It makes sense for a libertarian to be pro-choice. I suspect politicians who claim to be libertarian are anti-choice to avoid offending the God-botherers.
Or they could be just plain stupid.
Oh, yeah, I “wanna go down this path,” all right. Gun nuts make me absolutely sick. If you all had your way we’d all be walking around with high-powered rifles in some sort of deranged futuristic Old West scenario, waiting for some person who’s off his kilter to make victims out of (relative) innocents just so you could then whip out your firearm and “be a hero.” Except that’s not how real life - as opposed to the plots in Hollywood films - generally works. As I stated, above, I’m not all that keen on abortion, either, but my wife, when she was much younger, countered photos presented by “pro-life” sorts of aborted babies with images of dead women - women covered in blood who’d died by their own hands when attempting to abort their babies since abortion wasn’t legal in this country at that time. She’s told me that the so-called “pro-life” types didn’t have much of a counter (that is, NONE) for that. So tell me, Mr. Pro-Gun person: do YOU have a counter for the school and movie theater shootings that happen in this country largely because obtaining a deadly weapon in this country is easy as pie? I bet you don’t. Not really.
Again, the OP didn’t ask what you think. The OP asked what the conservatives think.
The two cases aren’t analogous because (the vast majority of) abortion-rights supporters do not consider a fertilized egg/embryo/early-term fetus to be a human person entitled to full individual human rights.
While (some) conservatives and liberals may disagree on the morality of killing burglars, they are both starting from the premise that the burgler is a human person. In the case of early-term abortion, on the other hand, abortion-rights supporters and abortion opponents fundamentally disagree on whether the embryo/fetus even counts as a person.
So no, there is nothing automatically contradictory or inconsistent in a liberal’s opposing castle laws while simultaneously supporting abortion rights. If a burglar is a human person (albeit a lawbreaking one) while a fetus is not, then it’s reasonable to maintain that killing the former (except in self-defense) is more immoral than killing the latter.
I saw a PERFECT rejoinder to this silly “argument” on the kind of website people like you would likely never visit: “If hammers, cars, knives, forks, sharpened pencils, and broken glass are as deadly as guns - as you pro-gun types try to twist into a ridiculous argument - then why don’t HUNTERS go hunting with those items?” Hm?
Liberals:
Euthenasia
Abortion
Conservatives:
Death penalty
(2nd Amendment)
While, personally, this whole breakdown seems completely arbitrary to me, I must note that the Liberal side of things is in approval of the things which would/does cause the far greater loss of life, so your bolding seems a bit excessive.
The death penalty takes out a number of people that aren’t even a stastical blip per year. And murder rates are unaffected by the presence or lack of guns (though when available, people prefer them as the implement of choice). Suicide rates are driven up by guns - and I believe that Liberals are overall more pro-suicide than Conservatives - and mass shootings affect too few people to count into nationwide murder statistics (and it’s arguable that in places like the UK, people just use bombs).
If they don’t, why advance the “invasion of the body” argument at all? If the fetus is not a “human person entitled to full individual human rights” then it can be killed with impunity. No “invasion of the body” justification needed.
It’s ignorant to say that abortion is murder. Murder is defined as unlawful killing. Most abortions are legal.
Let’s godwinize this thread then. According to your definition, murders of Jews in the Holocaust were not really murders. After all, they were not “unlawful”.
Right, and the factually correct answer to that question is “(Many) conservatives are opposed to abortion because they think that abortion is murder”, not “(Many) conservatives are opposed to abortion because abortion is murder”.
The latter statement is incorrectly presenting an opinion about abortion as if it were a subjective fact, which it is not.
Mind you, it would be just as incorrect to assert “(Many) liberals support abortion rights because abortion is not murder” (if you’re meaning “murder” in the moral sense rather than the legal one, that is).
It is correct to say “(Many) liberals support abortion rights because they don’t consider abortion to be murder”.
You can save a lot of time and ruffled feathers in debates like this by being careful to distinguish statements of opinion from assertions of fact.
I completely agree, with the proviso that since the embryo/fetus is also a part of the body of somebody who is a human person entitled to full individual human rights, that person is the only one entitled to decide whether to kill the embryo/fetus.
Mind you, I think this argument only applies unconditionally to early-term abortions. I think it’s logically and biologically reasonable to consider that human personhood, like other fetal characteristics, develops over the course of fetal growth.
So in my view, while the fertilized egg is definitely not a human person, an about-to-be-born baby definitely is. At some point in the course of that gradual development, human law has to draw some arbitrary lines about when the fetus’s personhood status officially changes. This isn’t perfect, but in my view it’s much better than either of the absurd alternatives: considering a 200-cell blastocyst to be a fully human person, or considering a nine-month fetus to be not a fully human person.
While semantic, I agree with your parsing. One side considers it murder, the other side does not. The death penalty is similar - one side considers it state supported murder and the other side does not (and depending on the state or nation you live in - it can be legal or not).
I still think it is interesting the percent of liberal / no religion types who are pro life. I made that mistake once in a conversation - I assume a liberal atheist friend was pro-choice, and my assumption was beyond wrong. It was a good reminder to be careful of assumptions (same as many assume I am pro-life given the bullet points of my own semi-conservatism and active church attendance).
It’s noteworthy, that you position is so shaky that you are unable to advocate it without resorting to drivel like this.
Yes, but you are sane. You seem to be a nice and intelligent person. Many of the other folks who call themselves conservative are raving loonies. This saddens me.
The conservative movement has been eaten from the inside out by the religious fundamentalists who harken back to a fantasy world of yesteryear when men were men and women knew their place. Of course abortion is going to be a battleground. What other issue would allow they to treat more than half of the population as incompetent, sexually driven doxies? This kind of toxic politics has poisoned the body politic for quite a long time.
That “probably” there is a bit of a big assumption, no? My guess would be “probably” some anti-abortion people think it’s ok in rape/mother’s health in jeopordy cases.
Yes - total guess on my part for what “certain circumstances” means.
Um, commercially sold chicken eggs generally haven’t been fertilized, and unlike a human embryo, are never going to develop into anything.
In my experience the vegetarians who object to eating chickens, would also object to eating fertilized chicken eggs.
Yeah, but change the hypothetical to a fertilized egg, and the point still stands.
Do you think my guess probably encompasses a larger portion of the “certain circumstances”, given that third term abortions are pretty infrequent (of total abortions: less than 1% in Canada, less than 1.5% in the US)? I mean, most people who let it get that far probably intended to keep the baby.
Because it is illegal to hunt with anything except a rifle, shotgun, handgun or bow here in California. I wanted to give a boar spear a try, but the game laws forbid it. There is a lot of interest in using bows, and some people such as myself are going back to hand-made bows instead of the fancy ones - as long as we can confirm a clean kill (which means sufficient draw weight to propel an arrow fast enough to kill the target).