Doesn't "the left" contradict itself with their "pro choice" agenda?

Question

The left tends to support "pro choice" adgenda (aka "pro death")

The left also tends to be against the death penalty (aka anti-death).

If the left is so concerned about life, shouldn't it be defending the life of an unborn baby? Babies have survived birth at 20 weeks, yet we allow abortions beyond that time.

Isn't this a conflicting ideology?

Answer 1

Depends on what day of the week it is: 48 million dead later, the liberal agenda still stands

•attack American traditions, specifically Christian traditions and the traditional American family
•engage in "get-even" policies that support discrimination when it benefits historically disadvantaged groups
•punish and/or discourage achievement through taxation and fiscal policies
•use the rulings of the Judicial branch of the government as de facto law, irrevocable by anything short of Constitutional amendment or a future court ruling, thus bypassing the legislative process. Roe V. Wade is the most frequently cited example of "judicial activism". (48,000,000 million dead and counting)
•weaken the military strength and morale of the country by vilifying the practice of armed combat and hesitating to use force when it appears necessary
•use regulatory bodies over private enterprise to accomplish social goals and restrict competition (government, education, labor) The best example is the failed non-competitive public school system.
•establish secular and progressive social policy, including support for gay marriage, abortion, liberal drug policy, euthanasia and prostitution legalization.
•implement a foreign policy supporting the protection of human rights and multiculturalism through activism, social intervention and violence (social anarchism).

Answer 2

When will people get it through their thick heads that the pro-choice agenda has nothing to do with abortion...?!

The thing about the abortion debate is that the two sides are arguing entirely unrelated issues. Pro-life people say "abortion is bad". Pro-choice advocates say "The government should be making personal decisions that like". It's not about abortion. It's about who gets to make the decisions.

The question distills down to this: someone is going to choose. It's either going to be the individual, or it's going to be the majority (through enacted laws). If the majority gets to choose, then they are effectively imposing their belief system -- which is almost always religiously-based -- on everyone.

You're also making the assumption that an embryo (pre-viability) should be considered "an unborn baby". Not everyone agrees with that determination. That's again the issue of who gets to makes the definitions. If the government does, then it is subject to having the definitions set by the majority, which usually ends up being religiously-motivated. If the individual gets to choose, then it allows for those people who happen to belief that a 6-week old collection of cells is not yet a person, as well as those who believe it is.

The issue isn't about what the choice should be. The issue is about who gets to make it. Just like the death penalty debate is not about whether death is bad. It's about whether the government should be considered infallible enough to sentence someone to death. It's about whether the government ever makes mistakes. Now, if the death penalty were used only for those who had voluntarily admitted guilt, I'm sure a lot of opponents would have much less of a problem with it.

The concept of reproductive freedoms and end-of-life decisions is not whether you agree with the individual choices being made. It's whether you think the government should have the right to take away and mandate those choices.

Why can't people understand that freedom of choice is not a minority value, even if the majority happens to disagree with the minority's choice?

Answer 3

Doesn't the right contradict itself, Pro Life but it is ok to kill in the death penalty. It is also ok to drop a bomb on baby's in Iraq. Isn't this an conflicting ideology. We can argue about this all night, but bottom line is the government has no business legislating morality and the anti big government, anti taxation crowd would rather a baby be born to into poverty then pay taxes to help support it. Isn't that a conflicting ideology. I by the way think that abortion is a piss poor means of birth control, but I do not want you or government telling me what my morals has to be.

Answer 4

hilaryforpres makes a good point. How many innocent civilians in the Middle East had no choice in an accidental death? True, civilian death unfortunately happens when defending America (whether the conflict in Iraq is defending America is a different issue). It is an inevitability of war. However, in the case of abortion it is presumed necessary to kill a fetus either to save the mother's life for health reasons or prevent a child the mother cannot support from being born.

Answer 5

They don't think things out very well do they? They just think of their own selfish needs and then try to disguise themselves into looking good by being against something that will make them look like they care about life. They also think protecting birds eggs is more important than a human fetus. Miserable idiots. If someone is on death row it is because they killed someone and if someone does that they have sacrificed their life as far as I'm concerned. A baby did nothing wrong and deserves a chance at life. They should be on death row themselves for all the murders.

Answer 6

I have noticed that both the right and left have many conflicting ideologies. Firstly, you cannot assume that the democratic party is a perfect representation of leftist politics, read Rousseau for that. Secondly, liberalism essentially means freedom, this can be interpreted as freedom of choice for the mother to about the baby, or the baby's right to life, either way you're infringing on somebody's rights. Now, the death penalty is only infringing on one person's rights, that individual's protection against cruel and unusual punishment, ant that person's right to retain life. I personally believe that criminals forfeit their rights, but that's another issue. Most importantly, both major U.S parties are full of holes, contradictions, and opinions without regard to logical facts. I think it's best just to start over. JOIN MY REVOLUTION!!!

Answer 7

Nice try, but babies don't live at taht stage of development if they are born eg:

But a major center such as Johns Hopkins reported the following survivors:

- at 22 weeks = none

- at 23 weeks = 15%

- at 24 weeks = 56%

- at 25 weeks = 79%
so, itsnot until at least 24 weeks that it is considered safe to even consider a birth. Where I live, 24 weeks is thecutoff date for abortion.Thre has only ever been 1 baby that lived at the age of 20 weeks gestation, and that may have been a false date.

Answer 8

I think they deal with each situation seperately. Who does pro-choice most effect? Women who are making a very difficult decision and likely are very stressed out and women who can be in that situation. So with their 'choice', the left appears more compassionate to their plight.

When dealing with the death penalty, same thing. They appear more compassionate by playing up peoples right to live, despite their alleged crimes

So I don't think they address the overall life vs death issue. They handle each situation individually and 'respond' with what they think will make the party appear more favorable.

Answer 9

I'm a liberal and I'm all for the death penalty. I can think of many people that we should execute to better this planet. And as far as pro choice goes, how many adults have died in Iraq? How many children? You can't be pro life and pro war.

Answer 10

Its a question of human rights.

The pendulum swings both ways. I could say why does a conservative who is pro life support the death penalty? Both baby and criminal are humans, with human rights, no?

Far be it from me, to decide who lives and dies, be it a criminal or an unborn baby.....