I don't understand Liberal mindsets

[PistolPete33]

A dumb broad I'm friends with on Facebook posted that she was sick of seeing these things come up on her newsfeed that she was totally against. She then proceeded to say that women should have the right to choose to have an Abortion because it's the RIGHT thing to do and that guns are every bit as evil as the people that own them.


I couldn't help but comment that I have guns to protect myself and my family should the need arise and I've owned them for 20+ years without ever hurting anyone. I also use these guns for sporting and fun. I then went on to see if I'm an evil person but a person that decides to kill an innocent unborn baby isn't then her thinking doesn't make sense. With the exception of rape Adoption is always a better option than abortion.

[thisAngelBites]

Intelligent people disagree about all sorts of things, and probably always will. People can disagree about values, and people can agree on values and disagree about the best way to promote those values - so in the end there is a lot to disagree about.

But let me ask: why is abortion okay is the case of rape? It sounds like you think this is obvious, but it isn't to me, so please say why an innocent unborn baby conceived by consensual sex should live, and an innocent unborn baby conceived by rape is okay to kill. This may launch a discussion about how some values are different, and how some people disagree about the means to maximise agreed values.

[PistolPete33]

I think in certain cases if done in the very early stages it should be at the choice of the victim. Not saying it is right but I can't imagine being a woman and being raped and having to give birth to a child conceived this way.

It's a womans right to have sex but with that comes responsibility. If you don't want to get pregnant then either don't have sex, or do it safely.

[OdinsOtherSon]

I think in certain cases if done in the very early stages it should be at the choice of the victim. Not saying it is right but I can't imagine being a woman and being raped and having to give birth to a child conceived this way.

It's a womans right to have sex but with that comes responsibility. If you don't want to get pregnant then either don't have sex, or do it safely.

Pete, I share your confusion; however, granting them an actual "mindset" is a tad too generous on your part, imho. Lol. I mean, the whole personal responsibility thing is out the window with a lot of people who share the "mindset" you're describing. All one has to do is look at the legislation liberal politicians and their supporters pass or try to pass... it seeks to totally absolves a person of having to face or be held accountable to the repercussions of the actions they take or behavior they take part in. That simply isn't sustainable if the goal of a society is to maintain stability and rule of law.

[< <Samson> >]

People don't even understand the meaning of "liberal"

IMO anyone has the right to do as they will without causing harm to others - too bad people just can't come to that realization - that's just asking way too much

Drugs kill people, guns kill people - ummm, no. People kill themselves & each other

[evander87]

People don't even understand the meaning of "liberal" IMO anyone has the right to do as they will without causing harm to others - too bad people just can't come to that realization - that's just asking way too much Drugs kill people, guns kill people - ummm, no. People kill themselves & each other

^^^This

Eat meticulous, train ridiculous for best results.

[OdinsOtherSon]

People don't even understand the meaning of "liberal"

IMO anyone has the right to do as they will without causing harm to others - too bad people just can't come to that realization - that's just asking way too much

Drugs kill people, guns kill people - ummm, no. People kill themselves & each other

On the surface I would tend to agree; however, one must ask, "who is defining 'liberal'" or any other term for that matter, and "who is defining 'harm to others.'" Your premise of words having meaning is very valid and I would argue probably the most important, particularly in political discourse.

I totally agree with people killing people, not guns or drugs. If we weren't using guns, we'd use knives, clubs, rocks, bare hands, whatever.

[< <Samson> >]

On the surface I would tend to agree; however, one must ask, "who is defining 'liberal'" or any other term for that matter, and "who is defining 'harm to others.'" Your premise of words having meaning is very valid and I would argue probably the most important, particularly in political discourse.

Oh yeah, that's a fact - No one can agree on anything. Shit - people can't even agree to disagree. Look at traffic when you drive - fvck, if everyone drove at the speed limit, there would be no traffic.

[OdinsOtherSon]

Oh yeah, that's a fact - No one can agree on anything. Shit - people can't even agree to disagree. Look at traffic when you drive - fvck, if everyone drove at the speed limit, there would be no traffic.

Lol! Damn right brother!

[Bonaparte]

Look at traffic when you drive - fvck, if everyone drove at the speed limit, there would be no traffic.

How do you figure?

[< <Samson> >]

How do you figure?

Simple mathematics

[Docd187123]

Simple mathematics

Traffic is formed bc there are too many cars on the road. It can most certainly still build up even if people drove the speed limit.

[< <Samson> >]

Okay, how about most of the time

[Docd187123]

Bottlenecks (traffic demand
exceeds roadway capacity) 50% of total congestion
Traffic incidents 25% of total congestion
Work zones 15% of total congestion
Bad weather 10% of total congestion
Poor signal timing


Source: American Highway Users ********, Unclogging America's Arteries, 1999–2004

Read more: Major Causes of Traffic Congestion in the U.S. | Infoplease.com Major Causes of Traffic Congestion in the U.S. | Infoplease.com

[Docd187123]

Traffic Congestion and Reliability: Trends and Advanced Strategies for Congestion Mitigation: Chapter 2

[RaginCajun]

Haha

Fvck traffic, I live in Houston!

I miss the woods, no traffic out there

[Times Roman]

A dumb broad I'm friends with on Facebook posted that she was sick of seeing these things come up on her newsfeed that she was totally against. She then proceeded to say that women should have the right to choose to have an Abortion because it's the RIGHT thing to do and that guns are every bit as evil as the people that own them.


I couldn't help but comment that I have guns to protect myself and my family should the need arise and I've owned them for 20+ years without ever hurting anyone. I also use these guns for sporting and fun. I then went on to see if I'm an evil person but a person that decides to kill an innocent unborn baby isn't then her thinking doesn't make sense. With the exception of rape Adoption is always a better option than abortion.

Intelligent people disagree about all sorts of things, and probably always will. People can disagree about values, and people can agree on values and disagree about the best way to promote those values - so in the end there is a lot to disagree about.

But let me ask: why is abortion okay is the case of rape? It sounds like you think this is obvious, but it isn't to me, so please say why an innocent unborn baby conceived by consensual sex should live, and an innocent unborn baby conceived by rape is okay to kill. This may launch a discussion about how some values are different, and how some people disagree about the means to maximise agreed values.

totally agree. intelligent people (shit, can't spell this morning) will have contrary opinions, and that's ok

the abortion issue is a hot topic that evokes strong emotions in many.

So here's how I look at it.

First, I'm Libertarian. This means that people, not government, should be able to choose for themselves, so long as they don't "hurt/harm" others. "Hurt/harm" is defined widely and is up for debate.

Specifically, I would prefer abortions be a rare exception. I can list the exceptions, but what those exceptions are is not the point. I think, under most circumstances, abortions should be avoided.

Additionally, I don't feel it is government's role to decide what is moral and immoral, so long as, again, an individual does no damage to others.

Finally, I do not believe that the moment of conception defines life. And I do not think the birthing process defines life either. Somewhere in the middle. Before I discuss the defining moment for life, I will point out that once that criterion is met, that baby's life should NOT be taken, except under the most extreme of circumstances.

Up until this point, government should NOT intervene with a woman's decision. After that point, then I think there should be certain legal implications. Even with these implications, I still feel that a woman's decision should not be interfered with, but certain penalties will accrue. And again, only under the most extreme of circumstances should the government be allowed to intervene.

Another point. A father should not have the ability to force a woman either to carry or abort this unborn child. It may be his DNA, but the burden of birth is for the woman, not the man. He should not be able to force her into a certain course of action.

And now, that defining moment of life.

Don't know.

But I think some clues might be:

1) Viability of the fetus to live outside the womb, to me, clearly is a defining moment. But some would consider other milestones to be significant too.

What are some of the others?

[musclestack]

totally agree. intelligent people (shit, can't spell this morning) will have contrary opinions, and that's ok

the abortion issue is a hot topic that evokes strong emotions in many.

So here's how I look at it.

First, I'm Libertarian. This means that people, not government, should be able to choose for themselves, so long as they don't "hurt/harm" others. "Hurt/harm" is defined widely and is up for debate.

Specifically, I would prefer abortions be a rare exception. I can list the exceptions, but what those exceptions are is not the point. I think, under most circumstances, abortions should be avoided.

Additionally, I don't feel it is government's role to decide what is moral and immoral, so long as, again, an individual does no damage to others.

Finally, I do not believe that the moment of conception defines life. And I do not think the birthing process defines life either. Somewhere in the middle. Before I discuss the defining moment for life, I will point out that once that criterion is met, that baby's life should NOT be taken, except under the most extreme of circumstances.

Up until this point, government should NOT intervene with a woman's decision. After that point, then I think there should be certain legal implications. Even with these implications, I still feel that a woman's decision should not be interfered with, but certain penalties will accrue. And again, only under the most extreme of circumstances should the government be allowed to intervene.

Another point. A father should not have the ability to force a woman either to carry or abort this unborn child. It may be his DNA, but the burden of birth is for the woman, not the man. He should not be able to force her into a certain course of action.

And now, that defining moment of life.

Don't know.

But I think some clues might be:

1) Viability of the fetus to live outside the womb, to me, clearly is a defining moment. But some would consider other milestones to be significant too.

What are some of the others?

I agree with everything except the bold. I am an independent with (mostly) libertarian values. So, I also agree that choices should be left for the people, not the government, so long as you're not harming/hurting others. The problem I have with the bold is that the choice of the mother MAY hurt the father (depending on whether or not they see eye to eye on the issue). The unborn baby is just as much the father's child as it is the mother's. Having said that, I try not to voice an opinion on matters in which myself is not subjected. It's not my argument. That argument belongs to the father and mother of THAT child, and no one else. Just because I don't agree with a decision does not mean that I don't stand for peoples' right to make them.

You touched on an important subject when you say that "hurt/harm others is defined widely and up for debate". This, of course, brings in the matter of the well-being of the unborn child. After all, it is his/her life that is going to be most effected (hurt/harmed).

Good discussion, TR.

[Metalject]

I too have a more libertarian mindset and feel the government should have no involvement in most social issues, which includes marriage, gay or straight. Now moral issues that surround homosexual or heterosexual behavior, that doesn't mean such issues don't exist, but it's up for individuals to define on their own terms. The only time government should step in is in my opinion fairly simple, when our actions hurt, harm or infringe on the life, liberty or happiness of another. Again, pretty simple and I wish this was the approach we still took with things in the U.S. but sadly it is not.

As for the abortion topic, I think it all boils down to when the unborn is a life. If you believe the unborn child is a life and choose to have an abortion, I have a hard time with that since you are harming the life of another. But that still leads to the old question, when is it a life? TR, you said once it's viable outside the womb, I would argue it's a life before this, that when it has a heart beat and brain function it's a life. No, it's not viable outside of the womb at this point, it's life is dependent on the mother, but dependency doesn't take away from life. It will still be dependent on the mother or at least someone even after outside of the womb, otherwise it would die.

And the big one, the liberal mindset, as far as I can tell the liberal mindset in the U.S. the supposed ideology of tolerance has become anything but. JFK's famous line "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" has been completely twisted around. It is now 100% what is my country going to do for me? There's no way JFK could win or even run on a liberal ticket today despite being the liberal hero. But the big one goes back once again to life, liberty and happiness - the liberal mindset is it's not fair that you have happiness if I don't and if you have too much your life should be changed so that the happiness of yours can be given to others.