This conversation is closed.

Being a registered "Independent", I am curious how conservatists justify their agendas of abolishing abortions..

How does a political philosophy of denying abortions (sanctity of life) jive with a philosophy which promotes wars, guns and war? I would seriously like to have these answers.

  • Jul 22 2013: This is just a feature of American thought. If you disagree with something, pass a law.

    Never do we communicate or try to reach consensus.
  • Jul 22 2013: I agree with you, but i have also wondered why liberal minded people are so adamant to protect peoples right to abort.
    It seems that both sides of the arguement show some signs of hypocrisy.
    I am neither pro or anti abortion. I think there are cases where abortion would be best for all, including the child. But i do not see abortion as a human right. I believe that religion should have nothing to do with this issue. I am shocked at societies in which abortion is legal but euthanasia is illegal. I am on the fence in regards to abortion, but am 100% pro euthanasia.
    This is a truely sad aspect of life.
  • thumb
    Jul 21 2013: All free women, men, boys, and girls in America have a constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That includes those who are approaching their death, and those who are approaching their birth. Just because the unborn cannot speak for themselves is no justification for another person to decide for them when and how their life will end. Certain abortion procedures are needful and justified, but to use them millions of times a year for issues such as birth control, sex selection, or matters of convenience is a national shame. Regarding warfare it is sometimes necessary for a nation to ask its citizens to arm themselves and stand against tyrannical forces acting adversely upon the national tranquility. Killing one's enemies in defense of one's homeland, or of one's allies in need, is unrelated to the senseless slaughter of millions of helpless unborn babies. The two positions are not in coflict with one another. Are you suggesting that logic demands we must accept any and all abortions because we insist upon defending our country? I hope that is not your point in this post. Thank you!
    • thumb
      Jul 22 2013: 'All free women, men, boys, and girls in America have a constitutional right to life ...'

      If that was true, how do you explain the existence of 'death penalty' in some of your states ...? Because 'they' are not 'free' anymore? Just because they did something considered 'very bad' other people come to decide over their lives?
      • Jul 22 2013: The murderer is, of course not a free man after he is convicted according to the laws of most countries. The conviction by a jury of "other people" is not because of other people wanted to put him to death, but they look at the evidence and AGREED THAT HE WANTONLY TOOK A HUMAN'S LIFE WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. Usually no death penalty is given to the killer due to his reason of self defense or accidental manslaughter.
        I, personally am rather non-committal on death penalty, but I believe that to say that death penalty isn't logical, is rather a weak argument.
        • thumb
          Jul 22 2013: Do you then conclude that the criminalization of abortions is logical? And if so, based on what assumptions?

          By the inversion of the argument of being 'free' and therefore entitled to live, I was trying to point out the fallacy in this sort of thinking.

          As for intentional murder, no society has to choose for death penalty, as life imprisonment would guarantee for safety as well. And for ' life imprisonment' I am not using its legal term here, but its chronological meaning.

          On abortion, the quoted statement could even contradict the one following: 'That includes those who are approaching their death, and those who are approaching their birth'.

          Depending on the definition of 'freedom', '... those who are approaching their birth' are biologically incapable to live 'freely' on their own, as they only do so vitally connected to their mothers.

          And as there also is a strong disputer weather 'assisted suicide' should be allowed or not, which applies to highly ill and/or disabled people and others, the 'freedom' argument is not able to keep up with it either.

          And what about the freedom of personal decision? Isn't this the very core of freedom itself? So what makes it then so difficult to let each woman decide if she wants to abort or not. This is what I think about freedom, and this is my opinion on this matter.
  • Aug 19 2013: Because, politically, there must be a compromise. We could also talk about not perpetuating a bad gene pool but that wouldn't jive well with anyone who remembers WWII. So I'll stick with the choice argument: If it is good for a woman to choose what she does with her body, then it would only make sense to let her choose to abort a child she conceived while her choice was negated. Allowing this choice will make up for the earlier negated choice.
  • Aug 1 2013: Thanks Darlington. I now understand your explanation of the abortion issue. However, in regard to the war issue, I totally disagree. We go to war under many propaganda guises, such as "democratizing" another nation, "freeing" another nation etc. when in reality, we are 'conquering' a foreign land or "garnering" other's rightful resources and perhaps often based on lies and misinformation for the aggrandizement of an individual (i.e. Bush and WMD's). Also, though our service people may take an oath to 'protect our nation', does that indemnify the taking of innocent lives on either side or raping each other in box cars? No, I feel this is a human weakness to try and dominate. Thanks for your enlightenment.
    • Aug 19 2013: Honestly, I feel like we should have never dropped the term "colonization" and "imperialism" from our national rhetoric. It would make things like "democratizing" nations much less riddled with euphemism. I personally do not agree with conflicts that are not necessary- but when the are I think the Machiavellian approach is best in order to deter future conflicts.
  • Aug 1 2013: Simple: Both stances are there to protect human life. War exists to protect the citizenry from threats "both foreign and domestic". Furthermore, the concept that conservatives promote war is an absurd generalization created to win democrat's elections. War is a despicably necessary evil used as a last resort to protect the nation. And all those persons involved in the implementation of war took an oath to be accountable for the protection of our country, with their lives if need be. War is not about taking life, but protecting life, innocent life, from harm.

    It is this same principal that ties into pro life theology. Lets take the pro choice argument for instance. It's a woman's choice what to do with her body. That's an innately truthful statement. I cannot, nor will I attempt to deny it. BUT, the choice to have an abortion is not the first in the string of decision that got the woman there. She chose to engage in sex- which is an activity that is naturally meant to procreate. She made a choice to use contraceptives or not. Those choices all effected only her.

    The choice to abort a potential human life transcends the individual's sole interests. It now involves the potential for another person with the same inalienable rights as every other person. This is why abortion should be limited to rape, incest and the health of the mother- because in those instances the choice of the mother in regards to sex has either been negated (forced upon her unwillingly) or by prohibiting abortion would actively kill the mother.

    Consider your curiosity quenched, my friend.
    • thumb
      Aug 9 2013: Darlington, I am prolife to use the generic term. Please allow me to ask why you believe that abortion should be allowed in the cases of rape and incest. If you will please respond to this question in the context of your comment - Do we punish a child for the sins of his/her father? Thank you.
  • Jul 25 2013: It was a question of curiosity as to how it can be logically presented. Perhaps it makes some sort of sense which has eluded my limited thinking process.
  • thumb
    Jul 25 2013: If you were a registered independent, you shouldn't care if conservatives justify any agenda... you would assess any issue and come to your own conclusions. Why would you care about other opinions. That's independence..

    If you are really troubled that one could hold for the ending of an innocent life as opposed to defending one's home and family from an invading army or defending innocents homes and families from invading armies....
    you could be really troubled.
  • Jul 24 2013: It jives very well.

    If you deny people the right to, or access to, having abortions,
    you have more people that you can kill with your weapons and war and your general
    overall need for bloodletting. The blood of others.

    If you kill everyone, there will be no one left to kill and for those in power, they just
    cannot bear the thought of that., Best to make people feel guilty and sinful for abortions,
    condemn killing in all forms but claim some moral superiority to do the "killing that needs
    to be done". They are well-equipped to do so and have no qualms, regrets, remorse, compassion,
    understanding or love for others.
    That is what a psychopath or sociopath is and they are generally found in the Moral Majority,
    Pro-life groups, religion, conservative politics and those with money.

    Money is made through the direct suffering of others, so that they can profit.
    Even the planet suffers at their hands for profit. They can own nature and destroy it too,
    because God is coming back and is going to destroy all this anyway.

    It makes perfect sense to them because they are insane.
    Don't fool yourself for one minute and give them an inch of sanity because they are
    stark, raving mad.

    It's not a political philosophy so much as it is a psychopathic philosophy or a
    sociopathic philosophy in which only your view, your needs, your way and your
    beliefs are right, necessary and good.
    • Jul 24 2013: I understand all of what you are saying and concur 99%. Having lived with psychotics for 40 years and living in our present-day materialistic (American) society, I amazingly agree with all you say, and very clearly let me add. I have read your past posts and must tell you that I hold many of your same thoughts and philosophy. But just as no one has all the answers or is always 100% right or wrong, I concur with some conservative agendas such as that we all live far beyond our means and that this selfish lifestyle is not sustainable. Secondly, I feel their moral deduction that marriage should only be between a male and a female and that homosexual relationships should be called "unions" or some other terminology than marriage. I do recognize their right to have equal financial status but not the terminology. "Conservatists" used to protect Nature and the environment, which is sadly something they have now abandoned. I look forward to reading your future posts immensely.
  • Jul 23 2013: Bart: very interesting regarding the Chinese abortion issue. Thanks for your contribution to a complex subject, indeed.
  • Jul 23 2013: Lejan, I didn't talk about abortions in my post at all. My argument is about the death penalty to the "free man" you mentioned. Let me discuss my view on the abortion issue. I am actually more sympathetic on women's rights than the anti-abortion "conservatives". Regardless whether the "human rights" applies to the unborn or not, we are more or less weighing the welfare of the pregnant woman against that of the fetus. The word "free/freedom", in my view has never be defined explicitly to the unborn fetus. I also have no strong feelings one way or another. Although I am certainly against the so-called persuasion tactics by the government legislature in some states.
    I can also tell you that there are so much diversity of the abortion issue in the world. In the U. S., we have probably the strictest limitation on abortion than the mostly religious countries in Europe, On the other end, in China. a pregnancy after the first child would be a compulsory abortion even if the woman wanted to keep the unborn child. The reason is that China wants to control its population growth.
    This question is quite complex, and I don't want to discuss the pro or con here.
  • Jul 22 2013: I'm not including wars waged for defense; I'm largely referring to wars of colonization or subjugation (which are most wars). Also, if humans sometimes err in their judgment against an accused citizen, how can it be justified to kill any of them rather than make them serve humanity in whatever fashion deemed wanting? It seems so much is propagandized rather than logic-based. Just wondering how the two ideas can be reconciled.
  • Jul 22 2013: I understand you and basically agree. I think that both euthanasia and abortion should be allowed if certain restrictions are made, i.e. Dr. and close family concurrence etc. It's just that I cannot find any logic behind pro guns, wars, capitol punishment etc. by people who claim to be pro-life. This confuses me logically.
  • Jul 22 2013: True; that is definitely a factor.
  • Jul 22 2013: I agree with much of what you say; I just can't quite understand the logic behind those who sanctify life with those who seem prone to agree with wars, guns and capital punishment. I'm trying to understand. I disagree that most people agree with our recent wars; I think it was all a propaganda hoax played on unknowledgeable citizen by those who might gain monetarily or egotistically. It is also on the conservatives platform to support guns which seems to sanction killing somehow.
  • Jul 22 2013: Agree; I am just curious how the 2 differing viewpoints go together. I would sincerely like to understand as the two agendas seem logically oppositional...maybe I'm just not seeing it logically.
  • thumb
    Jul 22 2013: population explosion will alter many peoples' attitude towards this issue
  • Jul 22 2013: How do those who are "liberal" justify their agenda of legalizing abortion? It is the same thought in reverse in many cases.

    I, for one, do not support abortion, especially late - term abortion. I don't support it from the stand point of a means of birth control. Which is really what abortion has become in our society. It has become a form of birth control rather than a health issue. You choose to engage in sexual activity then you don't like the result of pregnancy so you terminate the fetus through abortion. How about using better forms of birth control or making better choices.

    I also don't support late - term abortions for the same reason. Health issues affecting the parent are separate, and far fewer in number. I don't think that there is good research out there stating why abortions are chosen. I would be surprised if there was a high number of abortion procedures done as a means of protecting the mother. My guess is the greatest number is to terminate pregnancy.

    If pregnancy termination is the prime reason, then what sanctity of life is there?

    You will have to educate me on why you believe that conservatives are promoting guns and war and how that actually relates. The last "wars" the US has engaged in have been supported by both liberals and conservatives.
  • Jul 22 2013: I understand the need for defensive war but I do not understand conservatists wanting to preserve the life of the unborn while still advocating the death penalty, "colonizing" other lands etc. which is what, in reality, America has been doing for decades. And many we have incarcerated or put to death have ultimately been found to be innocent. I don't understand this dichotomy.
    • thumb
      Jul 22 2013: I assume this reply was meant for me. [Please use the "REPLY" button (in red to the left of the thumb symbol) when replying to a specific person]. The death penalty is not mentioned in your post but I disagree with your implication that one who opposes killing the unborn as a routine method of birth control or sex selection must also oppose capital punishment. "Colonizing" is not mentioned in your post but I will say defending ourselves and our allies does not constitute a dichotomy with pro-life philosophy, it is apples and oranges. You also did not mention wrongful execution in your post. It is tragic to execute an innocent person, but that does not mean that all those who slaughter innocent victims should be spared the same fate. Conservative thinking is different than Liberal, Progressive thinking, but it is not inferior, or inherently flawed as you seem to think. Thank you!