The Elm - Women Under Siege
YDR Wave of Anti-Abortion Legislation
Boston GOP Candidates Court Christian Conservatives
The characteristics we are discussing today are:
2. Disdain for the importance of human rightsNow I have no love for the concept or act of abortion. I truly believe it is usually a "bad choice made to prevent people and their pending child from dealing with the consequences of a prior bad choice or total lack of personal responsibility". The reality is that it is a "CHOICE" that should be made by the Mother. And definitely not made by some Church folk that are far removed from the situation !!!
5. Rampant sexism
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
For some reason, many in the Republican party that I typically support decided to hitch their wagon to the "Far Right Christians". Therefore they keep trying to push laws that are based on Religious beliefs, rather than focusing on supporting the American Constitution. So much for the separation of Church and State.
In the name of these Religious beliefs, they would force all women to conform to these particular Religious beliefs and bring an unwanted child into our society. Kind of reminds me of the Taliban, they apparently KNOW BETTER and want to save this poor woman from sin. (maybe burqas come next) Seems to be terribly sexist and a violation of rights, since only the woman is required to bear the consequences of carrying the fetus to full term. And worse yet, only poor and some lower middle class women could not buy their way out of the situation in the old days.
Here are some other thoughts:
- Though Republicans / Conservatives /Religious folk insist that these children be born, they consistently block the Parent Education and Early Childhood Education funding that is needed to raise the children correctly. Therefore trapping the kids in whatever world they are born into.
- The unwanted children that are born to unprepared or unfit parents cost society a small fortune during their lives. Especially if the Mother or Father have significant addictions or physical / psychological issues.
- Crimes rates dropped significantly in the 1990's. The largest factor was that Roe V Wade was enacted ~20 yrs before. The criminals were never born. (Freakonomics, Levitt & Dubner, 2005)
- Millions of "indisputably alive fully self sustaining humans" die in developing countries every year. Where is the outrage and contributions from the Republican Religious Right folk. Maybe they just like "control" more than actually saving lives. Our is an American fetus worth more in God's eyes than a Mexican or African toddler?
- If the kids are unwanted, not going to be properly cared for, going to cost society money and suffering, etc. How can "Pro-Life" be in the best interest of the USA and her citizens?
- Fellow Christians, give it up and start saving the kids that are truly self sustaining and alive outside the womb. There are plenty of them dying every minute all over the world.
- Besides America is a land of Religious Freedom, so let these Women have the freedom to choose !!!! It is God's responsibility to judge them, not yours...
Below is a comment that one of my good friends, Jason, left on the G2A Fascism post. It is too good to let it disappear into history so soon, and in my opinion it applies to this post.
After this relatively contentious post, here is some comic relief. Monty Python's Every Sperm is Sacred... At least this Father could apparently sell the kids that he could no longer afford..."I am compelled to post: First of all, what is in a word? Fascism will forever be equated with Hitler and everything seen as evil in the world. Therefore, all 14 points as described must be inherently evil in some way? In fact all of the 14 points indicate methods used to establish control within a country. Is control bad? Certainly "out of control" is not good. Anarchy would likely fit the opposite of all 14 points. Anarchy would be unabated freedom right?
So the real point here is not to have methods of control, but to have the right level of control in the right areas so that people "feel free."
A problem arises when we are attacked. The current level of control has made us vulnerable and has had poor consequences. Therefore added controls are put in place in order to ensure that the poor consequences are not repeated. Unfortunately, this leads people to "feel less free."
Control is a method to bring the current state back into alignment with the desired state. Unfortunately, (or fortunately in a case to promote diversity), the desired state strongly differs between individuals and groups of people.
I consider myself to be a freedom loving person. I express this in the form of fiscal conservatism (please spend my money wisely and on things that are universal common goods) and as a social liberal (please allow me to believe what I want, and I will do the same).
What I find dangerous, is not so much the controls that are put in place to protect my safety, and the safety of our country, but those that enforce a specific doctrine or world view.
Coming from Minnesota, it is easy to see the Republican party from a non-religious standpoint. It is not tied to religion as strongly here than in other parts of the country. However, in other parts of the country, it is the party of Fundamental Christians and if there was not strong opposition, I believe they would love to remove freedom of religion from our Constitution and replace our Government with a theocracy.
Yes, this is closely tied to George W (Not George Sr. I might Add) Any of the 14 points that is imposed strongly by a group that would like to control religion and the beliefs of their citizens in this way is a direct threat to our Constitution, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
So where are we now? Are we free? Are our thoughts free and unhindered by the media and television we watch? Certainly not! However, our media is relatively unhindered by government, The bias here is generated based on cyclical reference. For example, the reporter's circle of influence leans conservative, therefore their reports are conservative, their circle watches/listens to their reports, cycle repeats. Same goes for liberal bias. The best way to remove some of this bias is to watch reports from varied sources that are not in your normal influence circle.In closing, it is not the 14 points that we should fear so much (in moderation I’d say). What is dangerous is the promotion of a single ideology or religious view as “American.” This is why George W and Sarah Palin are not good for America. In my opinion, George Sr, Obama, John McCain, Bill C, all would be just fine. My point being, this is not a party line decision. It is a matter of personal freedom."
19 comments:
To quote that extremist Alan Keyes, "there can be no right to do that which is wrong." Murder is wrong. Whether it is murder or abortion hangs only on the slender distinction between whether the human life has exited the birth canal, or not.
I am flabbergasted that you would even begin to make political decisions based on this single issue, since you so strongly condemn those who make political decisions based on this single issue. If it's just a matter of definitions, do we all agree that Nazis were Fascists? They killed 6 million Jews as "undesirables." American pro-choicers have killed FIFTY million potential Americans. Are you going to insist they were all "undesirable" as well? Who are the fascists, again? And what kind of society does such reckless disregard for human life beget? Death panels?
J. E
It seems to me that a large number of the Republican voters are already "One Issue Voters"... "I am Pro Life, therefore I will not support a Conseravtive Pro Choice candidate..." Sound familiar?
I am not a "One Issue Voter", that is why I have voted Republican for ~27 yrs of my adult life. (ie Social Liberal, Financial Conservative...) Typically I have no one to vote for, so I err on the side of Republican. And I keep praying Roe V Wade is not over turned.
I agree with you. "Whether it is murder or abortion hangs only on the slender distinction between whether the human life has exited the birth canal, or not." Now who are you to make that call?
I am not that wise or free of sin, I'll leave that to God and her.
Now you want Civil Liberties for "use of your money" (ie low taxes), choice of your schools, not showing proof of citizenship, etc. And yet you would have the gall to mandate your beliefs upon this Woman. Beliefs that will likely doom her and her child to a life of poverty.
And on top of this you will not support their development with your wallet. (ie parent classes, social services, early childhood education, etc) If you feel responsible and wise enough to force her to bear the child into this world. You had best be responsible and wise enough to help raise the kid.
Ironically, these are the Unlucky kids that the Conservative Christian parents run from. "I want to force the Mom to have the kid, but I sure don't want my sweet little Christian child in the same school as them. I'll run to the Burbs, Home School, go to Private, etc." Now isn't that a sad state of affairs?
John,
Thanks for responding to some of my views on the 14 characteristics of fascism. I think I agree with your friend Jason that some of the characteristics, especially #5 and 8 are more accurately labeled as elements of theocracy.
While I consider myself "prochoice", I can understand how some "prolife" people are single issue voters (I think I might be to the right of you on this issue.) For me, a fetus is a human life worthy of protection long before he/she is born, but a woman also has a right not to go through pregnancy and bring a child into the world and we don't have foolproof contraceptives. So where to draw the line or balance these rights? It certainly doesn't include considering using the pill as a form of abortion. I would not have a problem with restricting abortions to the first trimester, unless there were health considerations or other extenuating circumstances. Also, women all over the country need access to abortion and other planned parenthood type services. I think many later term abortions are due to both lack of $ and abortion providers (many women must travel hundreds of miles to find and abortion provider.) What I don't understand is many Christian conservatives opposition to contraceptives or this Bills that Could Legalize Killing Abortion Providers.
Also, I am curious what people think on other issues that for me characterize theocracy, such as prayer in the schools or creationism in the biology curriculum. I even wonder about the religious beliefs of Christian conservatives possibly running for president (i.e. Palin, Bachmann) If there were new crises in the middle east, especially involving Isreal, would they respond as if America is in Bible Prophecy?
"there can be no right to do that which is wrong."
Sure there can.
--Hiram
Nokomis,
I am definitely in a pretty far Left seat when it comes to keeping Government out of people's everyday choices...
Hiram,
I whole heartedly agree, these Religious Right folks blew huge holes in Iraq and Afganistan, and killed many 1000's of civilians by accident. Yet they would still insist it was the right thing to do, and their Right to do it...
As I said, maybe it is just a meglomaniac control thing. You MUST DO as I say or you are BAD... I CAN KILL Hundreds of Thousands because I think it is RIGHT, but you are not ABLE to make that decision for yourself... I will not allow it...
John tackles the issue of abortion. Wow. I generally stay away from topics like this due to the literally explosive nature of the topic (again depending on the part of the country you live it).
John, put the every sperm is sacred reference as a joke, but this is actually the heart of my beliefs on the subject: The concept of “potential life” or even “life” for that matter.
Sperm is “alive” and an egg is “alive” Every sperm is sacred and has the potential to create a vast number of possibly beautiful children by combining with the egg of countless women. Think of the trillions of wonderful children that are “murdered” by sperm not coming in contact with an egg. I could have had hundreds of children, but selfish me for wanting only two.
Definitions are important, but difficult in that they help to sell propaganda. I am Pro-Life: Life brought into this world is one of the most profound things. The fact that one of countless sperm and countless eggs formed to create me and I am typing this statement in this blog in this age at this moment with this opinion is absolutely amazing.
More of something good is even better. We must replicate this miracle over and over. Since each baby is precious, we should actively promote to create as many babies as possible in this world regardless of resources. Not only should we replicate the human miracle, we should replicate this miracle in plants and animals as well. Why discriminate based on how “cute” a species is?
I am Pro-Choice: Who decides the laws in our country? How much control over our human experience do we want to give our American government? If my religion says guns are evil because they take away life, should this be our law? If my religion says women should be covered from head to toe, should this be our law? If my religion says dinosaurs don’t exist, should we ban text books with other views? In each of these cases, one could argue a moral imperative to implement a law. Where do we draw the line. Certainly we have laws in place based on western moral consensus during the time of enactment. I would venture to say that they should be as unobtrusive as possible while still maintaining the ideal of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
To Nokomis:
If we elect someone who believes we are in a biblical prophecy: Lord help us all!
Likely what would happen is we would begin to start using all of our resources to destroy all countries with a different religion as they counter to try to destroy us.
The only saving grace might be previous Republican promises to cut spending which would prevent us from funding the war effort. However, that would never happen because in trying to destroy the devil, no price can be spared.
I agree it is such an emotional issue that rational discussion is almost precluded. I find it difficult to respond rationally to emotional arguments, but I have to try. Perhaps one pointed a time?
"I am not a "One Issue Voter",… so I err on the side of Republican. And I keep praying Roe V Wade is not over turned." I still don't understand why I CANNOT be a single issue voter if I make that choice. I think anybody that votes for a Democrat is a consummate fool, but I certainly won't say they didn't have the right to vote that way. As for Roe v Wade, I'm still waiting for it to become the law of the land. The decision did, after all, recognize that at the point of viability a human fetus becomes a human being and as such its life may be protected by the state government. Yet every time a state government tries to pass such protective legislation, the pro-abortion people scream bloody murder, if you'll pardon the term, that women's rights are being taken away. Again, there can be no right to do what is wrong.
"I agree with you. 'Whether it is murder or abortion hangs only on the slender distinction between whether the human life has exited the birth canal, or not.' Now who are you to make that call?" It's very simple. I do NOT make that call at all. I believe that a unique human life is created at the moment of conception, and that its intentional distraction is at minimum a tragedy. Even so I can tolerate the distinction made in Roe V Wade that the fetus is not a full "person" or "citizen" until it reaches viability. After that, if it is a choice, it's infanticide.
"Now you want Civil Liberties for "use of your money" (ie low taxes),… and yet you would have the gall to mandate your beliefs… that will likely doom her and her child to a life of poverty." I'm sorry, but at no point in time did this woman's poverty ever become my responsibility, and it takes a colossal gall to take from me to give to her for a situation I did not create. She did not ask my permission to engage in an act that might lead to a child, so it seems to me she bears the entire personal responsibility, unless of course the baby daddy takes HIS share of the responsibility.
"And on top of this you will not support their development with your wallet." You simply cannot make this statement. You have no idea what I will or will not support VOLUNTARILY out of my own wallet. Your interest seems to be in abdicating your responsibility to the government, who will take my money by force and squander three fourths of it before giving it to this irresponsible woman as a reward for their responsibility.
"Ironically, these are the Unlucky kids that the Conservative Christian parents run from." In other threads, you want to blame the parents for the "bad luck" that their children experience in school (despite massive evidence that schools differ greatly in their ability to have such children succeed). The only thing different between an unlucky kid born because of a mother's choice to bring her into the world and another unlucky kid whose mother didn't consider abortion one of her choices is, well, there is no difference. How could there be? The only difference is between an unlucky kid who is living in poverty and an unlucky kid whose corpse is rotting in a landfill because of a mother's choice.
What I can't imagine is why no one is appalled at the racist and eugenicist nature of this debate. Black babies are aborted at three or four times the rate of white babies. Are we finally ridding our society of "undesirables"? How else do you explain this simple statistical fact, and how would you propose that government correct this situation?
J. Ewing
in previous, "distraction" should be "destruction."
A few random thoughts on this topic:
I vehemently disagree with anti-choicers' opinions, but I respectfully acknowledge their beliefs. However, for anyone to be both anti-abortion and anti-birth control is the pinnacle of absurdity.
The new 3 day waiting period in SoDak is infuriating--given the geography of that state, it's essentially a means test; if you can afford to take a full week away from work AND find an additional several hundred dollars (lodging or gas money for 2 trips) you can theoretically avail yourself of an entirely legal procedure. If you're poor or working class or have children or are in college or have any other of a million responsibilities, the legislators have effectively taken away your choice.
Women have, with varying degrees of success, controlled their fertility for millennia. This isn't some modern development. Midwives have always had abortifacient herbs and potions. Sometimes safe, sometimes not, but before "quickening" it was never even considered an issue until the past 150 years or so.
When misogynists say things like this, it makes me livid:
"She did not ask my permission to engage in an act that might lead to a child, so it seems to me she bears the entire personal responsibility, unless of course the baby daddy takes HIS share of the responsibility."-- Didn't ask your PERMISSION?! Entire personal responsiblity? If every man took half personal responsibility for his progeny I don't think we'd even be having this discussin.
"At no time did this woman's poverty become my responsibilty", this statement, juxtaposed with your claiming high moral/religious ground, is so hypocritical I'm not even going to comment.
Finally, AfAM women are overrepresented in abortion stats. They are also overrepresented in pretty much ALL birth stats. There's not an epidemic of abortion and you're wildly oversimplifying when you imply that. They're represented at a higher rate because they have WAY lower rates of education, health care, and wealth--all of which, race aside, lower birth and abortion rates. If you want to decrease the abortion rates, address the poverty and health care issues and the abortion will take care of itself.
Safe, legal, and rare. That pretty much sums it up.
--Annie
This dialogue is everything I had hoped it would be... Thank you!!!
And yes the far Right Christians should definitely take a lot more responsibility for funding Government programs to help these Moms and their kids. If those lives are sacred enough to mandate bringing them out of the womb, they are certainly sacred enough to raise well.
I mean the far Right Christians find the Government an adequate method by which to try to enforce their religious will and beliefs. (ie via laws) They certainly should support the Government's efforts to help these Moms and the Precious little lives they would be forced to bring forth.
Or is this the Control thing coming out again. Maybe their thought goes something like this...
"The Gov't is good enough as long as they help enforce our beliefs... But we sure will not trust them to teach the Moms or their Children... That needs to occur via a church of our choosing, or they will not teach the right things.
As for the non-Church going Moms/Kids, when they wise up and join our church... Then we will work to support them. Those others aren't really our problem, since they are somewhat sinful in the first place. (I mean she did have sex out of wedlock... probably still doing it...)"
It is kind of like 99+% of Parent's at school. Many will volunteer in their child's classroom, maybe 10% will volunteer at the school outside the classroom, and maybe <1% will volunteer at the District level... The reality is that folks tend to care for "their own" and discount the needs of those in that other school... (or outside their religion)
By the way, if you missed it... I am anti-abortion and pro-choice... I really do not know many people that are pro-abortion...(though the Religious Right seems to make that mistaken assumption) The folks I know would all prefer if Women and Men were more knowledgeable and responsible, and had ready access to excellent birth control options.
"And yes the far Right Christians should definitely take a lot more responsibility for funding Government programs to help these Moms and their kids."
Whoa up, there! I read my Bible rather thoroughly, and nowhere do I see Christ commanding the government to take care of the poor or anybody else, for that matter. If you had been closely involved, you would find that there are many Christian organizations working on different aspects of this problem, but of course if it doesn't involve spending great gobs of taxpayer money it isn't really happening. Or at least that seems to be the liberal mindset.
"When misogynists say things like this, it makes me livid: "She did not ask my permission to engage in an act that might lead to a child, so it seems to me she bears the entire personal responsibility, unless of course the baby daddy takes HIS share of the responsibility."-- Didn't ask your PERMISSION?! Entire personal responsiblity? "
I'm trying to find somewhere in that statement something that makes me a misogynist, and I'm not finding it. It seems to me that if I, as a taxpayer, am being expected to support the consequences of the sex act then I ought to have a say in whether or not that act can occur. I am a firm believer in the bumper sticker that says, "Pro-choice before conception, Pro life after." People need to be responsible for their actions, and not expecting the taxpayer or the abortionist (or the church) to bail them out when they are irresponsible.
I still like the decision by a Carolina judge based on contract law. He ruled that since abortion is legal, subsequent to Roe V Wade, until the fifth month, that a woman who carries a child to that point has entered into an implicit contract to bring that child to term (absent any medical necessity otherwise). Neat, more or less exactly what Roe V Wade intended, and recognizing that a viable human life should not be snuffed out by some "choice."
"If you want to decrease the abortion rates, address the poverty and health care issues and the abortion will take care of itself." I hate to break it to you, but the War on Poverty is over, and Poverty won. Our government has spent trillions of dollars trying to eliminate poverty and it is just as prevalent today as it was in 1965 when we started down this path. You do not fix a broken arm with a little salve and a big wad of taxpayer cash. When the problem is personal responsibility for personal choices, it cannot be fixed by rewarding irresponsibility and poor choices with a check. Taking away the check will not help these people make better choices, but at least it won't be rewarded and the taxpayer won't be the one punished for the choice. Call it basic fairness or common sense or tough love, whatever you like. If people made better choices there would be less necessity for abortion, and strengthening the law against it, say by requiring a woman to take three days to think about it, might help them make a better choice in that particular circumstance. Why should "pro-choice" always result in an abortion?
J. Ewing
"I read my Bible rather thoroughly, and nowhere do I see Christ commanding the government to take care of the poor or anybody else, for that matter."
You must be reading a different version of the Bible... I am pretty sure Jesus made a point often to emphasize that the Wealthy in Society are responsible for helping the Poor, and the Children in particular. And he clearly explained the consequences of people putting their wallet before their God. And since a Representative Democracy Government is just another name for Society, it looks like God has made it pretty clear... G2A Mysterious Ways
Even without that clear Divine guidance, just a basic value of accepting responsibility for our actions requires the Religious Right to accept financial Responsibility for all these kids that they guilt poor Mom's into bearing... I mean, they stick their noses into other peoples affairs, therefore they really should share the responsibility for the consequences. It is only right... Otherwise they should mind their own business and walk on by...
"It seems to me that if I, as a taxpayer, am being expected to support the consequences of the sex act then I ought to have a say in whether or not that act can occur."
No one can control that sex act from occuring, except the participants and maybe some really open communicative parents.(if you disagree, you must be older than I think...) Though you can certainly lessen the tax burden by encouraging poor/bad Parents to abort the unwanted fetus...
Just think, you won't need to bear the long term cost of that child/adult. The cycle of bad Parenting will be broken, so there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies in ~16 yrs. And if more poor end up aborting, then the Cycle of Poverty is weakened significantly. Encouraging poor/bad Parents to abort their unwanted fetus seems like a very wise and pragmatic way in which to lower the expense of Government / Society.
Seems like a Conservative's dream, if it wasn't for that pesky Religious affiliation. I mean Citizen personal freedoms are protected, the need for social programs are lessened, Government schools can not brain wash a poor child that does not exist, poverty will be reduced (ie kids are expensive), Democrats can not recruit the non-existent youth, and the taxes required will be much less. A win/win... Right?
All for just letting people follow their own beliefs or lack of beliefs. Seems in line with the American Constitution.
Well at least, let's agree to buy those young hormonal kids as many condoms or birth control pills as we can. Being responsible is easier if there are fewer road blocks to doing the right thing.
"And since a Representative Democracy Government is just another name for Society,..."
Ah, I see the problem. Again, it's a matter of definition of terms. In a perfect world, a representative REPUBLIC (we're not a democracy) would perfectly mirror the society which it leads. I'm afraid we live in an even less perfect world than did Jesus. He did not say government should steal from everybody and give to the poor. Our Christian obligation is for US to care for the poor. When you vote to have government steal from me to give to someone you think "deserves" it, you haven't done an act of Christian charity. And the result is liable to be that the poor person gets way less than had you simply given it directly, but of course that's not tax deductible. Craziest system I've ever seen.
Did you know that if you took all the state and federal "poverty" programs and simply gave every "poor" person a check, the average poor family of four would have almost $50,000-- median income? So why do we have any poor people at all, and why do we CONTINUE to have poor people?
"...requires the Religious Right to accept financial Responsibility for all these kids that they guilt poor Mom's into bearing." No, these poor Mom's have taken the responsibility on themselves when they... you know what. Pro-life folks just don't want babies killed, and want the law to take that position. Especially if it is respectful of the ACTUAL Roe v. Wade decision, I cannot imagine anybody having a problem with it.
The RESPONSIBILITY belongs with the individual woman, including the responsibility for choosing to kill the child, even if it is legal to do so. If she is making the decision and decides to carry her child to term, that is also her responsibility. NOW, there are Christian groups out there ready and willing to assist. But it's charitable work; it's not required.
"Just think, you won't need to bear the long term cost of that child/adult." Oh, great idea. Let's just kill all of the "undesirables." Although I think it was tried, once. Come to think of it, the founder of Planned Parenthood had exactly that same idea, starting with black people. Black, poor, heck, just sterilize 'em, right?
J. Ewing
J,
I agree with you. At this time, ideally the Mother and Doctor correctly have the Right and bear the Responsibility of the choice they make. And God will judge them as is appropriate.
As soon as activists start to threaten or kill Mothers and Doctors who are operating within the current laws and their Government/Society given rights, then the activists should start bearing more of the responsibility for raising these children and supporting the Mothers. Since they are working to take the choice away. (ie make it harder)
And if the Religious Right succeeds in forcing the decision by making the abortions illegal, then they should bear the majority of the responsibility for helping these Mom's and raising the kids.
By the way, it is the Conservatives seem to be the ones happy cutting taxes / social programs and starving the undesireables, so "I don't think the kill the undesireables" argument will fly too far. Nobody on this side is trying to force every citizen to live by their personal religious beliefs.
All I want is for Poor folks to have the same options and freedoms as Rich folks, kind of like your opinion on Vouchers...
A link of interest...Republic or Democracy? Since almost everyone can vote now, it looks like we are both in this modern era...
"By the way, it is the Conservatives seem to be the ones happy cutting taxes / social programs and starving the undesireables, so "I don't think the kill the undesireables" argument will fly too far."
I don't understand. You claim that I have no rights whatsoever when a woman chooses to kill her unborn baby. That is, I have no right to expect the law of the land to be upheld, nor any right to change the law of the land and expect it to be upheld. Yet, should the woman choose to have the child, it is demanded that I should pay for the entire cost of raising it to maturity. I suppose we could say that is a balance of rights, but excuse me if I cannot see it that way.
And I'm not buying the moral argument, either. "Starving the poor by cutting taxes" is a very old propaganda trick, conflating two things which have absolutely nothing to do with one another. If they did, the only possible connection would be that conservative tax-cutting gave the poor the same freedom to "make their own way in the world" as everybody else has, and offered everybody else more of that same freedom, without the burden of "unnecessary" taxation. "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" may be politically sound, but it is morally bankrupt, particularly if you are a government supposedly representing the whole people. Right now, our liberal legislators act more like two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
J. Ewing
As often happens, we will have to agree to disagree. I'll continue to see the Conservative viewpoint as "not consistent". Meaning:
Conservatives say they want Government out of their personal lives and decisions, yet they want Government to enforce their Religious belief on others in this particular case.
Conservatives say they take responsibility for their actions. Yet in this case they would force poor Parents to deliver unwanted children to full term, and not fully fund the programs to support those kids.
It will be interesting to see where this goes.
We can agree to disagree, but I won't agree to your finding of "inconsistency."
The fundamental principle here is individual freedom under the rule of law. Our most basic liberty comes from the Declaration of Independence and claims we have the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The question of what constitutes a life is a matter for the law. Right now the law says life begins at quickening. Some would change that law in one direction-- earlier-- and some would change it to be later; in none of these cases is the law likely to be "right" by everybody's definition. We can disagree about the law without saying that the other side hasn't a moral leg to stand on.
Conservatives don't want to "force women to have children," they simply want to see the law followed, even if it is changed the way they believe it should be to respect ALL human life. And while the reality may be that many of these children are unwanted and that their irresponsible parents are already wards of the state and its taxpayers does not mean that the taxpayers should continue to support the irresponsible and dependent lifestyle. You aren't doing these people any humanitarian favors by rewarding their indolence. Besides, society should be carrying for those who through no fault of their own find themselves in temporary economic difficulty. Government is NOT society. That difference gets overlooked but it is night and day. Government operates by coercion and force, through taxes, and with little discernment or accountability. Society and private charity operate by voluntary donations and tend to be very discerning, with reasonable expectations of the recipients of its charity.
J.
Yeppp... Agree to Disagree...
Post a Comment