Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why Conservatives "oppose abortion"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Tony_FLADEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:47 AM
Original message
Why Conservatives "oppose abortion"
It's very simple actually. Every political movement needs a moral and emotional element. For Conservatives this is abortion. They love the abortion issue because they can take a moral postion without actually having to do anything. In other words, opposing abortion is easy. Taking the moral position on abortion allows them to avoid applying moral principles to issues such as the environment and poverty. This is an added bonus.

See i've explained the abortion issue in one paragraph.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yep
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 12:49 AM by FreedomAngel82
You should check out the film "With God On our Side." It comes on off and on on the Sundance Channel if you get this. It talks about evangelicals in politics from Carter to Bush43/44.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
2. Whoa. I take the moral position on abortion. Women should be...
empowered to make decisions about their own bodies and fertility.

What could be more moral than that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. You have to
save the babies don't you know. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Would you please quit responding to me?
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 12:53 AM by Maddy McCall
I've attempted to ignore you without putting you on ignore. Now, would you just refrain from responding to me when I post? Every time I've posted in GD tonight, you've responded to me, and we both know that that isn't sheer coincidence.

Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I'm not pissed about the movie.
I never was pissed about the movie. Drop the movie, already.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. JAYSUS MADDIE IS SHE STILL GOING ON ABOUT THE MOVIES?
I've used IGNORE; it makes life on the DU so much simpler
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Hey, Skittles. Indeed, I just heeded your advice.
I couldn't take it anymore. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
8. Yep - exactly, that's it.
The rightwing doesn't want to do anything that's actually difficult or that might lead them to follow Jesus' words "Those of you who wish to follow me must pick up your crosses; you must deny your life to gain it; those who keep their lives will lose them."

Yes, it makes them LOOK like they are doing something, and like they care - but it's an action that requires nothing from them.

Taking a stand and making poverty illegal, or making homelessness illegal, or making being hungry illegal, would actually cost them something - money in taxes, perhaps time spent helping the poor, or whatever - so they will never follow Jesus' words on helping the poor, feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty, etc.

Nope, better to just legislate their bastardized and false form of "Christianity".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Actually, that makes good sense, Rabrrrrrr
I see what you mean. It's their version of morality, though, and not shared by everyone. But, yes, from their own perspectives, it's easy for them to oppose abortion because it grooves with their version of morality and they never have to leave their pews to do it.

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. It's a morality they can force on others, rather than have to claim
and act on on their own.

Much easier to tell your neighbor what they can't do, then it is to take a stand and do something difficult yourself.

The prophets of the Old Testament, esp. Micah and Amos, and then the greatest prophet of the New Testament, Jesus, were all about that - that righteousness isn't about "living morally", it's about making sure that other people can just live: these prophets constantly cried out for caring for the orphans, widows, and the poor, and were constantly crying out against the emptiness of the temple sacrifices, especially when not matched with any sense of communal responsibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northofdenali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. Agreed 100% Rabrrrrr
All hat, no cattle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KitchenWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #8
24. Not to mention, since the beginning of time
Medicine women have been using herbs as abortifacients when necessary. "Christianity" took the healing out of the hands of women, and put it in the hands of men, so men could control women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
10. When the govt usurps the woman's body as chattel
when she's pregnant, the woman will just quit paying taxes. The govt will have a sudden change of position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dream of the Flood Donating Member (63 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:08 AM
Response to Original message
11. Sagan's pro-choice argument
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 01:12 AM by Dream of the Flood
It's easy for the knee-jerk reactionary types that tend to side with conservatives on these issues. Their point of view is that it is a life to be protected from conception. I am an ex-conservative (over a decade ago), and I once held the view that the medical profession was charged with saving and prolonging life, not destroying it. But over the years I changed my mind and became more liberal on nearly every issue. As I began to change my political philosophy bit by bit, I became more liberal in my views on abortion. I still didn't like it and thought it was wrong, but as a man, I saw it as none of my business. I came to see it as the woman's right to control what to do with her body--a right to privacy.

Enter Carl Sagan. I became interested in the written works of Carl Sagan. I read an argument he made in one of his books about abortion. I can now say that abortion is not wrong. I'll make a long story short. He essentially debunks the notion that many "pro-life" (I prefer anti-choice) folks have that there is human life at conception. He continues on to debunk also their assertion that after 10 weeks there is human life because, once again playing on emotion, they would say it begins to have human features. This may be so, but there is not yet a functioning brain. In fact, there are no brainwaves until some time in the third trimester, at which point an abortion would not likely be performed and is illegal in many states and which is not covered under Roe v. Wade to my knowledge anyway. Without brainwaves, there is no consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no human life. You could extend this to say that it is still the mother's body until it is at the point that it can survive on its own, but that might be a little harder to argue and does not represent most abortions anyway.

That is not to say the decision should be taken lightly, but it is to say that the decision is the woman's alone. And she should be able to make that decision without the harrassment of the radical right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomAngel82 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. That's a good point
I'll have to remember that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. good post
considering the damn government accept a woman's right to choice or women will shut them down. Not that complex when you look at the "choices". Let the government try to exist when women refuse to pay taxes because the govt considers them chattel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mythsaje Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. Didn't know Sagan had covered that...
Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for the info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:30 AM
Response to Reply #11
20. Yes but he's a godless evolutionist spewing Satan's lies. /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:28 AM
Response to Original message
19. Same with the 2nd Amendment
Wrap themselves in the Constitution without ever having to stand up for the rights that affect real people. What a great way to live, never having to actually get involved in the real lives of other human beings.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
republicansarewhores Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 03:55 AM
Response to Original message
21. They also need bodies
To throw into their war machines. Because even though they are "pro-life" at birth, all bets are off when you turn 18.

RAW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
APPLE314 Donating Member (262 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
22. Conservatives don't really oppose abortion.
If you have an exception for rape you are really in favor of abortion.
If you have an exception for incest you are really in favor of abortion.
If you agree with parental notification you are really in favor of abortion.
If you agree with 24 hour waiting periods you are really in favor of abortion.
If you have an exception for the health of the mother you are really in favor of abortion.
Exceptions for ANY reason are really stealth approvals of abortion.

Allowing any of these exceptions means the term "pro life" is a gross misuse of the word "life".
The term "anti-death" would better describe the all purpose argument.

Personally, it's hard to have any opinion, not believing in abortion for any reason whatsoever, and believing that all people have the right to choose otherwise.
The conundrum is that --- if you allow others to choose otherwise you are making your own exceptions for abortion --- and therefore you are guilty of approving abortion, by default.

It is very important that people stop and think over their position on this issue very carefully, and make sure they DO NOT buy into those labels that are very carefully selected, on both sides, to mislead you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
23. I also believed it was an issue of states rights. Hear me out.
A lot of conservatives are financially conservative but also morally libertarian, i.e., live-and-let-live. To a lot of them, the issue isn't whether or not abortion should be permitted. The issue is that they object to a federal court (the Supremes) deciding the issue for all 50 states and U.S. territories en masse. For instance, these conservatives would have no problem if all 50 state legislatures permitted abortion INDIVIDUALLY by the choice of their citizens (same result, different means). And they'd have no problem if some of these 50 states decided against abortion b/c it would be their choice, not Washington's. But what the conservatives fail to address is reproductive rights is a fundamental right which cannot be given to the states to protect like slavery and civil rights are not discretionary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KyuzoGator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:17 AM
Response to Original message
25. It's a boogeyman designed to whip their base into a frenzy.
None of these fucks actually care about babies. If they did, they'd be in favor of universal health care and increased public school funding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 07:21 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Exactly-they don't want the issue settled at all
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 07:36 AM by underpants
at least those at the helm of this issue don't. Truth be told both sides of this issue raise lots of money on this one issue and weild a great amount of influence because of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quantess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. babies dying
They don't seem to care about babies after they are born. How about the post-born babies dying right here in the US, anti-choicers? The United States has an unflattering infant mortality rate:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rocknrule Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
27. No, it's because they want to control women
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-10-06 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
29. Morally, it doesn't make sense to limit freedom
Edited on Fri Mar-10-06 12:06 PM by Norquist Nemesis
Turning the decision of to be or not to be into the hands of Government is at the expense of rights to all. The only "moral" position is to keep the decision in the hands of the individual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
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 Wed Oct 01st 2014, 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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