This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Friday, August 3, 2012

How Liberals and Conservatives differ.....

When I saw the video   of the man harassing the young woman employee at the Chick-fil-A drive thru, it dawned on me once again how the reaction of liberals to things differs so much from the reactions of conservatives. It put me in mind of this "oldie but goodie" which, I think pretty well sums it up.

Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

If a Conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a Liberal doesn't like guns, they believe no one should have one.

If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a Liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a Conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A Liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a Conservative is homosexual, he quietly enjoys life. If a Liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.



If a Conservative is a minority , he sees himself as independently successful. Their Liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A Liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A Liberal wants all churches to be silenced.

If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A Liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.

If a Conservative disagrees with a Liberal president, he is called a racist. When a Liberal disagrees with a Conservative president, it's patriotic dissent.

If a Conservative expresses his political view, he is called an idiot. A Liberal expressing his political views is expressing his right to Freedom of Speech.



I would probably amend that last one a little bit....the current liberal practice when they disagree with your political view is to label you as a "racist" or "homophobe" and whatever they disagree with is "hate speech".

99 comments:

Sarkazein said...

All painfully true.

NewGuy said...

Another one....When conservatives don't like a blog, they move on and find one that they do like. When liberals don't like a blog, they become fixated on it, become trolls and compulsively return over and over again in an effort to harass and prevent other people from engaging in discussion.

Sarkazein said...

Then they want free psychiatric care to help them with their obsession and a lawyer to sue for their being a victim of the blog.

Happily Married said...

When a conservative doesnt believe that abortion is right - they try to force everybody to abide by that belief.
When a conservative doesn't agree that gay people have just as much right to marriage as heterosexuals, they force that opinion on everyone.

Now intellectuals, please tell me how the conservatives and liberals are so different. I am interested because I happen to be both - being capable of discerning right from wrong on a case by case basis and not simply following the crwod. I also know that i have never hijacked a blog and only encourage intellectual discussion. Now lets hear the insults and name calling - please note that I have not as I am trying to encourage the intellectual discussion as noted.

NewGuy said...

HM...At some point you have to realize that what you define as "right" or "wrong" is determined by the standards that you use in making that determination.

If you believe that killing innocent unborn babies is acceptable, then - to you - that is "right". But, you have to accept that a conservative who feels that taking innocent life is wrong, won't see it the same way.

There have been recent news items about Muslims who murder their teen aged children because they "disgrace" the family. I expect they see that as "right".

I see the difference between the abortion advocate and the Muslim parent as being one of timing.

Happily Married said...

I feel compelled to point out that, whereas the first and last one are true, the middle two are not. The last one is not only true but right. Why should you have less rights in this country because of your sexual orientation? Aren't we all supposed to be equal in this great country? So I have pointed out two very true statements that are irrefutable to cancel out your two. Now we really are equal.

Happily Married said...

New Guy,
I thoroughly respect your belief, despite the fact it differs from mine. I truly think you should never have an abortion based on your beliefs. I also think it is great for you to preach those beliefs to others so that they might make that same decision. I believe life starts at birth (sort of by definition). I am willing to concede that, with modern medicine, births can happen very early in a pregnancy. I encourage the idea that someday medicine will allow a pregnant woman to give over her fetus to a willing parent. Until that time, I believe that a woman should choose whether or not to be pregnant. The book Freakonomics had an interesting twist on abortion that is noteworthy. My point is that, in the case of abortion, if you think it is wrong, don't get one, but don't force everyone else to abide by that belief. See how much the same we really all are?

Happily Married said...

New Guy,

Please look up the definition of a baby and the definition of a fetus. Those two are very different.

NewGuy said...

"Please look up the definition of a baby and the definition of a fetus. Those two are very different."


Ahhh...just couldn't resist a snarky comment, huh? While I have my dictionary out, maybe I will look up the definition of the word "marriage" as well.

As to your last point about "forcing my beliefs"....As you are probably aware, society forces a lot of 'beliefs' on people. For example, even if I, as a Muslim, thought killing my teen aged daughter was acceptable because of the shame she brought to my family, society forces their belief on me that I can't kill her.

We don't allow killing of innocents, except in the case of unborn ones. And yes. that is, in fact the forcing of our beliefs on others.

NewGuy said...

HM..re your 7:20 PM thread, I'm sorry but I don't understand your references. What "first and last" are you referring to as true? ...etc.

Sarkazein said...

Happy wrote- "Please look up the definition of a baby and the definition of a fetus. Those two are very different."

Ask a woman who has had a miscarriage, she'll say she lost her baby.

guy faulkes said...

HM, leaving religion completely out of it, life begins at conception. The combination of the DNA of the father and the mother produces a unique individual at that point that is distinct from the mother.

Abortion is murder unless the life of the mother is in grave danger which makes it justifiable homicide.

NewGuy said...

HM...Sorry I was away - I was looking up the definition of "baby" on Dictionary.com. One definition they included was "human fetus". Does that mean you will concede?

I also went back to my "archives" and found something I had recalled from an old Mike Adams column...

"A woman in Los Angeles had her baby two months before it was due. Her sister in New York had an abortion one month before it was due. Could the woman in Los Angeles have killed her baby one month after it was born? Why not? There is no difference in size or development between these two East and West Coast cousins. Are we prepared to say that moving eight inches down a birth canal makes one a person? Since when does where you are determine what you are? Be careful before you answer. And be careful before you take your next step."

I know we aren't going to change one anothers minds here and that wasn't my intent. I was merely pushing back on your original point about conservatives trying to force their beliefs on others. I usually don't get into these abortion debates because I find that it has all been said before and no one seems to ever change their mind. Nontheless, if you (or others) want to read the Mike Adams column I referenced, you can find it here:

http://townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2012/03/26/i_used_to_love_her_but_i_had_to_kill_her

Sarkazein said...

Happy's theory "if you don't want one don't have one" including a same sex marriage and an abortion means all laws should be covered by the "don't want one don't have one". Many laws protect the innocent not leave it up to the perpetrator to do as they please or don't.

Sarkazein said...

It is my belief the US Constitution protects the unborn.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


pos·ter·i·ty   [po-ster-i-tee] Show IPA
noun
1.
succeeding or future generations collectively: Judgment of this age must be left to posterity.
2.
all descendants of one person: His fortune was gradually dissipated by his posterity.

Happily Married said...

Funny how everyone jumped on abortion and missed the overall point. We all have different beliefs. It it ever right to force ones beliefs on others? I will say again we are not that different and that we might need to try harder to recognize our similarities rather than focus on our differences if we ever hope to accomplish anything.

Happily Married said...

You seem to want to argue over which beliefs it is OK to force onto the rest of society who might believe differently - and both sides have the beliefs. That is where we are the same. I believe abortion is not murder. I believe marriage is not defined as a man and a woman but rather a loving couple. My beliefs are just as valid as yours.

I believe in the right to bear arms. I believe in the death penalty. Am I really so different as to be hated by the participants on this blog. Or can we afford some civility toward each other and just talk about the issues? I don't believe in forcing my beliefs on anyone else. Can anyone else say the same?

Sarkazein said...

Vive la différence... I don't want to be like a liberal. Thank goodness my parents weren't liberals. They were "burdened" five fetuses.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- Liberal mayors wanted to force their beliefs on Chick-Fil-A. Liberals want all taxpayers to be forced to pay for birth control. Both, to name only two, are force by the government.
You may be confusing the terms force and convince.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- to add, this is why tens of thousands (USS Shepherd will dispute) gathered at Chick-Fil-A to put the liberal city governments on notice and only a handful of exhibitionists showed up today in support of the liberal mayors.

Nobody said...

HM,
I appreciate the tone of your posts and calls for civility, but find myself wondering if you really mean what you are saying. Do you now accept that people who believe, for whatever reason, that marriage should be between one man and one woman have a valid opinion based on their belief system? And that they have the same right to express their views as anyone else? You have that right and use it well. But the rather lengthy history of this discussion here has been characterized by your and others' uncomproming sense of rightness. I don't know how many times it has seemed that you have portrayed yourself as the self-righteous defender of the oppressed with good and light on your side while those who dare disagree are cast as the oppressors, evil and dark. Will you at least acknowledge that others have a right to their opinions, no matter how misguided you believe them to be and perhaps seek to change opinions without the condescending and judgmental attitude that has been so common?

NewGuy said...

HM...re: your 9:44 post.

I don't think you are "hated" by the participants on this blog. You are welcome here and I know both Blogger and I are always glad to have opposing views argued in a civil fashion.

That doesn't mean that you will always be treated gently but, from what I remember from prior posts, you seem to give as good as you get!

And hey! We agree on the death penalty thing! That's a good start!

By the way...I thought they hated me too when they heard my support for sensible zoning in this county! Some of us just don't follow the "party line" all the time!

NewGuy said...

Sark....I saw some coverage of the "kiss in" on one of the Charlotte stations. Maybe everyone hadn't shown up yet at news time, but the video they played showed 2 women and 1 man with picket signs and a few people several feet away who seemed to be bystanders - or media.

Happily Married said...

Nobody,

If you read my many posts regarding the same sex marriage issue, I most always opened with I firmly respect the beliefs and belief system that marriage is between one man and one woman. I would never want to impinge on that belief system. I was accused of attacking religion and trying to force a belief system on others, where I was doing neither. I was trying to come to c compromise where both belief systems could be honored. The only way for both belief systems to be honored legally is if both belief systems were legal i.e. men and women could marry and homosexual couples could marry. I was, once again, accused of forcing one belief system over another. I feel if you believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, then you should have a right to live by that belief, teach it and encourage it in others. In our current legal system, that is the case. However, if you believe that marriage is between two loving people regardless of what exists between their legs, you cannot live by your beliefs and have been forced to live by a different set of beliefs. When the SCOTUS strikes down these laws (as they did the Obamacare), it will not mean that god fearing heterosexuals will be forced to believe any differently than they currently do. It does mean that homosexuals cannot be discriminated against. Given the history of this country discrimination and "acceptance" are not opposites. Many laws have been put on the books that disallow for discrimination and some still aren't accepted by all (mix race marriages, etc.). I think eventually tolerance will replace the intolerance that creates the original laws that will be overturned. It is just ashamed that discrimination exists legally in this country.

Sarkazein said...

NewGuy- And the assistant manager of Chick-Fil-A didn't run out of the store a throw a bucket of cold water on the couple either.

I don't think we have to worry about Chick-Fil-A being banned from any city by liberals now. I am surprised that instead of a kiss-in, they didn't gather up copies of Chick-Fil-A menus and burn them in a pile.

Sarkazein said...

A thousand years of marriage being between a man and a woman, all major religions preaching it, most states having to pass laws to protect it from being changed and WE are trying to "force our beliefs on others".

WOW!

Sarkazein said...

Liberal mayors say no license for non-believers (in gay marriage) and WE are trying to force our beliefs on others.

WOW! WOW! (double wow)

guy faulkes said...

HM, how do you defend the right to murder (abort) an unborn baby when it would be against the law to murder the mother? As a matter of fact, the person that kills the mother would be charged with a double homicide if the baby is not saved.

Please explain the difference in how an unborn baby is subject to your discrimination and what you call the discrimination against gays.

This is particularly interesting to me because I do not care about the gay marriage issue and still can see the similarity in the two issues. Can you, or are you honest enough to admit it?

Finally, the real issue with the Chic-fil-A situation is freedom of speech, not gay marriage. No one has ever said you do not have a right to your mistaken opinion on abortion. Why do you feel it necessary to not give the same courtesy to Chic-fil-A?

USS Rodger Young said...

Sarkazein said:

"Ask a woman who has had a miscarriage, she'll say she lost her baby".

Priceless Sark. Just priceless.

Notice how Happily Dumb and the other baby killers didn't want to touch that one!! Fantastic job as usual.

Sarkazein said...

Thank you USS Rodger Young.

Another more than obvious liberal use of force is the manmade global warming hoax.

Blogger said...

Comment by person interviewed on Fox News:
“Conservatives and leftists protest in different ways,” Crowder explained. “Conservatives, when they want their voices to be heard, they decide to effect real political change by making their voices heard through voting with their dollars.”

He continued: “Liberals decide to commit felonies and harass and assault and maim and rape their fellow occupiers in tents while tipping over police cars. So, there is a little bit of a contrast.”

Happily Married said...

Guy,

If a baby is unborn it is not murder. How do you defend the right to force a woman to go through a pregnancy? What if it was rape or what if it endangers the pregnant woman? Where do you draw the line? Why is it that conservatives are all high and mighty about the sanctity of life when it is a fetus but try like hell to dissolve programs that protect and feed these same children once they are born? You say that the mother should know better than to have children if she cant afford it or she should get a low paying conservative dictated minimum wage job that doesn't pay enough to feed her or her child. You want to get rid of social programs and obamacare that provides insurance for the "precious lives" that you admonish those who would prevent an unwanted birth but you don't give a damn once they are born. New Guy I see you are just as passionate about abortion as I am about discrimination against actual live gay people. If you could just channel that passion to the living versus the might be living (and might not)the world would be a better place.
Sark - yes you are trying to force your beliefs on others - regardless of how long marriage has been around. Quick research will show that gay marriage has also been around for thousands of years. The mayors are trying to say no to discriminators (or the supporters of) - not that I agree with their tactic. Would you have issues with business that financially support the KKK - discrimination against blacks)?

Finally USS Rodger Crap for Brains - I have indicated I wanted to have civil discussions and that I am tired of you calling me Happily Dumb. I will go back to your nam de plum when you do the same for me. Unless you are incapable of actually having a civil discussion. I have seen woman lose babies and I have seen woman have abortions and it is heart breaking on all accounts. Doesn't change the situation.

NewGuy said...

"If a baby is unborn it is not murder"

You better check your facts. It is murder in NC.

NewGuy said...

Happily Married....
Did you respond to this? I might have missed it.


"A woman in Los Angeles had her baby two months before it was due. Her sister in New York had an abortion one month before it was due. Could the woman in Los Angeles have killed her baby one month after it was born? Why not? There is no difference in size or development between these two East and West Coast cousins. Are we prepared to say that moving eight inches down a birth canal makes one a person?

Sarkazein said...

Happy wrote- "... obamacare that provides insurance for the "precious lives..."

No it doesn't, it provides a tax penalty for those who can't afford insurance. Medicaid supplied insurance for those who could not afford it.

Sarkazein said...

"I'm not a liberal!"

"Conservatives want to starve children."

"I want civil debate!"

Sarkazein said...

"If you don't believe in same sex marriage you are a KKK-like bigot"

"I want civil discourse"

guy faulkes said...

HM, if you have a problem with the fact that the female of the species has to carry an unborn person, you will have to take it up with God. I cannot do anything about it and neither can you unless you murder the unborn. End of story.

Happily Married said...

Guy - you are entitled to your beliefs as am I. I do not believe you can murder the unborn - probably just as you or many of your cohorts believe marriage is only defined as as between a man and a woman. My overall point was that it would be great if we could all live as we personally believe (without imposing those beliefs on others) IE if you do not believe in gay marriage don't marry someone of the opposite sex - don't force everyone else to live by your beliefs. If you do not believe in abortion - don't get one.

Sark - you are the master of the overstatement. The KKK comment was a legitimate comparison that you have an opportunity to explain - in civil discourse - how it is different. Both groups want to deny equal rights because of either a skin color or a sexual orientation - it was not meant to be a slam of any kind. And I simply asked about an approach and mentality about services. Do you deny wanting to cut protective services supplied by the government?http://tucsoncitizen.com/medicare/2012/06/16/obamacare-does-your-child-have-a-right-to-health-insurance/ and yes Obamacare helps provide health insurance for kids that might not otherwise be able to get it.

New Guy - I will respond to the 1 month abortion. I believe it is illegal in most states as well it should be. I believe that if a baby has better than a 50/50 chance of living without being a parasite to its host (comparison for illustration - I have children and love them - keep your panties out of a wad), then it should not be aborted. When science and medicine establish ways to accomplish that immediately after conception, then abortion should be illegal and the child (as it is able to live on its own) can be given to someone who truly wants the child. So to answer your question I think the scenario is wrong. See - this is civil dialogue - we have an opportunity to reach some middle ground if you will just reach a little.

Happily Married said...

meant to say don't marry someone of the same sex in that first paragraph

NewGuy said...

Happy...You "don't believe you can murder the unborn"? Fine. But the law is that you can - and "murder"
is a legal term, not a matter of belief.

You condescendingly suggest that I who should "reach a little" for "middle ground",yet you won't even concede the simple definition of terms.

guy faulkes said...

HM, your opinion would be fine except for one thing. Abortion does not just effect the woman. It is the murder of an innocent life. An unborn baby deserves the same protection under the law as does anyone else. Using your logic, when would your murder be legal?

I personally think gay marriage is a non issue. I do not care. I only voted for amendment one after being accused of being a racist (????) and a bigot because I did not support gay marriage. The fact I did not oppose it originally did nothing to placate the pro gay marriage crowd. They were their own worst enemy,

I still think marriage is a civil union that has religious overtones and that other types of contracts can do the same thing without involving religion at all.

If you have problems with the tax codes, or anything else, then change them. There is no need to push a non issue.

Sarkazein said...

State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Medicaid.

Neither of those programs penalize people in the form of an Obamacaretax if they don't' use them.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- I noticed at Chick-Fil-A, there was a sign saying-- "All Gays Must Sit In the Back of the Store."

As I went to wash my hands, I noticed another sign reading-- "Heteros Only" above the door and a sign reading-- "Gays" above another door... it was the back door.

The public schools still to this day make gay kids attend all gay schools and they are much older buildings... more decorated on the inside, and cleaner, but it is still segregation no matter how you look at it.

The Rev Martin Luther King Jr dreamed of the day when men could marry men and women could marry women. He had been to the mountain top and seen men kissing men and women kissing women.

USS Rodger Young said...

Did anyone see Yahoo news today. They were saying that "scores" of gays were at Chick Fil A today kissing. The only problem with this is the facts. Not only did few show up, but most gays wanted no part of messing with a restaurant expressing 1st Amendment Rights. The liberal news media is out of control.

I keep seeing mindless negative stories regarding Romney and NONE for hussein obama. The discrepency is amazing and sad. We knew this would occur but to this extent, even I'm surprised.

NewGuy said...

I did see that article JR....and I had similar reaction to yours.

Thousands showed up for chik-fil-a appreciation day....hundreds of them right here in our little town.

Now...if you consider there are over 1600 chick fil a stores, if one protestor on average showed up for every 10 stores, that would amount to 8 SCORE of people. If more than that number had shown up, I expect the media would be reporting HUNDREDS of protesters.

I think it's very likely that a lot of gay people probably support free speech rights of others - even others with whom they might disagree.

Maybe they ought to spend their time protesting Saudi Arabia's death penalty for gays instead of going after a fried chicken store!

Sarkazein said...

Mindless negative stories

Happily Married said...

New Guy -

Where is your middle ground? I have stated that abortions should only happen up to when the fetus has a 50/50 chance of becoming a baby and living. I do not agree with late term abortions. Are you suggesting that it is murder if it is immediately after conception. Then is taking a pill to prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall murder? I have tried to reach and you (typical of true conservatives seem to live in a black and white world where there is no middle ground.

GF - I believe that life begins at birth. I have a right to my belief just as much as you do. If you kill a baby after it is born, It is murder. I am just as ambivalent on this issue as you are on gay marriage. I only argue because conservatives seem to care more about the unborn than they do their fellow human being. Abort a pregnancy is blasphemy - but once a kid is born their on their own. They must be liberals if they dont have a job and support themselves?

Sark, once again instead of adding anything discussion worthy you throw in a Snarky comment. I believe not allowing gays to marry is discrimination - so yes, supporting foundations that fight against gay marriage is the to deny them rights based on their sexual orientation.

Sarkazein said...

" Abort a pregnancy is blasphemy - but once a kid is born their on their own."- Happy


"Sark, once again instead of adding anything discussion worthy you throw in a Snarky comment."

NewGuy said...

HM..I suppose you are right in that I don't see much "middle ground" on abortion. To me it isn't a debate on what age a baby is before it is considered wrong to kill it. Maybe up until it's 4th birthday? Maybe only up until it is a year old? Maybe 3 days before it "comes out"? or 3 months?

I don't know how to answer you here....I just don't think killing babies, born or unborn, is a good thing.

And to try to create equivalency between ones position on abortion to one on social welfare programs is so ridiculous as to not require a response. The reverse of that would be that since you favor abortion it should also follow that you would support letting little children starve!

Sarkazein said...

To relate same-sex marriage with the history of the Black civil rights movement is also as ridiculous.

I am impressed on how Happily Married knows and is certain of the exact point in gestation when it is OK to abort.

Sarkazein said...

"I have stated that abortions should only happen up to when the fetus has a 50/50 chance of becoming a baby and living."- HAPPY?


Yes, this is as cold hearted as it reads.

guy faulkes said...

As you think your personal opinion gives you the right to murder unborn babies, should the personal opinion of those that would beak the rule of law by bombing abortion clinics give them the same right to murder, HM?

Currently the system of legalized murder known as abortion is the law of the land. Someday we will change this shameful situation.

Jus' Sayin said...

Here's my proposal for reaching some "middle ground".

We will all agree to boycott Chick-Fil-A on Sundays and all of us will patronize them on Mondays.

Happily Married said...

Guy and Sark -

I have asked for some comment on middle ground on the issue of abortion. New Guy you even commented on what age a BABY is before you kill it. I have stated explicitly that killing a baby is wrong. Before it is born, a baby is termed a fetus. The fetal stage commences at the beginning of the 9th week. Prior to that it is a fertilized egg. Prior to that it is a sperm and an egg. I have asked when you consider a life to begin. I contend that a fertilized egg is a possibility of life. A split cell embryo is a possibility of life. A fetus is a possibility of life. The first breath represents life. You can call me cold, but I at least am trying to find some reasonable solution for both parties. Murder is applied to life - after first breath. A birth certificate is not issued on a still born - A death certificate is not issued until after a birth certificate. The medical community is very well aware of when "life" begins. I argue that murder applies to when life begins. You argue it applies to the possibility of life. Please, once again, where does your possibility of life begin? Is it before or after the embryo attached to the uterine wall. Is it at conception? Is it in the sperm itself. Should masturbation and the resulting "spilt seed" carry a life sentence for the end of the "possibility of life". Your possibility of life is picked on completely arbitrary measures and most likely casbed on religious beliefs. My definition has at least some arguable basis. Are you contending that the medical community does not understand life and death? Are you going to let religious beliefs or or simply stubborn ideals dictate that you know more than the medical community just like you know more than the scientific community that global warming is a hoax (Referencing Sark's previous comment)?I am interested in a discussion - and I do not agree with your "definitions" as they do not hold water given the previous points.

NewGuy said...

Yes, that's your problem HM. You don't agree with others' definitions. It makes it easier for you to accept the killing of unborn children if you define them as something other than babies.

And, despite the fact that it has been pointed out to you what the NC law defines as "murder", you insist on applying your own definition.

I suppose that if I were willing to murder unborn children, I would want to call it something else too!

Sarkazein said...

To start out in the "middle" you must first agree abortion is ok.

Happily Married said...

Still no answer - give me an arbitrary start point Sark and New Guy - is it conception? Is it when the fertized egg implants in the uterine wall? Is it sperm? I have stated it is first breath that does not rely on its mother. When medicine has advanced to create an artificial womb I will concede that my idea needs to be adjusted. You have brought up two things - the law (advanced by republican conservatives to convolute the abortion issue)that indicates killing a pregnant woman is murder twice - is a great law as it is used to punish for murder. We need more elimination of murderers so I whole heartedly agree. The law does not mean that a fetus is defined as a person as it does not have a birth certificate. It represents the possibility of life and the unwilling elimination of that possibility carries consequences. Yes, I concede that when women lose a preganancy, they are remorseful about the loss of their baby. But it is only the possibility of a baby. It is so much so only the possibility that woman do not even disclose they are pregnant until after the first trimester because the possibility is so uncertain. It is not certain life until the first breath. You can turn in an application and have the possibility of a job. You can make the short list, you can have an interview, you can even get an offer, but until a job offer is accepted - it is not a certain job. You are remorseful about losing the possibility of a job - greater remorse as the process goes on because the chances are increased. Same with pregnancy. You can have viable sperm - you can have a fertilized egg - you can carry full term and still have a still born that does not get a birth certificate (a certificate of live birth) until the first breath. The medical community has defined life - not me. If a baby does not draw its first breath outside its mother it is not issued a certificate of birth. Once again willing to discuss, but you wont even indicate a start point. I believe it is because you know it is arbitrary and according to personal belief and not medical knowledge.

NewGuy said...

So now you are conceding that killing an unborn child in NC is, in fact, murder? But, you seem to be of the opinion that the mother....(excuse me, I guess you would call her "the host" at this point), must be murdered as well?

And what does your opinion that the law was "advanced by republican conservatives to convolute the abortion issue" have to do with anything? Do you think that would be a good defense in the murder trial of the murderer?

I am also confused as to what an "artificial womb" has to do with anything. You are aware that babies born several months prematurely are kept alive outside the "natural" womb of the mother, (excuse me - "HOST"), aren't you?

Happily Married said...

And i am aware that they are breathing on their own or with the aid of a machine - they are relying on their mother for life sustenance. That is my point. Still no answer.

NewGuy said...

A baby born 2 months prematurely, surviving in an incubator with breathing tubes attached, is "relying on their mother for life sustenance"?

I really don't understand how you conclude that? But, if it were true, then you would be ok with "aborting" that baby?

Now THAT'S some middle ground!

Sarkazein said...

No one really knows when "life" begins. Scientists have theory only. But, if you look at ultra-sound, that aint no egg... that's Baby.

Ultra-sound is what gave me an opinion. That wooshing noise aint gas, that's the babies heartbeat. Surgery is now performed on babies inside the womb.Tumors don't have heartbeats. So I say life begins when someone knows they are pregnant. Intent.

Happily Married said...

I intended to indicate that the baby on the incubator is NOT relying on the mother and that is my point - I am victim of trying to type too fast. The separation of baby from mother is the critical moment when you can separate rights. Please note I said baby - that ultrasound is fetus - not baby.

Actually science has flushed out virtually every step in the process. this is what has allowed me to ask the questions I have. Of course you also believe science is perpetrating some elaborate hoax called global warming so I do not believe you would believe scientific knowledge.
Life begins when someone knows they are pregnant? - you do realize that some mothers do not realize they are pregnant until they are in labor. This very ambiguous approach will never stand legal ground and is a very personal opinion - not based on any medicine or science or even any demonstrable point in the process. As this is a very personal issue I will restate my opinion: If you believe abortion is murder I strongly encourage you to not have one. Your belief should not trump anothers any more than theirs should trump yours. The government will not force you to have an abortion. The government will not force you to marry someone of the same sex.

Our system of Gov is not perfect but it eventually cures its own ills. Roe vs. Wade is one example. Mix raced marriages was corrected in the early 70's Obamacare has been determined to be constitutional and gay marriage will be determined to be legal in accordance with the equal rights amendment. This system is based on an incredible set of founding documents that has stood the test of time. It allows these ills to be vetted and corrected and keeps intact some critical basics such as the right to bear arms. Thanks to the system the Gov will never even attempt to outright ban guns, for instance.

guy faulkes said...

Happily Married, as I said when this topic first came up on this thread, life begins at conception as the babies DNA is distinct from that of the mother. The mother has to bear the child, but that is not the fault of the child. As I also said before, if you do not like this fact, complain to God or Darwin as you would prefer. The child's life is still distinct from the mother's in either case.

If you carried your logic to a consistent conclusion, then medical treatment of any kind should not be allowed as it prolongs life that might possibly inconvenience someone. Please keep track of comments, especially those you responded to, before you say no one answered you.

NewGuy said...

HM...The "Equal Rights Amendment?"
Really? That is the basis for your argument for same sex marriage?

Why am I not surprised?

Happily Married said...

Then by that standard you think the abortion pill is murder (you did not answer that before - I was trying to get a distinction between the fertilized egg and an implanted one). Do you know how many fertilized eggs never even make it to the uterine wall? Woman could be prosecuted just for riding a horse a day after sex for manslaughter.

Medical treatment of someone living is different. Living breathing people have been born and they have life - they have a certificate of live birth to verify this. You know how many babies are lost before a woman even knows she is pregnant?

Should a twin be able to remove an undeveloped twin without a brain that is attached to his or her body? The genetic material is different from the one twin. Is abortion OK in cases or rape or incest? Aren't these precious lives as well? Would you want your mother or sister or daughter to have to carry a rape baby to term? Once again the world is not black and white. I would be happy to discuss the grey.

I also firmly respect your opinion and appreciate your perspective about individual genetic material. In my mind individual genetic material does not make a life. I flush genetic material down the toilet everyday. I think life is a system that is the operable sum of its parts and for humans that operation includes breath.

I think our justices were pretty intelligent in their decision:The Court later rejected Roe's trimester framework, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability.[1] The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[2]

Nobody said...

HM,
I have to confess that I am astounded by some of your comments - do you have any morals? Do you understand how you contradict yourself? Do you really believe that a government issued birth certificate is required to determine the beginning of life? If a couple stranded on a deserted island have a child, does that child not really exist because the government was not there to issue a certificate? Reread some of your own comments to see how an occassional reader might think this is what you believe. That might explain why you seem to think two people cannot love one another without a government issued license. You contradict youself several times on when might have an abortion. Is it whe there is a 50-50 chance of survival, anytime before the draws its first breath independent of the mother or when the fetus is considered viable as stated in Roe (which is earlier now than whe Roe was decided, so an ambiguous definition itself). You have argued for all three! Finally, you say if one believes abortion is murder, don't have one. You should then go on to say that if you see someone being murdered, mind your own business and don't help the human being killed - you'll be interfering in the right of the killer to terminate a life. How else can someone who believes that abortion is murder take your instruction to not have one, but do nothing.

Sarkazein said...

Well said Nobody.

Happily Married said...

Nobody,

1)Yes I have morals
2)I was not aware of contradicting myself other than the typos I have acknowledged.
3)I never said a government issued license is required to determine the beginning of life. Some people have a problem understanding cause and effect. The license is simply an acknowledgment of when standard medical practice determines the start of life - it is not required - or would it be anticipated on an island as you describe. The occasional reader might take something out of context as my posts were never intended as stand alone statements but point and counterpoint continuum.
4) I think two people can certainly love each other without a license, but they will not receive equal benefits under the law without the license.
5) The three times you say I contradict myself on when it is OK to have an abortion are all interrelated. Survival depends on breath, viability depends on breath, and 50/50 chance is an easily statistically calculable number based on premature births records over the last 5 years - a benchmark that will stand up in court and takes into account advances in medicine.
6) The difference in abortion and a living human being being killed is just that - a living independent human being. It is not acceptable to stand by and watch another living human being being killed against their will and i never implied it - that is your statement framed within your belief system - not mine. I said you should honor your belief system when it comes to fetus versus baby - and I should be able to honor mine. But because there are different belief systems on this subject and the SCOTUS has determined that abortion is legal - then your point about a killer and terminating life is irrelevant framed in my belief system and according to the law. I have tried to state that I firmly do not believe in late term abortions when there is a chance for viable life outside the womb. If you do not see that that is indicative of meeting somewhere in the middle then you are living up to the notion that conservatives don't know how to meet in the middle. Your black and white world belongs in the past. I am thankful for our system of government that keeps antiquated and simple minded ideas where they belong (and it will catch up on the gay marriage thing - Sark - just like I said the SCOTUS would rule Obamacare constitutional.

guy ffaulkes said...

HM, I cannot determine if you really fail to see the contradictions of what you say, if you are lying to yourself, or if you are merely voicing a political talking point. I hope it is one of the first two, as they make you less of a monster that would knowingly murder the unborn.

You argue for what is essentially a partial birth abortion (murder) and then loudly claim you do not. You do not recognize an unborn baby is a human life regardless of its age. You claim that a mother carrying a baby is not a biological process, but is a choice. The only choice is whether she decides to murder her child.

As for decisions by SCOTUS, do you all so support the Dred Scott decision? They have made many errors and will make more as they try to legislate from the bench.

Happily Married said...

Not failing lying or voicing. I never indicated I thought a partial birth abortion was acceptable. I have specifically stated that late term abortions are not acceptable. If a fetus can be removed from the womb and breath either on its own or on a machine - I consider that a birth and then it would be murder. You cannot, from my belief system framework, murder the unborn as I consider them never living operational organisms. You belief framework is very black and white and very different from mine. My perspective is that many shades of grey exist and we need to explore and discuss them in order for people of different belief systems to get along in this world.

The Dredd Scott decision actually proves my point - Thank You. I stated clearly that our system is not perfect, but it EVENTUALLY rights itself as society advances or progresses. I take it you are a progressive by acknowledging this - congratulations. You must also anticipate that the gay marriage issue will be righted by the SCOTUS in the next 5 years. it is a shame that good people will be discriminated against until that happens (much like Dredd Scott).

Reader said...

Not once was abortion mentioned in your post, New Guy. I was wondering why there is a law for protecting the unborn in case of murder? Seems that was passed in 2011 in NC. That seems to contradict itself, doesn't it? On one hand a woman can choose to take the life of her baby...but if someone else does, it's murder? Wow, for sure Sark.

NewGuy said...

While it is, of course, a contradiction of sorts Reader, the NC law specifically exempts most abortions ......

NC is only one of 38 states which have "fetal homicide" laws...

And, contrary to the "definitions" HM likes to use, the law has specific definitions of it's own. While HM doesn't consider it "murder" if it's an unborn child...NC state law does.
And, while HM makes distinctions between a "fetus" and a "baby", NC is quite clear in it's definition...\

"Unborn child" is defined as a member of the species Homo sapiens at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"
.

The statute:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_6A.pdf

Happily Married said...

Interesting - I did not even know my thoughts were actually used in the debate:The earliest gestational age at which the infant has at least a 50% chance of survival is referred to as the limit of viability. As NICU care has improved over the last 40 years, viability has reduced to approximately 24 weeks,[5][6] although rare survivors have been documented as early as 21 weeks.[1] This date is controversial, as gestation in the case reported was measured from the known date of conception (by IVF) rather than, as usual, the date of the mother's last menstrual period, making gestation appear two weeks less than if calculated by the conventional method in this case.[7] As risk of brain damage and developmental delay is significant at that threshold even if the infant survives, there are ethical controversies over the aggressiveness of the care rendered to such infants. The limit of viability has also become a factor in the abortion debate.

Happily Married said...

New guy - I have already acknowledged the law - acknowledged it is good as I believe murderers should be punished harsher than they are. The law provides punishment for taking the possibility of life away from someone unwillingly. That is a wrong thing to do and should be punished. The law has nothing to do with abortion and the definitions are not transferable. I have stated that the law and the definitions were put in place by republican conservatives in order to provide future fodder for the abortion argument - and it is accomplishing just that. And in a typical conservative argument approach you conveniently left out the proper context: 14-23.1. Definition.
As used in this Article only, "unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

It is very clear that the definition applies to this law only and does not apply to any abortion statutes. Try again.

NewGuy said...

HM, I thought my post was pretty clear itself that the law specifically exempted certain abortions. You making the same point doesn't change anything. Nor does the completion of the phrase to include "when carried in the womb" do anything to support your argument In fact, it counters your point that it isn't murder because it isn't a baby. You use your own "definitions" to support your argument; then when shown the definitions according to the statute, you want to argue that those definitions only apply to that specific statute?
So, we have your definitions that "murder" doesn't mean killing a fetus; and we have a statute that claims otherwise. We have your definition that "fetus" is not an unborn child = and we have a statute that claims otherwise....

I'm opposed to abortion, you apparently think it's ok to "abort "fetuses as long as we don't "murder babies"....or at least we only murder those with less than a 50/50 chance of survival on their own......
Let's leave it at that.

Happily Married said...

Actually no New guy - Let's Not. I was not completing the phrase "when carried in the womb" - I was including the opening text that reads very clearly - "AS USED IN THIS ARTICLE ONLY".

The opening line is important because it is indicative of the fact that words can have (even legally) multiple meanings - and nothing is necessarily black and white.

I have tried to have a productive discussion on the issue and your dogmatic black and white approach simply won't let that happen. It is frustrating and typical of my experience with conservative posters on this blog - that you are incapable of compromise. You intentionally left out the opening words of the definition because those words invalidated your point. Taking things out of context to prove your point is simply deceptive. Agreeing to disagree is one thing. I am trying for dialogue that takes everyone to the next level of creative solutions that have some merit on all sides. I have to wonder if you or other posters on this blog are capable.

NewGuy said...

"You cannot, from my belief system framework, murder the unborn as I consider them never living operational organisms." (Happily Married, 9:46 AM)

"- I have already acknowledged the law - acknowledged it is good as I believe murderers should be punished harsher than they are" (Happily Married 10:52AM)

NewGuy said...

"I thoroughly respect your belief, despite the fact it differs from mine" (Happily Married Aug 3, 7:31)

I am trying for dialogue that takes everyone to the next level of creative solutions that have some merit on all sides. I have to wonder if you or other posters on this blog are capable. (Happily Married, Aug 7, 12:16)

Happily Married said...

Trying to figure out the point or meaning of your last two posts.

NewGuy said...

Happily Married said...

Trying to figure out the point or meaning of your last two posts.

- - - - - - And yet I bet the other posters on this blog are "capable" of doins so.

Happily Married said...

Will the other posters on this blog please enlighten me then on what the meaning of the two posts is.

Sarkazein said...

These same liberals will be involved in medical decisions for the elderly. "He only has a less than 50-50 chance of surviving with this procedure, so just give him some pain pills and let him expire."
Obama has said close to that already. The cold heartedness of liberals is now running our healthcare system... at least until it can be voted out or proven unConstitutional after the first person is taxed under penalty of law for not buying an insurance policy from the insurance companies.
The contortions Happily Married easily performs to show why it is OK to kill babies, will be there for the elderly and the infirm.

guy faulkes said...

The point HM is that you talk out of both sides if your mouth. This is more polite than indicating where many fo your comments actually originate.

Your comment on the Scott decision is a case in point. you claim it proves your point when it is clearly proof of a mistake made by SCOTUS, although not nearly as bad a mistake as was made in Roe vs. Wade.

I think we can now safely determine that HM is being deliberate obtuse. She is using the liberal "repeat the lie" tactic.

Nobody said...

Guy,
I agree wholeheartedly - one could chase their tail all day arguing with some liberals. They don't solidly believe in anything, so they constantly change their position as you debate them, as HM does throughout this thread. I would rather talk with someone who says they believe in something than one who wants to discuss the varying shades of grey, shifting their position just as you think you've figured out what they think. Oh well, I guess if you don't have a core set of beliefs, you're never wrong...

Blogger said...

This from one of my doctors today--the difference between Romney supporters and Obama supporters. Romney supporters sign their checks on the front. Obama supporters sign their checks on the back.

Happily Married said...

Please explain how i talk out of both sides of my mouth. When a specific instance was pointed out earlier it was easily explained away. The Dred Scott decision was a clear mistake. I was stating that, as we do not have a perfect system, our system does eventually correct itself and, the further we go along in history, the better out laws and interpretations are getting. Dred Scott being a bad decision is a perfect example as one step in this process. Allowing mix race marriage is a very similar decision. I do have a very strong core set of values and my arguments have been based on that. In the examples stated - I do believe that murderers are not punished harshly enough but I have clearly stated that I believe abortion is not murder - therefore no conflict. In the next - I do thoroughly respect you beliefs as much as mine - and would like to discuss ways to work form both sides of the issue - IE find some middle ground. My experience is - so far- you don't understand the concept. Your only solution is that abortion is murder and therefore, if that is not the law - there is no discussion- this bullheaded mentality is indicative of the way our current gov has been stalled by politics - the line in the sand approach is a black and white approach and is dysfunctional - and you are simply proving it.
I never intended to change your mind about your stance. i do hope that I have given justifications to why my stance is just as valid as yours - if we have equally valid stances - where do we go from here?
1) Government grants to provide funding for research into artificial wombs such that, when a fetus is discovered, it can be placed in an artificial womb, if the pregnant woman so chooses to not continue the pregnancy,until it can be born and adopted. - Hey no abortion.

Reader said...

New Guy, I hope you know I don't believe in abortion. I was just thinking would a woman use this law for a daughter if it happened to them? I'm sure they would think it's wrong to kill a child if it wasn't their decision.

I shouldn't have chimed in.

NewGuy said...

Reader, I am very glad you chimed in. As always your contributions are valued!

There was quite a debate going on when the legislature was considering the new law. Happily Married is correct in that some conservatives saw this as a step toward outlawing abortions. In the final analysis though, the abortion issue was mooted when the language was modified to exempt legal abortions from coverage.

But, it certainly is a contradiction isn't it? If a husband causes the death of the unborn infant, he is considered a murderer....but if the wife does it in an abortion clinic, it's exempted!

Oh well, it's government....it doesn't have to make sense!

guy faulkes said...

hM, new Guy gave you specific examples of you talking out of both dies of your mouth.

Maybe reading comprehension classes would help you. I think not because you are using the liberal repeat the lie tactic.

Sarkazein said...

Legal abortion $$$$$$$$

Sarkazein said...

Happy says--"If you don't like abortions, don't get one... but fork over the money and pay for them."

Happily Married said...

New Guy and Guy - please explain how this is talking out of both sides of my mouth. Funny how I have a Masters Degree and I cant figure it out: "You cannot, from my belief system framework, murder the unborn as I consider them never living operational organisms." (Happily Married, 9:46 AM)

"- I have already acknowledged the law - acknowledged it is good as I believe murderers should be punished harsher than they are" (Happily Married 10:52AM)
August 7, 2012 12:37 PM
I thoroughly explained how I believe you cannot murder the unborn. The increased penalty is good because it penalizes a murderer more - I never said it was good because it prosecuted for two murders - never indicated it was for two murders - just that increased penalties for murder is a good thing.

PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME.

I believe you you cant - or that you will realize that it was your interpretation that is the problem. I also notice how no one has addressed the black and white issue - all or nothing - with no solutions other than the my way or the highway approach - typical.

Finally Sark - if you had read - I never said you should pay for an abortion. I proposed gov funded research to create artificial wombs so abortions wouldn't happen - how is that you paying for an abortion? It is almost as if you people get so entrenched and close minded you dont even read all of the words of a post before going off half cocked.

Happily Married said...

How liberals and conservatives differ
: If liberal has a personal belief - he supports laws that all everyone to live according to their own beliefs. If a conservative has a personal belief - he forces laws on everyone that they have to live according to that belief - and not their own:
1) gay marriage
2) abortion
3) birth control
4) voter id laws
and list goes on. Drug laws, alcohol laws, pornography, etc.
A law is right when it allows people to live according to their personal beliefs - not having to bow to others. If you dont believe in abortion dont get one. If you dont want to own a gun - dont. Some posters here are actually advocating that it be required that every US citizen be armed? WTF

guy faulkes said...

While the murder of an unborn baby may be a personal belief, it is not a moral one and should not be a legal one as is the case now, unfortunately. Hopefully as more people now oppose abortion than favor it, maybe this will change.

HM, you seem to be impressed with a our master;s degree. Unfortunately this degree is not an indication of ability, success,or even of a practical education. I know this from the people with master;s degrees that have worked for me. In my case, i will see your degree and raise you two professional licenses and one professional certification.

None of this means either of us has a viable education except maybe in one area. As Robert Heinlein said, you are not educated until you can solve a quadratic equation and butcher a hog. (I can do both, Can you?) It is perfectly acceptable to be proud of a degree, but you were being smug about it. I am sorry to inform you it is not all that special.

A degree of any kind is nice to have, but is not necessarily an indication of real education, It is an indication of having gotten a ticket punched that satisfies bureaucracy in most cases.

Sarkazein said...

Happy- Obamacaretax will make everyone (tax payers) chip in for your abortion. Funding Planned Parenthood with tax money, will be some of my money paying for your abortion. And your birth control will be in there too. You and Sandra Fluke who don't want to spend $9 of your own money on birth control will make employers supply it with there insurance policies now controlled by the Feds.
The more the government mandates, the more divided the country will be. There is no "middle" any more. The Leftists say the "middle" starts with the idea abortion is OK and then uses Las Vegas style odds to see who gets one and when. That ain't no middle... that is far Left.

Sarkazein said...

Or Happy, you could do THIS

Happily Married said...

Guy,

I am proud of my masters degree, my professional license and my three professional certifications. I can ,and have, butchered a fish, squirrel, and a deer - I imagine a hog is not too far off and I can solve quadratic equations. I referenced my degree just as an indication of not understanding how you feel I have spoken out of both sides of my mouth and that I am quite capable of reading and writing comprehension - not trying to be smug. If you take the time to look at my statements from my personal belief framework - I have not talked out of both sides of my mouth and that argument seems to have quieted down.
Sark, Federal law requires that no tax dollars pay for abortions and that is the current case with Planned Parenthood. Jury is still out about Obamacare's impact on the federal law - I seem to remember specific provisions in the law that reinforced that stance. I agree that federal funds should not be used to pay for abortions out of respect for those who believe as you do. So where is your middle? All abortion should be outlawed? Please tell me how we move to the right from there - you gonna outlaw sex too? Is abortion OK in cases of rape or incest?
To all, assuming abortions are made illegal, what is your plan for the 1.4 million new unwanted kids that will come into our country each year as a result. Adoption would only absorb about half a million of those - You want to abolish gov programs fro birth control, abortion and services that feed hungry children. What is your answer? Did anyone read Freakonomics and the fact that Roe vs. Wade contributed to the sharp decline in crime in the 80's?

guy faulkes said...

HM, the argument has quieted down because I am about the only person on here that is willing to waste my time continuing to state the obvious about your hypocrisy.

All abortion (murder of the unborn) should be prohibited unless the mother;s life is in dange. In this case, abortion is not murder but is justifiable homicide. It is a homicide in either case.