This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Utah to criminalize some miscarriages.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
I'm liberal and I for sure don't advocate abortion.Yes, some liberals out there don't approve of abortion. In fact, I'm sure there are liberals of so many different trends and opinions, they differ on everything. I guess that means I can't apply any general belief to a group of people that have the same general beliefs. So, liberals are: People who believe stuff? But then again, I'm sure there is at least one niahlist liberal out there. So, liberals are: people? I suppose I can't clairify anything beyond that?
Give me a break.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm liberal and I for sure don't advocate abortion.Yes, some liberals out there don't approve of abortion. In fact, I'm sure there are liberals of so many different trends and opinions, they differ on everything. I guess that means I can't apply any general belief to a group of people that have the same general beliefs. So, liberals are: People who believe stuff? But then again, I'm sure there is at least one niahlist liberal out there. So, liberals are: people? I suppose I can't clairify anything beyond that?
Give me a break.
Oh geez, here we go...
Liberalism is divided into two distinct categories, Classical Liberalism and Social Liberalism.
The tenets of Classical Liberalism are that the Government should not provide social services or regulate industry and banking, and property rights, natural rights, civil liberties, individual freedom, equality under the law, limited government, and free markets are all to be advocated.
Social Liberalism says that "mixed economy" is the best, personal freedoms are too be respected, and everybody has the right to health care, jobs, and a living wage.
Of course I'm just winging these definitions, but they accurate. For visual aid, look at
this
; the top half is "liberal," with the left half of that being Social Liberalism, and the right part being Classical Liberalism.
Note there is absolute no mention of abortion. It's a non-issue when it comes to being a liberal or not.
I love your total lack of critical thinking in your paragraph. Wait. I lied. I thoroughly dislike it.
Post by
438256
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Do liberals also defend a woman's right to commit abortion by suicide? Who are we to force her to have a baby?
After a while, I just have to laugh at it all. Trying to make sense of it worked for a little while, then I had to try to argue sense into these blockheads. When that failed, I just have to laugh. What else can I do?
Are you saying we shouldn't defend people who commit suicide? Or simply when it's suicide with a baby, as opposed to abortion without killing yourself.
To be honest, I wouldn't defend someone who committed abortion by suicide, simply because it's stupid. I could come up for no reason for doing it as opposed to abortion. Unless of course she couldn't bear the grief of doing that to a child (Her beliefs), but could not support it either, but then we would be looking at abortion and suicide, not abortion by suicide.
Post by
283199
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
Who can come forward with an accusation of criminal homicide?
Anyone
This is something I have a problem with. It can too easily turn into a glorified witch hunt.
But on the contrary, are you saying that only people who hold status should be able to give their beliefs? To, essentially, take freedom of speech away from the poor?
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And example in case i'm not being clear: A mother loses her child due to a perfectly natural miscarriage. The father in an act of anger brings a claim against her under this law.
She will then be taken to court.
At no point in this bill does it require that she be psychologically examined
before
going to court.
Again, you're not making a case against the bill itself; you're arguing against criminal homicide.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
And example in case i'm not being clear: A mother loses her child due to a perfectly natural miscarriage. The father in an act of anger brings a claim against her under this law.
She will then be taken to court.
At no point in this bill does it require that she be psychologically examined
before
going to court.
Again, you're not making a case against the bill itself; you're arguing against criminal homicide.
*sigh*
No.
I accuse someone using this law.
I can accuse her of thinking about causing harm to the child.
At no point do I have to have proof.
She will be dragged into court, tested and only then will she be found not guilty.
I, as the angry party will have gotten my revenge doing irreperable harm to the psychie of a woman who's just lost her child.
I have no problem with the law.
I have a problem wilth being able to charge someone of something in a situation like this, with no requirement of proof.
You're gonna have to have some solid proof to take somebody to court.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
You're gonna have to have some solid proof to take somebody to court.
Edited my own post for clarity.
You need good evidence to take someone to court and find them guilty. You can still do massive harm without finding anyone guilty.
But you have to have good evidence to take them to court in the first place. You can't just go "I think that person commited a crime!" Police: "Why?" You: "He/she has a shifty look about him/her..."
Post by
157714
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
You're gonna have to have some solid proof to take somebody to court.
Edited my own post for clarity.
You need good evidence to take someone to court and find them guilty. You can still do massive harm without finding anyone guilty.
But you have to have good evidence to take them to court in the first place. You can't just go "I think that person commited a crime!" Police: "Why?" You: "He/she has a shifty look about him/her..."
"She was thinking about harming the child during the pregnancy" apparently counts....
You'd have to have some proof she was thinking that, such as telling somebody else/notes and the like.
Post by
124027
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Liberalism is divided into two distinct categories, Classical Liberalism and Social Liberalism.
Whoa Whoa Whoa! Wait a second. I'm a Liberal and I am CERTAINLY not a classical liberal or a social liberal. You shouldn't lump people together in categories like this.
(See, I can play your ridiculous games too)
Post by
MyTie
Unless of course she couldn't bear the grief of doing that to a child (Her beliefs), but could not support it either, but then we would be looking at abortion and suicide, not abortion by suicide.
Now this makes perfect sense... and I completely endorse her actions. We should get a gun drive going to help these women in need.
Post by
MyTie
Do liberals also defend a woman's right to commit abortion by suicide? Who are we to force her to have a baby?
After a while, I just have to laugh at it all. Trying to make sense of it worked for a little while, then I had to try to argue sense into these blockheads. When that failed, I just have to laugh. What else can I do?
You could start by not labeling them liberals :P
I'm liberal and I for sure don't advocate abortion.First of all, I NEVER made the assertion that ALL liberals are this way. To demand a full distinction is beyond picky. I made this statement because a majority of liberals are not pro-life (
source
,
source
,
source
, i can find lots more.... ). While I understand that this doesn't mean that every single liberal out there is pro choice, it can certainly be said, with great levels of confidence, that liberalism, more often than not, by an overwhelming majority, aligns itself with the pro-choice platform. To split hairs over this, instead of staying on topic, is aggrevating, to say the least. I will no longer be debating the tenants of liberalism with you. If you are such an expert, as you claim, then you know what I have been saying is true, and can knock off the symantical nonsense that you use to distract from the actual debate: UTAH HB 12
Edit: RAWR! NERD
RAGE
!
Post by
Arkaen
Liberalism is divided into two distinct categories, Classical Liberalism and Social Liberalism.
Whoa Whoa Whoa! Wait a second. I'm a Liberal and I am CERTAINLY not a classical liberal or a social liberal. You shouldn't lump people together in categories like this.
(See, I can play your ridiculous games too)
He said two distinct; that doesn't mean that there aren't more subcategories, just that they are less prominent than the two he listed.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.