Do "Conservatives" Really Want What They Are Getting?

[ditcherman]

I use to be one about 30 years ago, it wasn't for me. The group I was in was mighty liberal or immoral IMO. I just couldn't stomach the garbage they spewed. Democrats have been anti constitution since I can remember so the only other choice was Republicans. Libertarian is great if you a liberal, and secular.

I can’t help who you hung out with 30 years ago, and perhaps some things have changed. Things have changed in every party.

Of course, I understand there is a secular contingent in them, how could there not be, they are live and let live, at the most basic level. There’s an awful lot of secularism in the Republican Party too. And that’s what I call hypocrisy.

The L’s are big tent, and while that has its disadvantages, theoretically they should be able to win, when the R’s go down in flames parsing out their tent. Theoretically. So far I’m not doing very well.

Your last sentence seems pretty offensive to me unless you intend the classical liberal definition, which I don’t think you do.

Upthread you nailed it when you talked about how unwilling people are to change, they’ve picked their camp and they can’t bear to change their mind. But here you are shoehorning people into a box from a notion you gained 30 years ago.
Why do any of us think we need to fit in any of their categories?

 

[DadSmith]

I can’t help who you hung out with 30 years ago, and perhaps some things have changed. Things have changed in every party.

Of course, I understand there is a secular contingent in them, how could there not be, they are live and let live, at the most basic level. There’s an awful lot of secularism in the Republican Party too. And that’s what I call hypocrisy.

The L’s are big tent, and while that has its disadvantages, theoretically they should be able to win, when the R’s go down in flames parsing out their tent. Theoretically. So far I’m not doing very well.

Your last sentence seems pretty offensive to me unless you intend the classical liberal definition, which I don’t think you do.

Upthread you nailed it when you talked about how unwilling people are to change, they’ve picked their camp and they can’t bear to change their mind. But here you are shoehorning people into a box from a notion you gained 30 years ago.
Why do any of us think we need to fit in any of their categories?

The group I was with had a lot of I'll call leftist and they spewed a lot of the social justice garbage that is prevalent today. So no I could not stay. Hopefully it was just that group. At that time they represented the libertarian party and I took it as their beliefs.

 

[scatterj]

I expect that you'll go right to the outlier you mentioned (the case of the pedophile and the 10 yo) but the reality is the moral choices should have been made much earlier in the process - specifically eschewing sex outside of a loving marriage

Abortion is not a form of birth control, it is the ending of a human life. Not only does that conservative believe your rights end where someone elses nose begins, they believe a gestating child is a someone and has a nose

I do agree, incest and rape is an outlier (< 2%). However the new law specifically does not make exceptions for these special cases. And since this is true, why not make the exception? I noticed you mentioned the case of sex outside of marriage. While I was not as moral as some, I did have sex before marriage and took my own responsibility to stop an unwanted pregnancy ( I feel sad saying those words). The thing that I found interesting was 25% of abortions occurred within a marriage. I personally cannot fathom my wife having an abortion, I have 5 children, but certainly you can imagine a situation and the deliberation that comes with it. As for a gestating life, as I mention the Bible is very clear on this matter (see Ezekiel 37 and exodus 21). Breathing life is more valuable than a fetus. While I know that sound harsh and doesn't reflect my moral choices, you have to be guided by the light of that sacred book. Every other religious comment about it is simply a personal interpretation of a given moral law. While it is OK to be pious beyond stated norms, what you are saying isn't biblical. Ask a honest religious scholar when life begins. Adam: first breath, Eve: first breath, the kid next door: first breath. As I stated before, I lack the wisdom to make such laws. If put in Abbotts situation, I dont know what I would do. I would be a servant of the people and my personal feelings shouldn't exempt the majority unless in certain cases imho. If put in a situation of my own making, I would have to reflect long and hard and would do everything in my power to convince the mother to have the child and relinquish her rights.

 

[NKBJ]

In the case of incest or rape how can killing the child be right?

 

[JTScribe]

Tom Pool had a good point the other day. He could empathize with the pro-choice movement when the mantra was “safe, legal, and rare.”

Since that time it’s morphed into a celebratory act and people literally writing articles about how they wished they’d had an abortion to support their fellows.

 

[Tombs]

Tom Pool had a good point the other day. He could empathize with the pro-choice movement when the mantra was “safe, legal, and rare.”

Since that time it’s morphed into a celebratory act and people literally writing articles about how they wished they’d had an abortion to support their fellows.

And we can't forget that it is literally being deemed a satanic ritual, as if things in 2021 couldn't be more out in the open.

 

[jake blue]

Tom Pool had a good point the other day. He could empathize with the pro-choice movement when the mantra was “safe, legal, and rare.”

Since that time it’s morphed into a celebratory act and people literally writing articles about how they wished they’d had an abortion to support their fellows.

Safe, legal and rare sounds positively puritanical in this day and age! I remember that was the gray area Slick Willie had to tread back in the day to stay popular with a majority of Americans when even southern Democrats still had morals based in scriptural values. Now democrats don't even seem to care and have this bizarre compartmentalized value system where what they believe on Sunday in church isn't what they believe on Monday in the legislature.

 

[scatterj]

Ag

Safe, legal and rare sounds positively puritanical in this day and age! I remember that was the gray area Slick Willie had to tread back in the day to stay popular with a majority of Americans when even southern Democrats still had morals based in scriptural values. Now democrats don't even seem to care and have this bizarre compartmentalized value system where what they believe on Sunday in church isn't what they believe on Monday in the legislature.

Agreed, but on both sides

 

[phylodog]

Now democrats don't even seem to care and have this bizarre compartmentalized value system where what they believe on Sunday in church isn't what they believe on Monday in the legislature.

It's called hypocrisy.

 

[ditcherman]

…. As for a gestating life, as I mention the Bible is very clear on this matter (see Ezekiel 37 and exodus 21). Breathing life is more valuable than a fetus. While I know that sound harsh and doesn't reflect my moral choices, you have to be guided by the light of that sacred book. Every other religious comment about it is simply a personal interpretation of a given moral law. While it is OK to be pious beyond stated norms, what you are saying isn't biblical. Ask a honest religious scholar when life begins. Adam: first breath, Eve: first breath, the kid next door: first breath. …..

I have never heard this reasoning before. I had no idea that a Bible believer (Christian? Don’t want to put words in your mouth) could possibly think such a thing. Kind of blew my mind, actually.
How prevalent is this thinking?

 

[bwframe]

I have never heard this reasoning before. I had no idea that a Bible believer (Christian? Don’t want to put words in your mouth) could possibly think such a thing. Kind of blew my mind, actually.
How prevalent is this thinking?

Apparently the Catholics believe that way also?

Just ask Joe and Nancy...

 

[buckwacker]

I do agree, incest and rape is an outlier (< 2%). However the new law specifically does not make exceptions for these special cases. And since this is true, why not make the exception? I noticed you mentioned the case of sex outside of marriage. While I was not as moral as some, I did have sex before marriage and took my own responsibility to stop an unwanted pregnancy ( I feel sad saying those words). The thing that I found interesting was 25% of abortions occurred within a marriage. I personally cannot fathom my wife having an abortion, I have 5 children, but certainly you can imagine a situation and the deliberation that comes with it. As for a gestating life, as I mention the Bible is very clear on this matter (see Ezekiel 37 and exodus 21). Breathing life is more valuable than a fetus. While I know that sound harsh and doesn't reflect my moral choices, you have to be guided by the light of that sacred book. Every other religious comment about it is simply a personal interpretation of a given moral law. While it is OK to be pious beyond stated norms, what you are saying isn't biblical. Ask a honest religious scholar when life begins. Adam: first breath, Eve: first breath, the kid next door: first breath. As I stated before, I lack the wisdom to make such laws. If put in Abbotts situation, I dont know what I would do. I would be a servant of the people and my personal feelings shouldn't exempt the majority unless in certain cases imho. If put in a situation of my own making, I would have to reflect long and hard and would do everything in my power to convince the mother to have the child and relinquish her rights.

One really must twist meanings and context if Ezekiel 37 and Exodus 21 is to be used to justify abortion.

 

[5.56'aholic]

Gotta say, JH's original post got me thinking. After 40 years of warning the communists were infiltrating American government, did he get what he wanted?

 

[ditcherman]

One really must twist meanings and context if Ezekiel 37 and Exodus 21 is to be used to justify abortion.

Exodus 21 would actually lead me to believe the opposite of what he was saying; there is value in the unborn.

The Ez. 37 was just out of context.

 

[Tombs]

Exodus 21 would actually lead me to believe the opposite of what he was saying; there is value in the unborn.

The Ez. 37 was just out of context.

You can get the bible to say almost anything if you reduce the context for a verse.

 

[buckwacker]

Exodus 21 would actually lead me to believe the opposite of what he was saying; there is value in the unborn.

The Ez. 37 was just out of context.

Absolutely. It's likely that many have simply heard and repeated someone else ignorantly or deceitfuly employing those particular references in a dubious attempt at using scripture to undermine the belief of those too lazy to actually read what it says.

 

[Lex Concord]

Kut likes stirring the pot, but he is a lot more elouqant.

Maybe, but I don't recall Kut setting the table, opening the buffet, and having folks line up to feed him

 

[scatterj]

One really must twist meanings and context if Ezekiel 37 and Exodus 21 is to be used to justify abortion.

To be clear, I dont think abortion is right. Neither is the Bible saying it is. What the Bible does say is that life starts at first breath. Obviously technology has reduced that. If it is possible for a child to live at 25 weeks, then no abortion after week 25.

 

[Ingomike]

Especially true with immigrants who align with republicans on almost every issue - except immigration.

Your exception is just not true. Even strong percentages of illegals support border enforcement.

And for the record immigration and illegal immigration and government forced refugees are all very different topics.

 

[buckwacker]

To be clear, I dont think abortion is right. Neither is the Bible saying it is. What the Bible does say is that life starts at first breath. Obviously technology has reduced that. If it is possible for a child to live at 25 weeks, then no abortion after week 25.

The bible does not say life begins with breath. It does indicate that things which aren't alive may be given the breath of life supernaturaly (creation of man, raising of the dead, as in Lazarus or the valley of dry bones). To equate the supernatural raising of the dead to conception isn't at all logical. With regard to the exodus reference you cited, if one bothers to read it, the passage states that if someone causes a pregnant woman to go into early labor and deliver, her husband may take it out of the offenders hide. If the child dies, his life will be required. Not sure how you wrestled justification for dehumanizing unborn children from either of those passages, but I suggest you reread them.