[quote=Lisa N]Well Matt then maybe you can 'slplain to me what seem to be incredibly inconsistent positions taken by people on the left. Trust me I spend a LOT of time with liberals so I know what they say and the positions they take.
So riddle me this, a liberal will demand a woman’s ‘right to choose’ death for her unborn baby literally up to the second it clears her body. Yet that same liberal will demand rights for whales and polar bears and convicted criminals…
I do not support free abortion on demand so I am unable to defend it nor would I wish to. However the Catholic Church believes that convicted criminals do have rights. "Every human being is created in the image of God and redeemed by Jesus Christ, and, therefore, is invaluable and worthy of respect as a member of the human family."
Similarly we have duties towards the environment and the animals with which we share the planet the Catechism states "
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.
2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals."
The liberals are the ones siding with Michael Schiavo. The same people who deman women’s rights and equality are allowing Mr S to treat his wife like a piece of trash. He has power of life or death over this woman based on a weak thread of a suddenly recovered repressed memory. Where are the ‘women’s rights’ people? Why aren’t they trying to help Terri escape from a homocidal husband?
I think they are arguing on the basis that quality of life is more important than the fact of life. If you believe that then their position is logical. If you do not it is profoundly immoral. Gender does not really enter into it unless you want to make a wholly spurious debating point.
The liberals who are fine with allowing a disabled woman to be put to death, slowly and painfully worry incessently about whether a terrorist is degraded by having women’s underwear put on their head or having to be photographed naked. Shoot I’d prefer wearing undies and being naked to dying of thirst. Obviously YMMV.
The people mistreated in what civillised people agree was a criminal fashion were not convicted of any crime so what makes you assert that they were terrorists? Or all all Arabs terrorists until proven otherwise in your charitable opinion.
Matt I grew up with totally bleeding heart liberal parents. I bought it hook line and sinker until I grew up. It makes NO SENSE to me when they take seemingly completely inconsistent positions.
While I do not define myself as a liberal I think you will find that their ideas are as consistent as humans ever are, which is not much. In the case of liberalism the basis for consistency is to be found in the ideas of utlilitarianism
" An action is right if it produces as much or more of an increase in happiness of all affected by it than any alternative action, and wrong if it does not."