It’s the Appearance of Paradox that Drives 51% of Americans Crazy

The last three or four days here at DU has provided a case study on why Liberals drive the majority of Americans crazy. I am not making a value judgment upon anyone’s convictions. You expressed them with passion and hopefully with sincerity. What I would like to do is point out the argument that is used that wins election after election.

The DU board has been filled with outcries against the use of government police powers (state laws) to execute someone. While at the same time we liberals support state laws that provide for abortion. To a large percentage of Americans they see no difference between one and the other. The paradox that drives them crazy is how we can be so adamant against state sponsored executions and then so committed to abortions.

Until we figure how to explain what would seem to be an inconsistence we are going to have a tough road regaining power.

but not for the abortion of a zygote that is contained within a sentient thinking beings body who also has rights, there is no hope for their hypocrisy.

Your argument is so backwards, it's almost Republican.

I am trying point out the need to formulate an argument to counter what is stated as our, liberals, inconsistence. Unless we do not care that 51% continue ly votes against us.

If we are satisfied with being out of power, and not being able change anything, then we can continue to disregard the majority of this country.

And I do consider your post an argument since I do not agree with your premise.

You think liberals "disregard the majority of the country"?

And you are a liberal?

That we have gained plurality in only 8 of the last 20 years….is the same as having 51% in favor of the other position. Yes, I do consider myself a liberal.

Either in 2004 or over the last several elections that include federal office votes. In 2004, at the state and federal level, democrats, overall, received more than 50% of the total votes cast.
The Professor

The government shouldn't tell her what to do with her body. It shouldn't tell her to remove cells, it shouldn't tell her she has to risk her life to incubate cells. It's actually the same issue. Government over-stepping its moral authority in issues of life and death. The government shouldn't be involved in any of it.

repeat

That is the knee jerk reaction that creates the Republican governments. If we cannot do better than that at explaining our position, then we are doomed to wander forever out of power.

This country is filled with many idiotic people who can only understand simple arguments. The Republicans will continue to win so long as they are the party of simple arguments. If you want to make more simple arguments, become a Republican.

If we go around inviting everyone who doesn't agree with us to become Republicans, then we are have truly doomed the majority of this country to some bad s**t.

Many few this as a simple argument...we need to learn how to state our case in those terms...

Nuance is essential to explaining positions on complicated issues!! We can't dumb down our arguments in favor of abortion, or against the death penalty. That would be short-changing the argument.

If the majority of America is too stupid, too indonctrinized, or too controlled by those in power to understand our complex argument, then screw them. Let them rot in the crappy country they've created for themselves.

Trying to dumb down the argument only causes more problems.

It's not hard to figure out. Sure, abortion can be classified as the killing of a fetus, if that's how you wish to see it.

True liberty, however, includes liberty with and of ones body. We can get stupid tattoos, stuff bags of salt water in our breasts, burn ourselves to create cool looking scars. And women are able to end a parasitic relationship with a fetus, if that is what they wish to do.

Abortion isn't about life and death, it is about ones liberty with one's own body.

The Death Penalty is all about death.

There you go. If you or the Republicans can't understand it, it's because you either choose not to or because of some mental deficiency.

Click here to go back to the main forums.

conclusion to satisfy a presumed collective need for vengeance -- though I can easily see how there'd be a personal need for vengeance after an atrocious crime.

The through-line is that both positions are about telling the state to get the hell out: of women's wombs, and out of codifying vengeance.

Personal vendettas, while understandable, generally make bad laws. Hence, the death penalty and its discontents.

but, then again, I'm a Leftist, not a liberal.

That's news to me.

Committed to privacy, yes. In both cases it's Dems who support a limit on what the government can do to the individual. It shouldn't have the power to kill someone and it shouldn't have the power to force them to give birth if they don't want to.

There's only a paradox if you listen to Rush Limbaugh and don't have much practice thinking about things.

You should understand that they consider the unborn a person, regardless of the development. That of course is the argument, but from their standpoint it is the same.

There are lots of State and Federal laws that each of us agree with or disagree with, but most of us obey them anyway.

There are many I would like to see changed, and even many that are just being discussed and not yet passed that I don't want to see.

You're trying to put abortion into this DP situation, and that really can't be done.

The DP is a penalty for doing wrong. I think the abortion debate is about whether you believe an embryo is a life or not. If you don't, then abortion is a medical procedure no different than an appendectomy. If you do, it's murder.

If you think abortion is murder, it can't be compared to the DP because the embryo can't commit a crime, therefore doesn't deserve to be punished.

It was a good try, but this argument won't work.

I was trying to point out what the other sides feels is an inconsistence, with hope that an explanation could be developed. Simply saying that they are wrong does not do the job, we have be doing that for many years and losing election, after election.

abortion issue is that the STATE or the FEDS have no standing on the issue at all.

O have no problem with religions teaching what their scriptures say, and each to his own, but the government should stay out of it!

The Roe decision has never and never will tell someone to HAVE an abortion! It simply says the decision is yours.

That seems quite different from the State saying a guilty person HAS to die! That is a forced decision of our Gov't.

to me both issues are about morality, justice and moral justice.

I see it is moral justice issue on both counts. With the death penalty, the state should hold high standards of moral progress and abstain from the violent vigilante justice, we can afford to keep an individual alive until his/her natural demise while still isolating that sociopathic/psychopathic individual from society. As far as abortion goes - I believe it is a moral injustice to condemn an individual to enter a life unwanted or inadequately provided for, it is an injustice to the woman to force her to carry her embryo/fetus to full term and to give birth to a child when she feels she is not adequately prepared to raise that child the way it should be. It is an injustice to society to force upon it a generation of individuals whose very bearing and rearing was against their mother's better judgement.

Thank you, this was the point of my post.

To some, a fertilized egg is fully qualified as a human, a viewpoint that derives from the medieval theory that sperm carried little microscopic fully formed humans. In this view, sperm are themselves carriers of a soul ... thus the Church held masturbation is therefore murder is therefore mortal sin.

The Bible has remarkably little to say on the matter. Certain Hebrew traditions of Roman and pre-Roman times held that ensoulment of the body occurred at the first breath, but it is unclear to me that view was wide spread.

The paradox disappears once a definition of ensouled life can be agreed upon.

In theory, I'm in favor of the DP. In practice, I must oppose it because there is no way to be 100% sure that every person executed it indeed guilty. Even if only 1 in 100 executed is innocent, that is TOO MANY. What greater injustice is there than gov't killing an innocent man?

Also, I'm not in favor of abortion. I hope nobody has one. If everyone used contraceptives properly, 95% of them could be avoided. But unfortunately, there can be a legitimate need for them, and that choice MUST be left to the pregnant mother. Being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion.

to most Americans...most equate pro-choice with pro-abortion.

delete

Yollam, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Pregnancy and childbirth are not benign conditions, although they are normal conditions. Any fetus that intrudes into an unwilling woman's body is threatening her health, her financial stability, her social support system, and her LIFE. All of these threats may be voluntarily assumed by women who want children. However, the word is "VOLUNTARY."

Reproductive slavery is not voluntary.

Men feel perfectly empowered to kill anybody who intrudes into their living room and threatens their stereo. Surely women should be allowed the right to self defense against something that intrudes into their BODIES and threatens their health and lives.

In any case, it's just another thing that conservatives and some otherwise liberal MEN just don't get, and never will.

This post was for once to state how the other side views our positions.

or they'd see the difference between a woman defending her life against an unwanted pregnancy and the state killing a fully grown, thinking human being for revenge, when locking him up would serve the purpose as well if not better.

There is no paradox.

we cannot convince them by demeaning them...and we need to convince the majority...or we stay out of power...and unable to do anything to change the current situation...from Iraq to Health Care, from decent paying jobs to the environment...we are currently on the outside looking in at the players... unless we find how to express where we stand and why we support our stance...we will continue to have our noses against the glass and without a voice.

Although there is a majority that favor the DP, the majority also favors legal abortion. Even South Carolina, proposed new home for Dominionists, has become prochoice by the slimmest of margins.

Again, no paradox.

it is consistent in many Americans mind.

To make indonctrinized, simple-minded people into thoughtful independent thinkers.

I am against abortion, but fully support every woman's right to choose.

I am against the death penalty under any circumstances.

I believe suicide is wrong, but fully support doctor-assisted suicide.

I do not believe in life support for the brain-dead.

Simply put, I cannot morally make the choice to end nor prolong any life other than my own.

I don't see any inconsistency at all.

Here are some more:

Liberals are the tolerant ones, but have no place at all for those who disagree with them.

Liberals cry for First Amendment rights, but are on the forefront of censorship campaigns against music, video games and porn.

Liberals want to legalize pot but want to ban cigarette smoking.

While liberal is, by definition, about freedom and thinking outside of the box, we appear to be constantly trying to control and regulate the behaviors of others at the same time that we seek greater freedom for ourselves. I am guilty here as well. Whether this is indeed paradox or simple hypocrisy, I agree that we need to address it if we are to ever mend the wounds with the traitorous bastards on the other side of the aisle.

Where has it been written that liberals are out to censor music, games, or porn?? That's the religious right doing that!!

Where has it been written that we want to ban cigarettes?? Regulation of the industry and education for children about it, sure, but banning it?? Certainly not from the same people who want to legalize pot.

You've just attacked me for stating something you didn't agree with. While I have no problem with it, the point of my post, and of the OP, was to address non-liberal perception of us, and the apparent paradox of those perceptions.

Frankly, you've been smoking something if you aren't aware of the pro-censorship lefties. They're right here - Tipper Gore led the PMRC, Clenis helped pass a midnight-Congressional Internet censorship law, half of DUers are violently pro-smoking ban, Lieberman (maybe not a liberal, but a Democrat, and those are the same thing to others)and I believe Hillary Clinton, if I'm not mistake, though I could be, want to ban "violent" video games for our own good, and on it goes. This isn't just regulation, it approaches book burning in its apparent zeal.

While you and I can make the distinctions we both list, we are all lumped together by those who are not in our party, and they think we are crazy, hypocritical and exclusive. If, as I believe the OP intended, we are to reconcile and work with those (insert something nicer than "stupid fucking pieces of shit"), then we must be able to address these apparent paradoxes in an easy-to-understand positive way (end sentence instead of adding "so that their atrophied, spoon-fed brains don't pop and go back to the right-wing talking point du jour").

--liberal or not. Banning smoking in public places no more "bans" smoking than banning driving cars on the sidewalk "bans" cars. If marijuana is ever legalized, I'm fine with banning smoking it in public places and banning advertising it.

...not our actual stance. These are the arguments I've heard from non-liberal (and, honestly, non-intellectuals). Your answer, while not incorrect, would seem too hostile or "explainey" to them.

something that needs to be regulated cause you cant stop it. the consequences are tragic for the poor who cant go to europe or god forbid that cesspool Mexico
.

wing wants to use it for emotional propaganda and manipulation

The paradox I see on the other side:

Why would you criminalize women who seek abortions, when you oppose:

-birth control
-gay adoption
-universal daycare
-proper sex ed in schools (ABC - not just "A")

You are giving them NO options. Now that's a paradox.

matter between a woman, her doctor and her family if need be. Forcing a woman to gestate an embryo against her will should be the crime, not removing the embryo before it starts growing into a baby.

Celibate men in the Catholic church or fat preacher bible thumpers have no business in a women's fertility business. So butt out! The fact that this is used against Democrats is more about politics practiced by the Republicans, who know what fears and biases they can appeal to in the electorate.

Now executing a fully grown human being is truly a murder IMHO, not scraping out a clump of cells with the evolutionary status of a sponge.

We struggle because the conservatives have been so effective in convincing the public that these views are inconsistant.

As long as we have to restate and clarify our views in response to republican scrutiny and attacks (many of which are baseless), then we will always be on the defensive.

Meanwhile, since we are so busy defending our own positions (which really are self-explanitory), we can't attack Republican positions in the same manner. Therefore, their positions seem consistant and solid. Positions like "I prefer to err on the side of life" and "Knowing then what I know now, I'd still go to war" seem to coexist just fine because we are too busy to point out the sheer absurdity of it all.

that can't be perfectly explained, especially from human opinion. The problem arises when everyone requires absolutes.

of the death penalty v. abortion. Lots of political opinions aren't so ideologically pure. For instance, when I question the vegans and vegetarians about whether or not they'd refuse medical treatement that was pioneered on animals, I usually hear crickets chirping. Likewise, there are a lot of bleeding hearts on here who don't terribly mind the idea of legal abortion for a baby, who scientifically, has brain activity and can feel pain.

There is a underlying philosophy that links the objection to the death penalty, and the position of pro-choice, and that is LIMITED GOVERNMENT. However, that, in itself, is a paradox, because most liberals and Democrats have social engineering designs that render the idea of "limited government" a fantasy.

Likewise the Republicans, who "want to cut taxes," or want "small government," have rigid patriarchal, cultural and religious ideals that, in and of themselves, constitute stateless fascism. Not to mention the fact that they want a total police and military state, and seem to be in favor of corpo-fascism, as opposed to a free market.

So, "the big paradox" is limited government v. authoritarianism. Every time you sign on to an organization that has specific designs on how to rule 300 million people, you're signing on with authoritarians. Authoritarians simply get to cobble together arbitrary value sets and impose their set, by force. That's the reason for all of this Orwellian stuff. It's not that one side has "flipped" truth, it's that both sides represent "truth," and that the "truth" is completely subjective.

You have to decide on to which faction you're going to sign. I've been leaning more and more toward libertarianism, or, at least de-centralized minarchy, to get out of the authoritarian loop. Some people just don't recognize that all of this is subjective.

continue to have abortions, legally or illegally, and I also differentiate between laws that are universal and laws that are specific to a particular religion.

For example, every country in the world, whether officially religious, secular, or hostile to religion, has laws against murder, rape, theft, and host of other crimes that endanger the lives and well-being of the citizens. (The actual execution of these laws may differ, but the principles are recognized.)

On the other hand, laws against abortion are NOT universal. The practice is banned in most predominantly Catholic countries, but it's not considered a big deal in much of Asia.

I think you would see a huge outcry from all segments of the population if the government suddenly declared that all varieties of theft would henceforth be legal, so that if someone wanted to break into your house and take your valuables or stick a gun in your face and demand your wallet, nobody would do anything about it. Everyone would be upset--everyone from hardcore religionists to hardcore atheists. Laws against theft have broad-based support across all sectors of the population. The street kids I knew who had their Walkmans stolen out of their backpacks were as indignant about it as any wealthy homeowner who had lost a fortune in jewelry.

Now take the laws against abortion or the laws against drugs, or earlier, the laws against alcohol. These have been routinely flouted by a large segments of the population, and they are not illegal in all countries. Prohibition did nothing but create a profitable new business for organized crime in the United States, while prohibitions against alcohol in heavily Islamic countries are non-problematic because the majority of the population has never even tried it. When abortion was illegal (I was 23 years old in 1973), the affluent traveled first to Europe and then to other states for safe, legal abortions, while the non-affluent resorted to back alleys or worse yet, tried to do it themselves.

Opponents talk about the "harmful" effects on the woman, and yes, some women may have regrets. In Japan, where abortion is legal and not stigmatized, temples often have areas where the parents of dead children and aborted fetuses may pray to the bodhisattva Jizo Bosatsu fortheir souls. A friend of mine who had an abortion after becoming pregnant through rape has occasional regrets, since she in effect aborted the only pregnancy she would ever have, but she still speaks at pro-choice rallies.

In practical terms, we need to keep abortion safe and legal. Whatever ill effects there are fall to the woman alone and are between her and her conscience.

It is a completely different issue than killing possibly innocent people to show that killing people is wrong. That is a survival of the primitive "honor" system of justice, the system that produces blood feuds and senseless duels.

of reproductive health care and education. So too - adequate funding for the poor.

You cannot fight abortion without first fighting the incidence of unwanted conception.