Why not? You seem to assume change is inherently good. Most people who advocate change, or "progress," are highly critical of the current state of society, whether it be the level of inequality (social or economic) or tolerance. I certainly don't think those in the "Transgender in Massachusetts" thread privilege change as an inherent positive and are certainly resistant to it. Is progress always a good thing to you?

I never said it was inherently good, my point was both sides have trouble with change.

Depends on which scientist you ask..

Right, so why say it's suppressing women?

Is it not his opinion? He say's it's responsible to not make the choice for whatever reason. Others may think different. I don't fully understand what you are referring to with the suppression.

The point was simple. Yours was merely opinion as well.

What part of their right didn't you understand? I'm not saying I agree with it, but it their individual right.

 

I wasn't talking about an unborn child, I was talking about their children that are born. If a parent abandons/fails to support a 10 year old or a 1 day old, it is a crime and they are subject to the punishment that the laws dictate. Do they have a right to do so? The law says no.

 

The old saying that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. You have individual rights, but those cannot infringe upon another persons right. Many believe, myself included, that an unborn child has the right to life. Any individual right the mother has over her body, is superceded by the fact she is infringing upon the unborn childs life.

The point was simple. Yours was merely opinion as well.

You are correct,my opinion.

I wasn't talking about an unborn child, I was talking about their children that are born. If a parent abandons/fails to support a 10 year old or a 1 day old, it is a crime and they are subject to the punishment that the laws dictate. Do they have a right to do so? The law says no.

 

The old saying that my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose. You have individual rights, but those cannot infringe upon another persons right. Many believe, myself included, that an unborn child has the right to life. Any individual right the mother has over her body, is superceded by the fact she is infringing upon the unborn childs life.

 

Gotcha!

It's not about suppressing women?:lol: So, what would you call it?

 

I would call it protecting life. I don't think a woman should have any more right to kill a baby inside her womb than I do to kill someone I don't like. The biggest irony that I find is that the left is for a woman's right to murder the innocent, but against societie's right to kill a convict. It has never made sense to me.

Yep! That's why individual rights exist because opinions differ.

 

Why should a child in a womb not have individual rights. A woman's individual rights should end when it impedes on the rights of her unborn child. Why is abortion not murder when our court system honors it as a double murder when someone kills a pregnant woman? Another source of irony.

Why should a child in a womb not have individual rights. A woman's individual rights should end when it impedes on the rights of her unborn child. Why is abortion not murder when our court system honors it as a double murder when someone kills a pregnant woman? Another source of irony.

 

:sssh: Hmmmmm....good question.

So, to get back to the topic of the thread, I think I'm considered liberal by people on this board. Yet I have a lot of the traits of a conservative...I believe in personal responsibility...I just realize sometimes people need help. I don't believe in abortion, but I don't believe making illegal solves the problem. I have no issue with the 2nd Ammendment, but I believe that there should be restrictions and limitations.

 

There's no simple way to define the difference between liberals and conservatives. I don't really know anyone who fits the descriptions being bandied about in this thread.

So, to get back to the topic of the thread, I think I'm considered liberal by people on this board. Yet I have a lot of the traits of a conservative...I believe in personal responsibility...I just realize sometimes people need help. I don't believe in abortion, but I don't believe making illegal solves the problem. I have no issue with the 2nd Ammendment, but I believe that there should be restrictions and limitations.

 

There's no simple way to define the difference between liberals and conservatives. I don't really know anyone who fits the descriptions being bandied about in this thread.

 

To me ideology is much broader than a person's stance on various issues. Your ideology might be what guides you to choose a side on a certain issue, like abortion, but support for/against it is independent of ideology.

In my opinion, liberal or conservative is determined by what the individual believes the role of government ought to be.

 

Kudos to Habib for bringing Hayek on BGP. One of my favorite authors. Road to Serfdom is among the books that greatly influenced my thinking.

However, looking at congress, determining who is conservative and liberal gets harder and harder to distinguish...

So, to get back to the topic of the thread, I think I'm considered liberal by people on this board. Yet I have a lot of the traits of a conservative...I believe in personal responsibility...I just realize sometimes people need help. I don't believe in abortion, but I don't believe making illegal solves the problem. I have no issue with the 2nd Ammendment, but I believe that there should be restrictions and limitations.

 

There's no simple way to define the difference between liberals and conservatives. I don't really know anyone who fits the descriptions being bandied about in this thread.

 

I think for the most part people on this board are like you in that they have a mixture of beliefs that include those of both sides.