biological parents chose to give up for adoption. People are going outside the US to adopt these days because they want infants and it is very difficult to adopt infants in this country anymore. I know a few who have and I know a few who adopted from other countries and the processes and issues that arise in the US are insane.
But even so, newborns get adopted pretty much immediately when they're available.0 -
If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.
Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?0 -
Because there your god was speaking to one very specific person.If you are going to quote scripture at least do so in its proper context. In Genesis, the bible is speaking about the initial creation of man. There was no mother to precede him.
Jeremiah 1:5 states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
If the bible is the basis of your argument, how do you reconcile the above scripture?0
