Why Are The Progressives Pro Abortion If They Are Anti Death Penalty?

[zinfamous]

because the first is not about killing a life?


also, why are conservatives anti-abortion and anti-welfare? Are they willing to pay for all those babies? lol--no, they aren't.

BUT! They are pro-prison expansion and pro death penalty, so that is one way to take care of all those extra babies, many of them having a higher chance of leading a criminal life.


the party of morals right there, folks. what a bunch of clowns.

 

[Texashiker]

I think I've taught you enough about this topic for one day, not that any of it will stick.

nehalem256 has a valid point as society holds men and women to different standards.

Man knocks woman up, too bad for him, he should have kept his penis in his pants. Men are told to "man up", take responsibility, get a job and provide for his family.

Woman gets knocked up, she has the choice to get an abortion and avoid the responsibility of having a child. The woman is also told to sign up on all the social programs she can get.

also, why are conservatives anti-abortion and anti-welfare? Are they willing to pay for all those babies? lol--no, they aren't.

BUT! They are pro-prison expansion and pro death penalty, so that is one way to take care of all those extra babies, many of them having a higher chance of leading a criminal life.

Its called taking responsibility for your actions.

 

[Paul98]

Come back after you get some life experience and say that.

Better yet, come back after the state attorney general has asked that you be put in prison because you are behind on your child support. Too bad men do not have the option to abort a fetus and avoid responsibility.

One thing progressives are not fond about is holding people responsible for their actions, unless that person happens to be a male.

This has happened to you?

 

[nehalem256]

You said 'face the consequences'. The only real consequence is pregnancy, which abortion certainly fixes. Abortion is facing the consequences as much as giving birth.

So you agree that pregnancy is the only real consequence of sex. Having a child is consequence of carrying the fetus for 9 months

So then, why should the man have to be responsible for the child which you just conceded was not the consequence of his action?

As I've told nehalem god-knows-how-many times, if a baby is born both parents have an equal responsibility towards it. If the father has custody and the woman does not pay her share, she can be dragged into court just as well.

The deliberate obtuseness of why exactly a woman has a choice is getting really old, btw.

And even ignoring the fact this is a lie. It is also irrelevant.

Why should rubbing your dick around for 10 minutes confer equal responsible to carrying a fetus for 9 months?

 

[fskimospy]

nehalem256 has a valid point as society holds men and women to different standards.

Man knocks woman up, too bad for him, he should have kept his penis in his pants. Men are told to "man up", take responsibility, get a job and provide for his family.

Woman gets knocked up, she has the choice to get an abortion and avoid the responsibility of having a child. The woman is also told to sign up on all the social programs she can get.

He has no point, even a child could see that.

Both parents are equally liable for the care of the child at all times. If a woman has an abortion both she and the man are off the hook. If she doesn't, both she and the man are on the hook. Whatever parent has custody has a claim on the other parent for support, regardless of gender. This is simplicity itself and there is no analogous situation for men because of biology 101.

It's this sort of stupidity that makes people like nehalem call for the police to arrest women, drag them off, and forcibly abort their children. (well that, and a pathological hatred of women).

 

[fskimospy]

So you agree that pregnancy is the only real consequence of sex. Having a child is consequence of carrying the fetus for 9 months

So then, why should the man have to be responsible for the child which you just conceded was not the consequence of his action?



And even ignoring the fact this is a lie. It is also irrelevant.

Why should rubbing your dick around for 10 minutes confer equal responsible to carrying a fetus for 9 months?

Sorry buddy, all these questions have been answered in previous threads. Go use the search function.

What's your girlfriend's first name, btw? Where did you guys meet? How long have you been dating, and what does she think of your opinions towards women?

 

[BurnItDwn]

I am pro choice. The woman has the right to disconnect the incomplete unborn human from within her at any point up until it is exterior of her body.

The thing is, the incomplete unborn humans are not done developing / not able to take care of themselves at that point.

I do not believe the government should have the right to murder it's citizens.

 

[Texashiker]

This has happened to you?

I lost my job, got behind on child support, attorney generals office sued me and asked the judge to put me in jail until I was able to come up with the money. I think it was something like $3,000 - $4,000 I was behind.

Luckily I went to high school with a guy who became an attorney. He took my case Pro Bono, as I was broke.

My attorney was able to work out a payment plan that kept me out of jail.

I got a job and was able to get caught up on my child support over the course of a year.

That was 8 1/2 years ago. Only 10 more months of this financial slavery and I will be done.

Both parents are equally liable for the care of the child at all times.

Really? Then why isn't my ex-wife court ordered to have a job and provide health insurance for the children?

~ EDIT ~

In one of my child support hearings a guy who was behind on his payments was arrested in the court room and chained to the bench. The mother of the child however was free to go.

If you want to see true in-equality in our society, go to a child support hearing. A lot of them are open to the public, so just walk in and sit down. When you start seeing dad after dad arrested for owing money, you might change you mind on how both parents are being held responsible.

 

[fskimospy]

Really? Then why isn't my ex-wife court ordered to have a job and provide health insurance for the children?

If you had custody of the children she would be required to provide support as well. It is not gender specific.

 

[nehalem256]

Both parents are equally liable for the care of the child at all times. If a woman has an abortion both she and the man are off the hook. If she doesn't, both she and the man are on the hook.

And why should both people being held liable for the woman's decision? 😕

You have already conceded that the only consequence of sex is pregnancy. A child is not a consequence of sex; that was YOUR argument. So you are saying men should be held responsible for women's decisions.

 

[justoh]

So you agree that pregnancy is the only real consequence of sex. Having a child is consequence of carrying the fetus for 9 months

So then, why should the man have to be responsible for the child which you just conceded was not the consequence of his action?



And even ignoring the fact this is a lie. It is also irrelevant.

Why should rubbing your dick around for 10 minutes confer equal responsible to carrying a fetus for 9 months?

That seems like a good point at first. Why should the father, provided he renounces interest in the bundle in a timely manner, be forced to provide for a child he didn't want when women can make that choice? At first this might seem outrageous, and in the context of legal abortion, unfair to men. But then I thought twice and realized it's motivated by the child's interests, not some bias towards the mother, even if it is still her choice due to certain biological practicalities.

In any case, whether or not the govt should compel a father to support an unwanted child is irrelevant to whether or not the govt should compel a mother to give birth. But it does make me a little more sympathetic towards deadbeat fathers I did a nehalem!

 

[justoh]

I lost my job, got behind on child support, attorney generals office sued me and asked the judge to put me in jail until I was able to come up with the money. I think it was something like $3,000 - $4,000 I was behind.

Luckily I went to high school with a guy who became an attorney. He took my case Pro Bono, as I was broke.

My attorney was able to work out a payment plan that kept me out of jail.

I got a job and was able to get caught up on my child support over the course of a year.

That was 8 1/2 years ago. Only 10 more months of this financial slavery and I will be done.



Really? Then why isn't my ex-wife court ordered to have a job and provide health insurance for the children?

~ EDIT ~

In one of my child support hearings a guy who was behind on his payments was arrested in the court room and chained to the bench. The mother of the child however was free to go.

If you want to see true in-equality in our society, go to a child support hearing. A lot of them are open to the public, so just walk in and sit down. When you start seeing dad after dad arrested for owing money, you might change you mind on how both parents are being held responsible.

You can't prevent women from having abortions because of a sad personal story and some silly argument that may be logically valid but ignores the interests of the child, plus isn't even relevant (lols). If you weren't a selfish "conservative" you would understand this.

 

[fskimospy]

And why should both people being held liable for the woman's decision? 😕

You have already conceded that the only consequence of sex is pregnancy. A child is not a consequence of sex; that was YOUR argument. So you are saying men should be held responsible for women's decisions.

Where does your girlfriend work? What do you guys do together on weekends? Did you meet online or through friends?

 

[nehalem256]

That seems like a good point at first. Why should the father, provided he renounces interest in the bundle in a timely manner, be forced to provide for a child he didn't want when women can make that choice? At first this might seem outrageous, and in the context of legal abortion, unfair to men. But then I thought twice and realized it's motivated by the child's interests, not some bias towards the mother, even if it is still her choice due to certain biological practicalities.

Except if abortion is legal and a woman cannot care for the child she can just get an abortion. A problem only arises if you don't trust women to make good choices.

And additionally if the woman doesn't want the man's money she is free to deny the child the father's money. What happens to the child's interest in that case?

It seems to me like progressives only care about the interest of the child when it aligns with the interest of the woman.

 

[Texashiker]

You can't prevent women from having abortions because of a sad personal story and some silly argument that may be logically valid but ignores the interests of the child.

You can not prevent men from avoiding responsibility just like women because of some sad story or silly argument.

If you weren't a selfish moron you would understand this.

Selfish as in how?

 

[Gunslinger08]

I've never really understood this either, and I'm kind of anti death penalty. Kill people who have given us a reason? Nope. Kill a fetus that is pretty much guaranteed to be a living breathing person in less than 38 weeks? No problem.

Neither of the common positions (pro choice and anti-DP or pro life and pro-DP) really makes sense to me though. I feel like your positions should be linked - either all life is to be protected or it is not.

However, I'm mostly anti-DP due to the lack of incriminating hard evidence (DNA, fingerprints) in a lot of DP cases.

 

[glenn1]

Um.... yes. Ever heard of Roe vs Wade. This issue has been settled for decades.

The boon to civilization that abortion brought is patently obvious....

As shown in the attached chart, abortion was legalized in the early 70's. In the early to mid 90s, right at the time all of those unwanted babies would have reached their criminal peak, the murder rate began falling. There appears to be a direct correlation between aborting unwanted children and reduced the violent crime rate in America.

So if a gang-banging welfare queen wants to kill off her unborn kid, who am I to stand in her way... go for it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973-2003.jpg

The boon to civilization is less progressive babies being born due to abortion. Again, I support abortion, would mandate it for progressives if I could.

Except if abortion is legal and a woman cannot care for the child she can just get an abortion. A problem only arises if you don't trust women to make good choices.

And additionally if the woman doesn't want the man's money she is free to deny the child the father's money. What happens to the child's interest in that case?

It seems to me like progressives only care about the interest of the child when it aligns with the interest of the woman.

Progressives' interest in children seems to go from supporting their abortion to concern about "its interests" at the moment they can be enrolled for a welfare check.

 

[Texashiker]

Progressives' interest in children seems to go from supporting their abortion to concern about "its interests" at the moment they can be enrolled for a welfare check.

Winston Churchill has been credited as saying, "the left favors the line, the right the ladder."

Meaning, the left favors the welfare line, while the right favors climbing the economic ladder.

It appears to me that progressives are not interested in individual rights, liberty or responsibility, but rather how many people can be kept going back to the welfare line.

A person sentenced to life in prison is a progressives wet dream, as that person will be dependent on the system for the rest of their life.

Putting an inmate to death takes the person off the public dole, which is opposite what progressives want.

 

[fskimospy]

Winston Churchill has been credited as saying, "the left favors the line, the right the ladder."

Meaning, the left favors the welfare line, while the right favors climbing the economic ladder.

It appears to me that progressives are not interested in individual rights, liberty or responsibility, but rather how many people can be kept going back to the welfare line.

A person sentenced to life in prison is a progressives wet dream, as that person will be dependent on the system for the rest of their life.

Putting an inmate to death takes the person off the public dole, which is opposite what progressives want.

Well that is impressively insane. Do you actually believe this?

 

[etrigan420]

Epic insight right there.

Inorite?

It's called irony.

I'll let you look it up.

 

[Paul98]

Just a conservative who believes people should take responsibility for their actions.

If someone is not willing to take responsibility, then the state should hold that person responsible.


~ EDIT ~

Progressives on the other hand:

Do not want to work? It's ok, here is some welfare.
Do want to to have that baby, get an abortion.
Killed someone, or a few dozen people, its ok, here is a free room, 3 meals a day and free health care for life.

I lost my job, got behind on child support, attorney generals office sued me and asked the judge to put me in jail until I was able to come up with the money. I think it was something like $3,000 - $4,000 I was behind.

Luckily I went to high school with a guy who became an attorney. He took my case Pro Bono, as I was broke.

My attorney was able to work out a payment plan that kept me out of jail.

I got a job and was able to get caught up on my child support over the course of a year.

That was 8 1/2 years ago. Only 10 more months of this financial slavery and I will be done.



Really? Then why isn't my ex-wife court ordered to have a job and provide health insurance for the children?

~ EDIT ~

In one of my child support hearings a guy who was behind on his payments was arrested in the court room and chained to the bench. The mother of the child however was free to go.

If you want to see true in-equality in our society, go to a child support hearing. A lot of them are open to the public, so just walk in and sit down. When you start seeing dad after dad arrested for owing money, you might change you mind on how both parents are being held responsible.

I thought you wanted people to take responsibility for there actions...

 

[etrigan420]

Winston Churchill has been credited as saying, "the left favors the line, the right the ladder."

Meaning, the left favors the welfare line, while the right favors climbing the economic ladder.

It appears to me that progressives are not interested in individual rights, liberty or responsibility, but rather how many people can be kept going back to the welfare line.

A person sentenced to life in prison is a progressives wet dream, as that person will be dependent on the system for the rest of their life.

Putting an inmate to death takes the person off the public dole, which is opposite what progressives want.

Shouldn't progressives be anti abortion then?

Because hell...more welfare babbies.

 

[nixium]

The liberals in this thread are just advancing idiotic arguments about "manning" up or "keeping your dick in your pants" that can easily be used against abortion by asking the woman to do the same. I wish they would just "man" up and admit that yes, men get screwed over in the whole pregnancy thing. There's no question that the woman gets more choices to keep the child, and the laws are purely for the child's interest at the cost of screwing an unwilling man over.

However, I'd like the resident liberal bleeding hearts to explain this. After the child is born, if the woman doesn't want it, she can abandon it at the nearest orphanage. However, the man gets no choice to do so (if he doesn't want it) and has to support it throughout his life. How do you use the "interests of the child" argument in this case?

I don't hate women or anything, but I'm going to call out unfair treatment when I see it.

 

[Texashiker]

Well that is impressively insane. Do you actually believe this?

Not that I fully believe it, but I do find myself asking why liberals want to keep someone alive in a cage for the rest of their lives.

My rabbits and chickens provide me with eggs, meat and organic fertilizer for my garden. So I have a reason and a purpose to keep them in a cage.

What purpose does keeping a person in a cage serve? What does society get from that person? It is surely not justice.

I thought you wanted people to take responsibility for there actions...

I do.

Shouldn't progressives be anti abortion then?

Because hell...more welfare babbies.

With the economy going the way it is we are going to have plenty of people on welfare.

 

[Paul98]

Not that I fully believe it, but I do find myself asking why liberals want to keep someone alive in a cage fort he rest of their lives.

My rabbits and chickens provide me with eggs, meat and organic fertilizer for my garden.

What purpose does keeping a person in a cage serve?




I do.




With the economy going the way it is we are going to have plenty of people on welfare.

You just don't hold yourself to the same standards as everyone else.