Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pro-Life Liberals are Different to Conservatives and are Not Threatening

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Choice Donate to DU
 
millych3 Donating Member (26 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 07:09 AM
Original message
Pro-Life Liberals are Different to Conservatives and are Not Threatening
I believe personally a liberal can be pro-life. Some feel that pro-life liberals are going to threaten the pro-choice semi-consensus of liberals across the US eventually, but I don't think so. In fact, I think that it may be pro-life liberals who will combine with pro-choice liberals and provide a solid majority to stop the attack on women's rights.

To see how different the perspective is, just consider this:

From the liberal TaraElla Post:
"Not all liberals have to be pro-choice in their own conscience. But liberals cannot support outlawing abortion, no matter pro-life and pro-choice. This we can agree on, and this will hopefully form the liberal consensus on abortion. Here's why.

Liberals believe in limited government when it comes to social issues. We are committed to limited government here because unlike in economic issues, for the maximum amount of freedom in society (so that everyone can determine their own morality and life rules), government just needs to step out most of the time when it is not invited. This limited government means that government only deals with issues affecting more than one legal person, in which conflict may arise between them in some way. For example, governments ought to prohibit killing and stealing, because it violates the right of another legal being.

On the other hand, many people believe the slaughtering of pigs and cows to be immoral. Yet there is no law against this, as pigs and cows are not legal persons. Sure vegans around the world can unite and pressure the government to make a law banning all animal slaughtering, but that's not liberal, isn't it?

The same goes for abortion, I believe. The fetus may be life, but it is not a human being that exists physically independently of another and can be proven to have an independent human conscience - at least not yet. Therefore it cannot be a legal citizen under law. That's why you cannot get a passport for a fetus, just as you cannot get a passport for your dog. As for the 'it will potentially become a human being' argument, well, you can't extend citizenship to sperm and eggs too, can you? The law is not about 'potential human beings' but actual human beings."
Source: http://taraellapost.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-abortion-w...

Contrast this with a piece from the New South Conservative, also from this year:
"Of course, a pro-life liberal is personally against abortion, but doesnt believe in limiting the rights of women to chose for themselves. Senator Pryor will express his personal angst over abortion, but will decline to say Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

Which begs the question, Why is one pro-life in the first place? Why indeed would one be pro-life unless one believes that a pre-born child is just that a child? I am pro-life because the moment there is a human embryo, there exists a human being who deserves all the protection the law provides to any individual at any stage of life. If one doesnt believe human life begins at the moment of conception, what other arbitrary point could one possibly define as the beginning of human existence?

The nation was horrified recently when a distraught mother drove her car into the Hudson River, killing two of her three post-birth children. Would the nation have noticed had she killed them one at a time, pre-birth?

The paradox of the pro-life liberal: He believes that a pre-born child is an individual. But he insists that another human has the right to choose to have that individual murdered. Benevolent intent. Malevolent result."
Source: http://031331b.netsolhost.com/blog1/2011/04/20/the-para... /

Clearly I can see that one position is threatening whilst another is not.
What do you think?
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
NOLALady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. I think that pro choice liberals
are pro life liberals. :popcorn:

IBTL
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. You mean anti-choice? The "pro-life" label is 100% pure bullshit. You're either for choice or anti
I am strongly of the opinion that liberals can be against abortion personally, but never anti-choice as a society.

It's not about how "threatening" they are, it's about philosophically denying others full reproductive rights... or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
libguy_6731 Donating Member (50 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-06-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. this
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-21-11 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. for information
Edited on Sun Aug-21-11 04:28 PM by iverglas
The profile of the above poster fits the one I discussed in a thread yesterday and today in this forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

and my thread in GD last night:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

- a username that is a combo of letters and numbers
(faster registration since the name is not already taken, ever -- my co-vivant, adept in the ways of trolls and sock puppets, pointed this out to me today)
- exactly 50 posts before being tombstoned
- a search discloses that all of those posts consist of one word subject lines and no content

Since this makes two strikes in the Choice forum that I notice, it might be a place to be on the lookout for another one.

If something fits those characteristics, people may want to consider an alert on the post pointing this out (the existence of the particular troll is well known to admin).

... yes, I've just googled a couple of words that seem common to the hate mails sent, and found another example that fits all of the above, with a total of 51 posts that time.

The PM I got just made me snigger, but I have the hide of a rhinosceros and an identity more secret than 007 (to whom I am related, heh heh). Deep sixing the asshole before the PMs can start and someone else might be caused more distress would be wise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. It's not a question of when a cell becomes a child, but when personhood begins
And that's explained very well here, in my opinion: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-30-11 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
5. I invite you to this thread so you can define your terms since "pro-life" and "pro-choice" have many
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-21-11 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. the use of the term itself does make me suspicious
If someone wants to state a personal position on abortion, it would ordinarily be "anti-abortion" for those who oppose, and no label at all for those who are pro-choice, since they have no position pro or con on abortion.

It is possible to be anti-abortion and pro-choice, i.e. in favour of there being no criminal prohibition on abortion.

I'm anti-adultery but "pro-choice": do what you like, I have no desire to interfere even if I consider your behaviour immoral.

I don't think it is possible to describe one's self as "pro-life" and be pro-choice. Participating in the discourse of the efforts to deny women the exercise of fundamental rights isn't consistent with advocating that women have freedom to choose.

I don't care what anyone's personal beliefs about or position on abortion is, as long as they aren't trying to interfere in women's exercise of rights.

I just find it kind of hard to see someone describe themself as "pro-life" and not see someone giving aid and comfort to those who are trying to interfere in women's exercise of rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-19-11 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
9. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Jul 29th 2014, 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Choice Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC