What is Liberal?

Pro-life is not a euphemism. The aim is to save the life of the unborn child, so it may be too broad, but it is not a lie. Anti-abortion would be more precise, but in opposition to abortion as murder pro-life is certainly true. Pro-choice is a lie because it whitewashes killing an innocent human being as respectable.

Enjoy your time in Bristol. Meanwhile: You really think so? I mean the bluster part not the frames of reference part. Well let me analyze that earlier post then: I'm sorry your topic did not get off the ground, as this rendition of the situation is nothing but the usual battle cry without a bit of light on the subject. I was trying to define the conservative point of view here in America so we could sort out all the positions relative to one another. There are other conservatisms than my own but I do best spelling out my own. I see what is normally called liberalism as best called leftism, for reasons I've given, and its tendency to curtail freedoms. Liberalism sees itself as the champion of freedom. These are very rough beginnings but obviously the term is being used in different senses. These are things that could be thought about usefully. Maybe. Here's the emotional bluster. Heartily sick of. You were ready to pop a vein when you composed your topic proposal in the first place. I am personally very interested in what the differences between the British and American views are. I don't want to just "tell you what your agenda is" but I can make a case for why I associate liberalism with leftism, and if your liberalism fits the profile there we are. You may not like it, but certainly you DO have ideas what conservatives think despite your denial, and I'm not going to be happy with your assessment of my views am I? Well, to test the truth of this -- how well you actually succeed at steering this moderate course -- and its relation to other political positions we'd need to begin a list of concepts you embrace versus those you reject and your reasons and go from there. "Moderate" with respect to what other positions for instance? Pragmatism may be your aim but you obviously have moral opinions as well, and in any case I thought the point was to sort out all the DIFFERENT views, not just declare your own in broad terms.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-22-2005 02:06 PM

No need to keep down the latter three, they don't threaten anything, except there are some militant atheists who should sit down and shut up in my opinion. But paganism is what Christianity overcame in Europe in order to civilize it. Of course there's always the paganism of Greece or Rome but that's not the kind I meant. I meant the kind that worships oak trees and talks to spirits. That's been coming back. It has expressions like the occultism of Hitler at the extreme. I guess the dangers are lost on a secularist though. And Islam, well that's being debated on this site and apparently nobody here sees any danger in it, but since it is inherently imperialistic and aims to take the world for Allah THAT is why I am for keeping it restrained. It is what will take over the country when you THINK secularism has triumphed. Not at all. I'm explaining a danger people don't seem to be aware of, and predicting its appearance when you least expect it as the result of the secularist attitude, not proposing any kind of action at the moment, simply analyzing the situation to suggest the naivete of secularism. Hitler called himself a Christian and used Christian rhetoric for political reasons, and kept up his Catholic identity but he was in fact a thorough pagan who identified with the old German gods and practiced occult arts. It's really frustrating trying to talk to people who don't believe in the supernatural sometimes. I'm trying to tell you that what you want can't happen, that there are consequences you are unable to foresee. Again, it's frustrating talking to someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural or in crucial differences between religions for that matter.

Well I was simply dramatizing the hostile view that is cultivated toward the unborn to justify abortion, characterizing it as a parasite -- unless the child is wanted, in which case all the normal parental feelings are given full expression, and how ironic this is that two such completely opposite attitudes can be applied to the exact same physical situation with a straight face.But I think the baby ISN'T like a part of the mother's own body as much as you say. To some extent, but really, the baby has its separate individual personal world inside the mother. It shares her blood only in the sense that nutrients are extracted from it. Otherwise it has its own blood system, often a different blood type too, and sometimes there are problems with incompatibility such as the rhesus factor. The woman does not *experience* it as her own organ, but as a separate life, and the nausea that often accompanies the experience drives the difference home to her. One's own organs don't cause nausea and blood incompatibility problems and the like. It is, however, part of the mother in that it can't live without her and also because she loves it, and that emotional interdependence usually continues after birth too. Totally. An amazing lifechanging experience the first time, and the purest love possible on this planet. But I was being sarcastic about the "miraculous transformation" from the mental set that calls it a dangerous parasite, to the attitude that welcomes it as a loved child, about one and the same exact situation.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-22-2005 02:48 PM

So much for THAT conversation.

It is commonly referred to as the Abortion Industry. I didn't make it up. And I didn't say anybody took it lightly, although some do. My point was that not taking it lightly demonstrates a recognition that you're talking about killing a human being, as there would be no other reason for not taking it lightly, and yet at the same time the fact that it IS about killing a human being is denied by euphemistic terminology in the same breath with the statement about not taking it lightly. By accepting it as a possible reasonable decision that is yet not to be taken lightly you are doing what I'm saying is the usual schizy thing of acknowledging that it is killing a child while denying it in the same breath. (There ARE genuinely rational grounds for abortion in the case of threat to the mother's life but they are extremely rare with modern medical techniques, and I assume you are not talking about such a situation or you would have said so.) I believe that is a disingenuous and artificial idea. I admit that there is some ambiguity here, but a baby is only in a limited sense part of the woman's body and pregnancy about the woman's body. Clearly it is a separate and different life. Abortion may not strictly speaking deserve the name murder, especially since I believe it is usually done with total denial that it is a child, and when it is acknowledged to be a child the mother usually can't go through with it, but it is the killing of what will *inevitably* become a human being if it continues without interference and using dehumanizing language to describe it is deceitful.I really don't know exactly how it should be treated legally except that blanket legalization has produced the atrocity of over 50 million abortions since Roe v Wade and that's just unconscionable.