"Card" carrying SOCIAL liberals stand for a lot of causes;

1) Amnesty for ILLEGALS
2) Save the Planet, socially engineered alternate energy sources are good, socially engineered meaning a carbon tax to make other less viable energy sources as cost effective as carbon fuels
3) Pro-Life, nothing to do with abortion, rather strongly against the death penalty
4) Support PETA
5) Are against the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Social Liberals Share a few values with MORAL Liberals like:
1) Support Same Sex marriage
2) Pro-Choice


To those who call themselves Social Liberals, are you really, or are you a Moral Liberal.

I go with 2 in both circumstances. Your "tax" is just paying for the subsidises the oil establishment enjoys. I'm strongly against the #1 above on the Social Liberal side. I could care less about 4,5 and the 1 on the Moral Liberal.

(09-13-2010 06:59 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I go with 2 in both circumstances. Your "tax" is just paying for the subsidises the oil establishment enjoys. I'm strongly against the #1 above on the Social Liberal side. I could care less about 4,5 and the 1 on the Moral Liberal.

I'm pretty close to Mach on these issues. My position on the two number 1's is a bit nuanced, and I do oppose the death penalty. But I strongly disagree with positions 4 and 5 on your social liberal list.

How can you be against the death penalty, strongly, but for the "business" of abortion. Like it or not, abortion is a full bore, full fledged, business. It's not pro-choice, either, quite hiding behind the curtain, it's the death of a fetus. 40 million fetus deaths since 1973.

Your distinction between social and moral liberals isn't complete enough to allow me to judge. You only list two characteristics of a moral liberal, both of which they share with social liberals. What are the postitions of moral liberals that they don't share with social liberals?

While I sure that the vast majority of PETA supporters are liberal, I'm not sure I buy the premise that most social liberals support PETA, especially not their no animals for food or research postitions (anti-fur probably, but not these). Also, I'm sure they would argue that they see the second amendment as confering a collective right, not an individual one, instead of being anti-second amendment.

I'm more or less in favor of #1 on your social liberal list (not citizenship but I have no interest in kicking them all out), but that's (mostly?) because I'm an economic conservative (which is the problem with trying to label people - we're messy). Labor and capital should both be able to flow freely across national boundaries. #2 depends on the actual plan since the chance to keep the government entirely out of it has long since passed. #3 I agree with strongly - it's almost certain that we've executed multiple innocent people and there is no way to keep from continuing to do so. #4, not a big fan of PETA. I can't even complain about fur because I wear leather (mostly footwear, although I guess my belt could be real). #5 I support an individual right to own firearms, even the really dangerous ones.

For the combo platter, I support same sex marriage (or getting the government out of marriage altogether). Generally, I'm strongly pro-choice in most issues (drugs, sex, rock-and-roll, etc.), but if it's specifically refering to abortion then I'm either anti-abortion with numerous exceptions or pro-abortion with numerous restrictions, depending on how you want to look at it.

(09-13-2010 05:31 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  "Card" carrying SOCIAL liberals stand for a lot of causes;

1) Amnesty for ILLEGALS
2) Save the Planet, socially engineered alternate energy sources are good, socially engineered meaning a carbon tax to make other less viable energy sources as cost effective as carbon fuels
3) Pro-Life, nothing to do with abortion, rather strongly against the death penalty
4) Support PETA
5) Are against the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Social Liberals Share a few values with MORAL Liberals like:
1) Support Same Sex marriage
2) Pro-Choice


To those who call themselves Social Liberals, are you really, or are you a Moral Liberal.

I'd say your definition is INCREDIBLY weak. I do not agree with #1, #2, #3, #4, #5. I do agree with #1 in the second list, and somewhat #2. Your original #2 is fiscal liberalism.

I am a social liberal. Let me toss my social liberal agenda at you:

- Government out of marriage completely. You can marry a transgendered bisexual racist neo-nazi fascist for all I care... so long as you don't infringe upon other's rights in the process.

- At minimum, legal abortion in instances of rape, incest, imminent chance of death of mother, or "genetically incompatible with life". I'd support abortion up to 5-6 weeks in when the brain begins to form in the fetus.

- At minimum, legal marijuana. I'd also support the hard stuff being legal.

- Real sex education and access to safe sex items. Abstinence only isn't a real education.

- Separation of church and state. That means protecting church from government and government from church.

- Increased LEGAL immigration.

- The end of the death penalty, except in cases where the act was caught on video. We have killed innocent people in this country. It's just a fact.

Now that the country is awash in moral relativism and morality has simply been reduced to one man's subjective personal preferences vs. the values of another, how then shall we decide the rules of conduct we should all abide by?

(09-14-2010 06:45 AM)niucob86 Wrote:  Now that the country is awash in moral relativism and morality has simply been reduced to one man's subjective personal preferences vs. the values of another, how then shall we decide the rules of conduct we should all abide by?

Simple. We just all do what Big Brother, er, Obama tells us to do.

Sibelius has been dropping hints as to what will happen to those who don't.

You go with natural rights aka libertarianism

Damn Owl. I'm impressed.

(09-13-2010 11:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'd say your definition is INCREDIBLY weak. I do not agree with #1, #2, #3, #4, #5. I do agree with #1 in the second list, and somewhat #2. Your original #2 is fiscal liberalism.

I am a social liberal. Let me toss my social liberal agenda at you:

- At minimum, legal abortion in instances of rape, incest, imminent chance of death of mother, or "genetically incompatible with life". I'd support abortion up to 5-6 weeks in when the brain begins to form in the fetus.

I am on board with Imminent death or 'genetically incompatible with life'... Those are purely medical decisions...

Incest? Rape?

Both are tragic events and if the incest creates a serious genetic deficiency then defer to the above. Otherwise I have to defer to the reason that I am pro-life.

I believe life begins at conception (in your case you believe that life begins at five weeks). Does it matter how that life formed? Is a 4yo product of rape (or incest) less of a person than a four year old who was conceived in love?

I'll give you this, at least you're not taking the cowards way out 'I personally oppose it but who am I to say'... That is a lack of moral relativism and is laudable in today's society weather or not you're liberal/conservative.

(09-14-2010 09:54 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I'll give you this, at least you're not taking the cowards way out 'I personally oppose it but who am I to say'... That is a lack of moral relativism and is laudable in today's society weather or not you're liberal/conservative.

Why is that the cowards way out? If you wouldn't do something yourself why does that mean that no one else should. I won't get my ear pierced, but that doesn't mean that I oppose it for others. Yea, I know abortion is a bigger item than getting a hole in your ear, but it goes along the same line of thinking for me. Lots of people couldn't go through with the emotional trauma of abortion, but feel it should be available for others to use. How is that being a coward? Not saying I am pro choice, but I don't follow your logic.

(09-14-2010 09:54 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I am on board with Imminent death or 'genetically incompatible with life'... Those are purely medical decisions...

Incest? Rape?

Both are tragic events and if the incest creates a serious genetic deficiency then defer to the above. Otherwise I have to defer to the reason that I am pro-life.

I believe life begins at conception (in your case you believe that life begins at five weeks). Does it matter how that life formed? Is a 4yo product of rape (or incest) less of a person than a four year old who was conceived in love?

I'll give you this, at least you're not taking the cowards way out 'I personally oppose it but who am I to say'... That is a lack of moral relativism and is laudable in today's society weather or not you're liberal/conservative.

I distinguish between potential and current states. From a purely biological standpoint, a newly fertilized embryo (conception) is no more different than the billions of other cells in your body ... including those skin cells you're killing by the 100's as you read this. The question is not just when is it life -- but when it it a human life in and of itself. I consider the mind the essence of the human existence, and therefore I start when the brain begins to form. I think, therefore I am.

GTS,

You share my viewpoint on abortion almost down to the wire, and it's not too often I find people out there with the view.

Similarly, I think abortion should be legal in all cases until a few key things begin to happen: heart begins to beat, brain waves appear, and nervous system developed (I'm no doctor and I know I'm being overly simplistic, but you get the idea...). All this seems to happen by the time it reaches 6-8 weeks or so.

The second and third trimester is completely out of bounds, imo, although very few abortions happen this late anyhow, and it's usually because the mother's life is threatened.

Quote:Does it matter how that life formed? Is a 4yo product of rape (or incest) less of a person than a four year old who was conceived in love?

Bull in Exile, I agree. I remember one local political attack ad several years ago, in which it derided the candidate as being pro-life, "even in the case of rape and incest". Thing is, if the focus on squarely on the fetus, which is the backbone of the pro-life position, it seems plainly logical that there would be no stipulation based on 'how it got there'.

(09-13-2010 11:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'd say your definition is INCREDIBLY weak. I do not agree with #1, #2, #3, #4, #5. I do agree with #1 in the second list, and somewhat #2. Your original #2 is fiscal liberalism.

I am a social liberal. Let me toss my social liberal agenda at you:

- Government out of marriage completely. You can marry a transgendered bisexual racist neo-nazi fascist for all I care... so long as you don't infringe upon other's rights in the process.

- At minimum, legal abortion in instances of rape, incest, imminent chance of death of mother, or "genetically incompatible with life". I'd support abortion up to 5-6 weeks in when the brain begins to form in the fetus.

- At minimum, legal marijuana. I'd also support the hard stuff being legal.

- Real sex education and access to safe sex items. Abstinence only isn't a real education.

- Separation of church and state. That means protecting church from government and government from church.

- Increased LEGAL immigration.

- The end of the death penalty, except in cases where the act was caught on video. We have killed innocent people in this country. It's just a fact.

Interestingly, I generally agree with everything you said... unimportant differences... except the last...

It's not a fact because there has not been one case presented as proof. Perhaps a chance, but not factually.

Factually, we have let thousands of criminals go free in an effort to avoid what you fear. IMO, the death penalty is immaterial because it isn't enacted very often. Something like 1500 newly convicted murderers every year in Texas... something like 25 executed. Do the math... over a decade or more, it's a rounding error to the convicted... much less the thousands who plead to a lesser charge... something like 100,000 aggrivated assault convictions. When you extrapolate the chance of getting charged... getting convicted... getting the max penalty... having it carried out... you probably have a MUCH better chance of getting away with murder than being executed for it.

(09-14-2010 09:54 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-13-2010 11:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  - At minimum, legal abortion in instances of rape, incest, imminent chance of death of mother, or "genetically incompatible with life". I'd support abortion up to 5-6 weeks in when the brain begins to form in the fetus.

I am on board with Imminent death or 'genetically incompatible with life'... Those are purely medical decisions...
Incest? Rape?
Both are tragic events and if the incest creates a serious genetic deficiency then defer to the above. Otherwise I have to defer to the reason that I am pro-life.
I believe life begins at conception (in your case you believe that life begins at five weeks). Does it matter how that life formed? Is a 4yo product of rape (or incest) less of a person than a four year old who was conceived in love?
I'll give you this, at least you're not taking the cowards way out 'I personally oppose it but who am I to say'... That is a lack of moral relativism and is laudable in today's society weather or not you're liberal/conservative.

One of anti-abortion people's typical responses to pro-abortion people calling themselves pro-choice is to claim that the woman made her choice when she decided to have sex. If a woman was raped, she had no choice. Not only did she not decide to get pregnant, she did not decide to engage in behaviors (especially unprotected sex) which could reasonably expect to lead to pregnancy (fortunately we seem to have advanced beyond the "she was asking for it" stage). And that fact can make all the difference.

The standard anti-abortion position is that an abortion violates the right to life of a fetus (assuming that a fetus has rights). But the right to life, like all rights, is a negative right. It does not guarantee that we are provided everything we need to live, only that the conditions necessary for for life are not taken away without sufficient justification (if you kill someone if self defense, you are not violating his right to life). In order for abortion to be a violation of the right to life of the fetus, you must establish that the fetus has an independent claim on the mother's body.

In a standard pregnancy, it can reasonably be argued that the claim is established when the mother voluntarily chooses to have sex (kind of like a reverse lottery - the cost, not the payout, is uncertain). But what if the woman has been raped? How is the claim established? When did she consent, even implicitly, to allow a fetus use of her body for nine months?

That's the difference. As you say, a 4 year old product of rape is just as much of a person as a 4 year old conceived in love. It's not that a fetus which results from a rape is any less of a fetus. It has the same rights as any other fetus. It's just that the right to life, of any fetus, does not guarantee that the woman is obligated to carry it to term (another example is if the mother's life is in danger - the fetus's right to life is not violated because the decision is justified). That obligation must be established independently.

(09-14-2010 11:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-13-2010 11:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  - The end of the death penalty, except in cases where the act was caught on video. We have killed innocent people in this country. It's just a fact.

Interestingly, I generally agree with everything you said... unimportant differences... except the last...
It's not a fact because there has not been one case presented as proof. Perhaps a chance, but not factually.
Factually, we have let thousands of criminals go free in an effort to avoid what you fear. IMO, the death penalty is immaterial because it isn't enacted very often. Something like 1500 newly convicted murderers every year in Texas... something like 25 executed. Do the math... over a decade or more, it's a rounding error to the convicted... much less the thousands who plead to a lesser charge... something like 100,000 aggrivated assault convictions. When you extrapolate the chance of getting charged... getting convicted... getting the max penalty... having it carried out... you probably have a MUCH better chance of getting away with murder than being executed for it.

Quote:Thomas and Meeks Griffin were electrocuted by the state of South Carolina in 1915 for allegedly murdering confederate Civil War veteran John Louis. Last Wednesday, they were pardoned for that murder.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2009/10...-2009.html

It looks like we have our first (or at least a) confirmed case.

One of the reasons more haven't been proven is probably because once a person is executed, clearing their name just isn't that important anymore. Could the Innocence Project accomplish more by going back & proving that innocent people have been executed? Probably, but what good would that do the innocent people rotting in jail or executed in the meantime (which I believe is actually their goal, not eliminating the death penalty). Why would a state go back & examine evidence in a case where it is impossible to correct a mistake.

And if you are one of the rounding errors, but you didn't do anything wrong, it's a pretty big deal. Many people are also calling for the death penalty to be expanded or the process sped up, which will only increase the likelihood of such mistakes.

Since the death penalty is so rarely used, what's wrong with getting rid of it altogether? I suspect its main use is to coerce defendents to plea to lesser charges/penalties. If you couldn't afford a really good lawyer, would you be willing to put your life in the hands of 12 people (who couldn't figure out how to get out of jury duty no less), or agree to spend the next 20 years in prison?

*** That should be our first two cases. And probably four, except nobody bothered to petetion for a pardon for the other two people convicted in the case (which is probably one of the reasons it hasn't happened more often).

(09-14-2010 10:02 AM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  

(09-14-2010 09:54 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I'll give you this, at least you're not taking the cowards way out 'I personally oppose it but who am I to say'... That is a lack of moral relativism and is laudable in today's society weather or not you're liberal/conservative.

Why is that the cowards way out? If you wouldn't do something yourself why does that mean that no one else should. I won't get my ear pierced, but that doesn't mean that I oppose it for others. Yea, I know abortion is a bigger item than getting a hole in your ear, but it goes along the same line of thinking for me. Lots of people couldn't go through with the emotional trauma of abortion, but feel it should be available for others to use. How is that being a coward? Not saying I am pro choice, but I don't follow your logic.

It's the cowards way out because it is the moral equivalent of those who were 'against slavery' but for 'property rights'!

If it's a human being then damn it it has all the same rights as any other human being. If it's not than an abortion is no different than getting a cyst removed. Pick a side of the fence and get off of it.

I won't get a tattoo, not because I think "it's wrong" but because I don't want one so no, it's really not the same line of thought. Comparing self mutilation to terminating anothers life is silly, more than silly.

Besides I did not say that someone who thinks it (an unborn baby) is not alive who then carrys through a pregnancy is a coward. I said someone who thinks that it's *WRONG*, as in killing a human, but won't confront others about it is a coward.

If you and I agree on weather or not it's a human being (or at what point that happens) then there is room for a meaningful discussion on the matter.

If you think its a person but refuse to defend it (your baby or not) then you're just a monster.

(09-14-2010 10:17 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I distinguish between potential and current states. From a purely biological standpoint, a newly fertilized embryo (conception) is no more different than the billions of other cells in your body ... including those skin cells you're killing by the 100's as you read this. The question is not just when is it life -- but when it it a human life in and of itself. I consider the mind the essence of the human existence, and therefore I start when the brain begins to form. I think, therefore I am.

Way to take a scientific opinion and state it like a scientific fact! Almost make it look authoritative. But Biologically speaking if you take a fetus (Greek for *UNBORN BABY*) and put it in its ideal environment it grows all the things that make it 'look' like a person. If you take any of the Billions of cells and put it in it's ideal environment it stays exactly what it is. That's a pretty damn distinguishing.

"I consider the mind the essence of the human existence, and therefore I start when the brain begins to form. I think, therefore I am."

So is someone who is more intelligent, more of a human? is someone who is so severally mentally retarded that thay are border line non sentient less of a human being?

(09-14-2010 11:17 AM)jh Wrote:  One of anti-abortion people's typical responses to pro-abortion people calling themselves pro-choice is to claim that the woman made her choice when she decided to have sex. If a woman was raped, she had no choice. ....

And one of the ways you can try to argue with someone else is by picking a proxy argument and tearing that one apart... You know like when I said that Life is life, and you said but other people say .....

Quote:(cutting out the straw man) In order for abortion to be a violation of the right to life of the fetus, you must establish that the fetus has an independent claim on the mother's body.

When two peoples rights, any rights come into conflict the ethical and moral thing is to give priority to the right which is more fundamental. So the debate is this:

Is the right to not be killed (which is a right) more fundamental than the right to not be pregnant and are a persons rights diminished because of their origin?

Quote:In a standard pregnancy,

I've seen enough of them to know there ain't no such creature... but I digress

Quote:it can reasonably be argued that the claim is established when the mother voluntarily chooses to have sex (kind of like a reverse lottery - the cost, not the payout, is uncertain).

Horse crap, if that were the case than pro-choice people would already be on board for everything but rape and incest, but they are not so this is nothing but keyboard diarrhea.

If an unborn kid is a human being you have to measure the magnitudes of the rights at stake, if its not a human being why bother worrying about it at all?

Quote:But what if the woman has been raped? How is the claim established? When did she consent, even implicitly, to allow a fetus use of her body for nine months?

Was that *ever* a part of what I said? no you're still talking about someone else's argument. Mine was simply that all people, born and unborn, conceived of love and conceived of rape, have the same immutable rights.

Quote:That's the difference. As you say, a 4 year old product of rape is just as much of a person as a 4 year old conceived in love. It's not that a fetus which results from a rape is any less of a fetus. It has the same rights as any other fetus. It's just that the right to life, of any fetus, does not guarantee that the woman is obligated to carry it to term (another example is if the mother's life is in danger - the fetus's right to life is not violated because the decision is justified). That obligation must be established independently.

Holy crap I thought you would never get to my argument, kudo's for making it that far...

Featus-> greek for unborn child...

You're argument is that a fetus is not a baby which is pretty clear when you say "It's not that a fetus". Clearly you differentiate betwenn the human rights of an unborn baby (or the status of a featus as an unborn baby) and a child.

"It's just that the right to life, of any fetus, does not guarantee that the woman is obligated to carry it to term"

Funny, the government now considers 'healtcare' a right so much so that it's willing to take money, involuntarily, away from my family to give it to someone else but a mother caryring a baby for 9 months is pillaging it's mother.

"(another example is if the mother's life is in danger - the fetus's right to life is not violated because the decision is justified)"

Apples and oranges... If a doctor has two patients on the table and can only save one it's not murder to do so. If he has two atients on the table and both can live and he terminates one for the comfort of the other that is murder.