What's more important to a liberal: killing an unborn child or killing a terrorist?

Question

Do they sometimes get these two mixed up? To them they are both people they don't want around and would rather avoid and pretend they never existed than face them head-on.

By all means, 'ENLIGHTEN' ME, LIBS!!

Answer 1

hmm another red herring chase aye?
your strawman arguments are getting old.

Answer 2

The rationale is that the unborn foetus isn't a child, or even a human, yet. Simillarly, a person isn't a terrorist until they've committed some act of terror, and been investigated, arrested, tried and convicted of it (like any other criminal) - and, by the time you've done all that, killing him won't accomplish anything since he's safely locked up, anyway.

Liberals are concerned with human rights. A foetus isn't human, a suspected or accused or even convicted terrorist, is. The former has no rights, so any right of it's mother is more important than it's continued existance. The latter does have rights, which must be balanced against those of any he might pose a danger too.

Conservatives are more concerned with right and wrong. Having sex out of wedlock, preventing the birth of an innocent child, or terrorizing a population for political gain are all wrong in thier judgement.


Neither outlook is inherently self-contradictory.

Answer 3

This is something I have heard (and wondered about) myself... liberals (not all of them) support abortion (the killing of innocent, unborn children) and yet stand against the death penalty (which is the killing of convicted murderers)... this is the most glaring inconsistency in the viewpoint of the stereotypical liberal...

Also: anyone who says that an unborn child is not a human is not likely to be a parent and has most definitely not experienced the pain and suffering that an expecting mother and father feel at the natural and unexpected loss of their unborn child due to some complication... "unborn children are not humans yet" is a terrible rationalization for abortion...

Ervin_parker: studies have been done on fetal development and have concluded that the fetus is capable of hearing the voices of people outside the womb and that, upon birth, a newborn not only remembers the voice of it's mother but can recognize and distinguish it from other voices it hears immediately after being born... if you ask me, that qualifies as sentient...

Answer 4

Come on. I'm no liberal you can check some of my posts to find out for yourself, but this kind of question is beneath anyone who calls themsef a conservative. All this question is designed to do is to enflame and you know it.

EDIT;
BTW Ervin, your definition just admitted an embryo is a human
"1 a archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching b : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception"

Answer 5

There are contradictions on either side the way they are portrayed in the major media. One side can seem as hypocritical as the other if the left is seen as supporting abortion but opposing capital punishment, and the right is seen as supporting capital punishment but opposing abortion. But as some mentioned, that is not always the case. The following are links to people who either oppose both capital punishment and abortion, or who don't fit the image of prolifers the media seems to pay attention to:

http://www.voteforjoe.com - (a liberal prolife candidate)

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

http://www.consistent-life.org

http://www.democratsforlife.org

http://www.plagal.org - (prolife gays and lesbians.)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlternativeLifers (prolife but definitely not the religious right).

http://www.yaktivist.com -- A place to discuss developing nonlethal weapons and nonlethal pregnancy termination technology.

Answer 6

" THE UNBORN CHILD"looses the battle for life, because they do not pose a threat to the liberals method of thinking. However, the terrorist, being alive, with an attitude, MIGHT - MIGHT not agree to have his "RIGHTS" trampled on !
Uncle Wil

Answer 7

Yes, as a liberal, we're all baby killers who can't get enough. Many of us have long spikes with baby heads on them.

A woman must have control over her own body.

Terrorists should be punished for their crimes.

It is wrong to kill. But a mother must maintain the ability to make a deeply personal choice about aborting a fetus, just as you should have the right to make choices about your own body.

We're not in Iraq killing terrorists. We're there occupying a sovereign nation and killing its citizens. The terrorists from 9/11 died that day, while Bush let Bin Laden go.

Answer 8

There is a big difference between an unborn child and a terrorist. I doubt if anyone would get the two mixed up. I doubt anyone would suspect someone would get them mixed up too.

Is there really a point to your question? Seems rather lame to me.

Answer 9

Save the child and convert the terrorist to a USA-lover.

Answer 10

So Lori B.. let me get this right.." its not and unborn child until it can sustain itself outside of the womb"? I take it you are sustaining yourself out of the womb. Are you a walking unborn child?

Answer 11

It seems like they're more into developing some kind of kharma with terrorists rather than killing them, like the terrorists are civilized or something.