Who Decides?
Publius does a nice job summing up what’s at the heart of the liberal/conservative divide on “social conservative” issues:
The social conservatives’ positions tend to empower government over individuals. If they got their way, the public would be forced to submit to the government’s decision-making. The more liberal position, by contrast, allocates power to individuals – no one is forced to do anything. (Admittedly, this is not really a constitutional argument – just an additional explanation for why the Christian Right tends to scare people).
Take, for instance, the granddaddy issue of them all – abortion. The Christian Right position would require every single person in a given jurisdiction to give birth. (Yes, some would argue that it’s simply about letting the states decide – but still, they prefer this position because many states, and virtually the entire South, would ban abortion). Thus, the decision-making power here would belong to the government. Individuals would no longer be free to decide.
The pro-choice position, by contrast, ensures that individuals – not the government – will ultimately make these private decisions. Individuals remain free to have, or not have, abortions as they and their God see fit. And everyone remains free to persuade their fellow citizens of the values of bringing all pregnancies to term. But in the end, the individual – and not the state – would make the final call.
This pattern repeats itself across a number of issues. For example, gay marriage doesn’t require anyone to do anything. It merely allows consenting gay adults to be married. Gay marriage bans, by contrast, grant that decision-making power to the state.
Similarly, rights to contraception don’t require anyone to do anything – the ultimate decision remains with the individual. Contraception bans, by contrast, allocate the decision-making power to the government.
Same deal with school prayer. Banning school prayer in public classes doesn’t prevent anyone from praying privately at the school. But allowing public prayer, by contrast, would force non-Christians to sit through prayer sessions in a publicly funded school. Again, the decision to participate in prayer would be made by the state, not the individual.
The larger point is that these examples illustrate why many people fear social conservatives – simply put, many of the latter’s preferred positions would use the state to intrude on people’s lives and dictate very private and personal decisions to them.
Now, I think this is largely true. But at the same time, if you expand beyond the so-called “social conservative” issues, there are plenty of places where it’s the liberals who would be doing the forcing. Environmental issues, for example, or gun control.
That said, I think the fact that compliance is somehow enforced is not, in and of itself, necessarily a bad thing. It depends upon your view of the thing being enforced.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:44 pm
And the point is that no one wants to be forced. This is why the current political battles are so needlessly intense- the sides are made up mostly of people who fear becoming exposed to coercion at the hands of people who don’t like their way of life and seek power mostly as a means of imposing that coercion.
This is why a divided government is usually much better than a unified one- they spend most of their energy fighting instead of imposing one brand or another of misery upon the American people.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Jim W:
The irony, to me, is that the people who most vocally oppose coercion on these issues are very likely the ones who vocally support some sort of coercion on those other issues. At some level, there’s a desire to force everyone to behave as I would have them behave, and this desire seems to exist across the political spectrum, not just in any one corner of it. (Of course, it doesn’t feel so bad to require the thing I want, because I already behave that way anyway. And so it goes.)
Of course, we can get carried away too far the other way, too. There are certainly times when it genuinely makes sense to put in rules and regulations, and to mandate certain behaviors or to prohibit others. My point is that the disagreements seem not to center on whether to impose such rules, but which rules to impose, and how to do so (through the legislature, or through the courts). And even those disagreements don’t come anywhere close to falling neatly into partisan buckets.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I hold the firm position that the Government forcing people to do anything is usually a bad idea.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
The pattern also repeats itself with gun control.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Don’t forget sex education.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:19 pm
The pro-life position rests on the fact that the ‘thing’ inside the woman is a human life, worthy of dignity and respect. It cannot be a ‘private’ decision in that only one person’s rights are at stake. It argues that rights, inherent in all human beings, should not be disregarded because of a current stage in biological development. That being the biggest ethical hurdle, among others.
Then again, stupid statements like these usually make me think that blogs like Publius are just the usual garbage found on the internet “The Christian Right position would require every single person in a given jurisdiction to give birth.” If Publius was serious about a earnest discussion about the above topic, stupid opinions like that should be best left off monitor screen. I do not feel like going into the inanity of the false marriage stuff.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Dan:
Even if one grants fetal/embryonic personhood, the moral calculus of abortion still isn’t as simple as you claim, because there’s another person — whose personhood is not in question — with moral concerns at stake. Imagine, if you will, somebody needs a kidney transplant to survive, and YOU ALONE have a kidney that’s compatible with that person. Because the other person is a human life, worthy of dignity and respect, should the state be allowed to compel you to give up a kidney, and undergo the costs and risks associated with the removal of the kidney, so that the other person might have a shot at life?
Oh, and you’re right that Publius’ statement goes a bit too far. It should read:
[My correction in italics]
November 21st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Pro-Choicers are trying to force Catholic Hospitals and doctors who believe that life begins at birth to preform abortions…nope no coercion there.
Gay marriage forces the churches to recognize something they see as an abomination. Civil unions work for all of the issues that gay rights activists say they want
On the school prayer, I kind of agree with you. As long as the school and it’s agents don’t try to stop kids from praying, or force them to pray, there is no issue. But when you tell someone that they CAN’T pray somewhere isn’t that forcing them to adhere to your agenda?
If only someone would have made some list…a list of rights that are unalienable…almost a Bill of Rights. One of which could say in part “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Making someone do something that is against thier religion and beliefs is prohibiting their free exercise of their religion.
Once again the Constitution trumps the left!
November 21st, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Nate:
Gay marriage forces the churches to recognize something they see as an abomination.
Bullshit. If gay marriage is legal, churches don’t have to do squat. No church would be required to perform a marriage ceremony it didn’t believe in. The same-sex marriage issue is about civil marriage, not religious marriage. As for civil unions vs. marriage, well, the country doesn’t exactly have a great track record with separate but equal institutions…
And if you have a job that requires you to do things you have a moral objection to, it’s entirely within your rights to quit that job. Nobody’s forced to do anything. Compelling an act in certain limited circumstances is not the same thing as prohibiting that act in all circumstances.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:43 pm
tgirsch, it is that simple. Either it is a human or it is not. Just because a lot of people are ignorant of the ethical and biological aspects of it does not change that fact. Of course, you are right about why it is a problem. But who is mainly responsible for putting that human life in that body?
And your kidney comment is completely different than the abortion argument. The human being inside a pregnant woman is not an organ but a human life, since we know without unnatural interference, the life will grow into an infant. A kidney will always be a kidney and will never exist as an individual human life.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Sorry to burst your bubble but in NJ, where gay civil unions are legal, not sure about gay marriage, there was a case where a methodist church owned a pavillion and two ladies decided they wanted to get married there. The methodist church stuck to it’s doctrine and teachings and said sorry, but not interested. Well the state department of civil rights said that they had to let them have the ceremony there. It is still being fought in court.
So I say bullshit to your bullshit.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Dang it, I do not know how to do bold and that sort of stuff.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Marriage is a religious institution, civil unions are a civil institution. The only way to institute gay marriage is to regulate religion.
Which is, of course, the goal.
BTW: I’ve actually seen a second trimester fetus being removed from a uterus surgically — that experience eliminated any possibility of moral ambiguity on the topic of abortion for me. If a rational being can see that crying child for themselves and yet declare them to not be a person, they could just as easily declare anyone to not be a person.
Gas chambers are run by such people.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Dan:
I fixed your comment (including your spelling of my screen name). But you misunderstood my kidney argument. It wasn’t centered around the kidney, but around the person (in this case, YOU) who has the good kidney. YOU, a PERSON, are being forced by the state, against your will, to put your body on the line for the life of another; that other person’s interests are being placed ahead of yours. So what I’m saying is that even if one accepts that a fetus/embryo is a “person,” with all the rights that go with that, there’s still a conflict of interest, and that conflict has to be resolved in favor of the woman/kidney DONOR, rather than the fetus/kidney RECIPIENT.
Nate:
Without knowing the particulars of the case, I’m willing to bet that this was a pavilion that the church made a habit of renting that pavilion out to the general public for non-church use, and that as such, standard non-discrimination rules apply. The state can’t force a church to allow other parties to use their pavilion, but once they start making it available for use by the general public for a fee, they’re engaging in commerce, and have to accept all the rules that come with that. Instead of them being lesbians, make it an interracial heterosexual couple, and see how far the church gets in refusing to rent out the space for their use.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
hypnagogue:
I was married by a small-town mayor in the state of Ohio, with no religious institutions or organizations involved. Are you saying that I’m not actually married, but a participant in a civil union? My state-issued “marriage license” and “certificate of marriage” seem to indicate otherwise.
And I seriously doubt that a “second trimester fetus” is even physically capable of crying. At 24 weeks, they don’t even have functioning lungs yet, and the overwhelming majority (over 99%) of abortions in this country are obtained at 21 weeks or earlier. I have no doubt that witnessing an abortion first hand would have a profound impact on you, but I don’t think there’s any need to embellish it, either.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
So having an organ fail and getting pregnant are equivalent?
November 21st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Thanks for the fix. I used to know how to do bold and all that stuff, but, anyway…
Tgirsch. My argument, I should say one of the classical arguments, is that whose actions were responsible for putting the baby in that woman? And who must take responsibility for it?
I am not trying to convince you go pro-life, but illustrating how stupid Publius’s idea that the pro-life movement is all about oppressing people through government, not about saving innocent human lives.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Equating race to sexual preference is like equating gender to liking redheads over blondes!
I would agree with the city if they slapped the church’s peepee over a racist decision like that, but to force the to allow something to happen on their property that they believe is an abomination in the eyes of God, regardless of who else they allow to rent it for whatever reason, is on a whole different plane of existance!
All I’m trying to say is, that as lofty as this article makes the left sound, it falls apart because thier agenda forces others to do something they believe is wrong somewhere along the line.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
t; Interesting how, when you’re in favor of the coercion, it suddenly becomes “rules and regulations”.
Some would argue that abortion is the killing of innocent human life, so I can see how reasonable people (i,e, people opposed to coercion) can argue either side of the abortion debate.
As for gay marriage; is there anything a homosexual cannot actually, you know do if the state doesn’t recognize gay marriage. We could go down the list. Here are a few: Grant power of attorney to a partner, split their assets 50/50 with anyone they chose, commit to a partner for life, tell the community or the whole world about their mutual commitment, and so on and on.. One might even be able to make the case that gays are trying to “force” the state to somehow lend them some form of legitimacy they apparently feel they are lacking. As for me; I don’t care of the state recognizes my marriage so long as they stay the fuck out of my life and away from my family. Further; I have to wonder how many pro gay marriage activists really want their last, failed relationship to be declared a “common law marriage” allowing the estranged partner to file a claim for half of the estate, or if they’ve really thought how a “marriage” would combine their household income and raise then into a higher tax bracket, etc..
Then again, you can kill your babies and marry a monkey for all I give a fuck, so long as it means I get my liberty in full. That would be a no-brainer of a trade for me. Deal?
November 21st, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Thirdpower:
Try re-reading what I actually wrote, as well as my clarification to it, at #14.
Dan:
For bold, do this, but replace the [ and ] with :
[b]bold[/b]
Shows up as:
bold
Italics, use [i] and [/i] (using instead of [ and ])
italics
And so on.
In any case, I don’t think that Publius is saying that the pro-life movement is about oppressing people through government. What he’s saying is that their preferred tactic is to try to enforce their philosophy using the government as a tool. In other words, government compulsion is the means, not the end.
And as for “who’s responsible,” I don’t think that question is as relevant as you seem to think it is. If someone has a bullet in them, we don’t ask who’s fault it is that it got there before we remove it. Now I understand that bullet != fetus, but I still think it illustrates the point. I have something in me that I don’t want in me, and whether or not it’s my fault that it’s in there, I have a right to get it out.
In any case, the woman is at worst 50% responsible for the fetus being there, but she’s held 100% responsible for it for nine months. As I said before, even if one grants fetal personhood, it’s a case of a conflict of interests between the rights of two parties, one of whom must, by necessity, take precedence.
(Of course, the real answer here has very little to do with abortion — we should be doing everything in our power and exploring every avenue to prevent as many unwanted/unintended pregnancies from ever taking place, at which point abortion becomes largely a non-issue.)
Nate:
My example was explicitly chosen because it involves preference. The couple isn’t rejected because of what race they are, but because that race differs between the two of them. There’s not as much difference between miscegenation bans and same-sex marriage bans (in both time and substance) as you’d like to believe.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Lyle:
Medical visitation springs to mind; and in several states, adopt children.
Of course, a big part of the point isn’t whether or not gay couples can jump through hoops and get a set of rights and legal establishments that are similar to marriage. The actual institution of marriage itself, from a legal perspective, confers a whole host of rights and privileges (and, yes, responsibilities) automatically, as part of the deal. Being able to say (and demonstrate) “we’re married” involves a whole lot less red tape when one of those scenarios comes up than having to say “I have durable power of attorney,” provide the documentation to demonstrate that, and then have attorneys wrangle over whether or not it applies in this case, or whether or not an error was made in the contract, etc. Marriage has all of these benefits built in, and is about as legally ironclad as anything can get.
But, of course, you’re a big individual liberty guy, so the argument shouldn’t be about why the state has an obligation to include a certain group, but rather why it has any right to exclude that group.
And for what it’s worth, they’re “rules and regulations” even when I oppose them. They’re just stupid ones.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Embellish? I haven’t even gotten started.
Regardless of what you can or can’t believe, a second trimester child will cry. It’s a thin sound, but it’s a child’s cry. They grasp your finger with their hand. They kick with their feet trying to find the mother that is not longer there. You can see their pulse through the veins in their transparent skin. You can see the pain on their face when the nurse inserts the microscopic IV into a vein in their scalp.
And she calms down when she hears her father’s voice, and feels his touch. The nurse says that’s important, because if she won’t stop crying, she will die.
So don’t you waggle your liberal ivory tower ignorance at me. To you she’s just a theoretical argument. To me she’s the whole world.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
T:
I read your “clarification” and your response to Dan. The woman accepted 100% responsibility when she chose to have sex. She chose to take the chance of getting pregnant. So claiming that there is a ‘conflict of interests’ after the fact does not automatically give her precedence.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Thirdpower:
So nobody should ever have sexual intercourse under any circumstances unless they want to have children, because having sex is a tacit admission that you’re willing to become a parent. Got it. (And, of course, pregnant rape victims never should have chosen to be raped. Stupid women!)
hypnagogue:
liberal ivory tower ignorance
Ha!
November 21st, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Personally, my opinion on abortion is this…I think we all agree that abortions should be allowed in certain circumstances. Some will say life/health of the mother, others will include incest, rape, some may look at trimesters, but whatever. We all agree that abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances.
So if we restrict abortion to certain conditions, how do we police that and what are the ramifications? If we say only in the instances of the mother’s life is at risk, who decides that the mother’s health is at risk? What if another doctor disagrees? What are the punishments? Who prosecutes? Do we want to see a mother or her doctor sent to jail because they thought that the mother’s life was in danger, but another doctor happens to disagree?
The same goes for rape or incest. What if the authorities think that the woman is lying about a particular incident?
Why go through these machinations and ensnare innocent women and doctors into this legal system? I say just make abortion legal in all instances and trust that 99% of women and doctors have the best of intentions at heart.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:45 pm
okay, then, let’s strip marriage of every shred of legal weight it has. you can still get married, but doing so will get you nothing from the state, nothing by weight of law; no tax breaks, no joint property, no child custody, no visitation rights, no recognition in any way, shape or form, except for what your religion gives you.
heck, that would make me happy. how about you?
November 21st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
T:
Having consentual sex is is a tacit admission that they are willing to accept the consequences of said actions. Or are you claiming that women should NOT be responsible for the results of their actions?
Rape is not willing. Are you making a blanket statement about the ‘religious right’ and rape then?
November 21st, 2008 at 6:52 pm
So here’s my question about gay marriage..now I say all this as a resident of San Francisco who has had a number of friends wondering if their marriages are going to be upheld.
Three couples in particular come to mind…one couple, who lived in rural TN, drove down here and wanted to be the first in line to get married. Once down here, they learned that their home had burned down in an apparent case of arson and are trying to make a go of living here.
Another couple has been married three times. The first was to formalize a domestic partnership. The next was in 2004 when Gavin Newsom opened up marriage to gay couples before it was shut down. And finally just recently before the election.
Finally, my accountant who has been with his partner for 25 years and are a bit older. They got married a few days before the election and wanted to guarantee the various legal and tax benefits that married couples receive including inheritance, visitation and what not.
So here’s my question..what difference does it make to you that these folks want to get married? Don’t you believe in staying out of other people’s lives? What great benefit did you get out of these people no longer being allowed to marry?
November 21st, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Nomen,
I think you are working down to the heart of it, but you didn’t go quite far enough. What God has joined (religious institution of marriage) let no man put asunder (civil divorce). How can a civil proceeding sever a religious vow without that preemption violating the establishment clause? If marriage has no civil contract, then divorce has to go. Joint property and child custody mean nothing without divorce, so let’s leave those out.
What’s left? Visitation and taxes. I absolutely agree. Visitation should be governed by the desire and intention of the visited, nothing else. Joint filing of taxes? Certainly — throw that out. In which case, my wife and kids are now without income and are eligible for social security benefits. I’ll come out way ahead.
Let’s keep the mental exercise going. With a little effort we might be able to come to an understanding where your state doesn’t dictate morality to my church.
Did you honestly think I would go to hell over a tax break?
November 21st, 2008 at 7:13 pm
“The pro-choice position, by contrast, ensures that individuals – not the government – will ultimately make these private decisions.”
Yes, and I’m broadly in favor of that, vs. letting politicians make those decisions. But at some point a zygote becomes a human being and at that point killing it is wrong. Reasonable people can argue about what that point is. (My own views are complicated and admittedly not very clear, even to me.)
“For example, gay marriage doesn’t require anyone to do anything.”
Yes and no. I’ve been to two gay marriages in Tennessee. No one stopped them from getting marriage, so in that sense there is legal gay marriage now. What proponents are arguing for is government recognition of gay marriage, which does require some changes, but the debate is mostly over values. I’d just as soon see the state getting out of the marriage business.
Prayer in schools: I agree with Publius.
On the liberal side of things, there is plenty of nanny statism. Gun rights, food, regulation of property rights, university speech codes, constantly telling businesses what to do, etc.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Thirdpower:
I have argued this before, and certainly don’t mind arguing it again, but having an abortion is a way of taking responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions.
Now, you’re free to disagree, but if you do, then the logical conclusion of your argument is that no woman should ever have sexual intercourse under any circumstances whatsoever unless that woman is willing to become pregnant and carry the child to term, and to undertake all of the responsibilities that come with that.
hypnagogue:
Churches aren’t forced to recognize civil divorce, which is why lots of Catholics have to jump through the annulment hoops they set up (not sure if this is still the case, but it was a couple of decades ago).
Les:
Agreed on abortion. As for “nanny statism” (your term), there are certainly notable exceptions, but I think it’s fair to say that for the most part, self-described conservatives tend to be economic libertarians / civil authoritarians, while self-described liberals tend to be civil libertarians / economic authoritarians.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
“Enforcement” is, in general, a bad thing. Any thing which involves a human using force against another human is a bad thing, until proven otherwise.
Sorry, I’m feeling very grumpy about the Obama election, and am counting cartridges. Drinking a bit, too. I want to be numb when they come for me. Maybe it will hurt less, that way.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:02 pm
hypnagogue, you’re not thinking fast enough. stripping legal weight from the religious institution of “marriage” would have very few practical effects — renaming civil marriage to something that doesn’t have “marriage” in it, and legally annulling any marriage that wasn’t a civil one.
well, okay, we might grandfather in existing marriages. or at least allow currently married couples to file joint statements decreeing they wanted to be grandfathered in, with a deadline of a few years.
other than that, the real effects would be simple: people who wanted to get married would get the civil papers filed, and then pick the religious ceremony of their preference if they gave a shit about religion. people who only did the religious ceremony would not, in the eyes of the state and the law, be married at all.
and that’s just fine, too. it wouldn’t count as living in sin, after all, since the state wouldn’t give a shit. but folks who want to live like, y’know, regular people, would still attach considerable weight and importance to the civil union, that being what would actually make a difference to them.
civil divorce would, of course, continue to exist. and would then, even as it does now, only apply to the legal and secular aspects of marital union; as tgirsch noted, nobody ever forced any churches to recognize divorce at all.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:23 pm
btgirsh/b (you know, if it does not come up in bold, do not correct it. I give up)
Actually, by killing the baby, she is not taking responsibility for it. That is the easy way out. “Problem’ eliminated.”
In the pantheon of rights, what is more important than life? What is she giving up that is worth more than a human life? We all know that there is a reason life is first in ‘life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.’
And what is the ultimate end (purpose, there is that Thomism kicking in) of sex, since a lot of social ills and thrills revolve around this subject? What is the point of sex? The hint, being, that pleasure is not the ultimate purpose of sex.
Furthermore, the baby and the mother is not an adversarial relationship. The baby is the result of the very natural process of sex. It is what is supposed to happen. The ultimate end of sex is a baby, not some a stain in a San Fransisco bathhouse.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Anyone who thinks abortion is “the easy way out” has obviously never had one or been faced with one.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:01 pm
If you step it back to historical ideas that no longer raise such heat, you can see the right/wrong of the issue more clearly. Church of England vs. Puritan, Catholic vs. Arian/Albigensian/Orthodox/Lutheran, Everyone vs. Jew. Give the government power to enforce religious dogma, and your descendants will be ashamed of your actions.
I agree with the Christian Right on abortion and many other issues, but you change peoples minds with moral suasion, not force.
They are only a small step from “Kill them All, God Will Know His Own.”
November 21st, 2008 at 10:08 pm
:bold Anyone that has been a victim of abortion is not alive to complain about it :/bold
November 21st, 2008 at 11:17 pm
“no woman(couple) should ever have sexual intercourse under any circumstances whatsoever unless that woman(couple) is willing to (take the chance of) become (ing) pregnant and carry the child to term, and to undertake all of the responsibilities that come with that.”
Welcome to being an adult.
I’ve known women that would carry a child even in danger to their own lives (my wife for example) and ones who have used abortions as their regular form of birth control.
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:43 am
should the state be allowed to compel you to give up a kidney, and undergo the costs and risks associated with the removal of the kidney, so that the other person might have a shot at life?
Actually, I believe the disconnect is that while the state should not force me to give up a kidney, it should also not let me contract with the other man’s doctor to just go ahead and kill him early.
November 22nd, 2008 at 1:24 am
The libertarian principle is, no intrusion on my property or my person. All of the above should be viewed in terms of property rights-I own myself and my property.
Abortion? Liberals view mom’s right to her body as absolute. Conservatives recognize both mom and the fetus have rights. The latter group recognizes more freedom. Someday women can have an unwanted fetus removed, and safely implanted in another. We’ll see how many conservative women step up and save that life. I suspect they will.
Marriage is a legal convince, with a long history in common law. It’s also a rite in religion. Gays would have no trouble finding a church to perform the rite, so the first amendment applies. The first amendment also applies to what you call it. Outside of court, call it marriage, gay marriage, civil union, whatever. The language is not my property. The dictionary follows usage and not the other way around.
Prayer in schools is about prayer in PUBLIC schools. If public schools were only for people too poor to afford private schools, I’d understand their being secular. But now, they’re for EVERYONE. You tax away everyone’s property in a much larger way, and use it for a public education. If people can’t afford private tuition after that, you’ve robbed them of freedom of how to school their child. The first amendment is both about freedom from imposed religion, and freedom to practice religion.
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
On abortion, either it is a human life and and ending that life would be homicide, (with some rare exceptions for justifiable homicide) and a criminal matter that should be left up the states. Or it is only tissue and it would be a matter between the woman and her doctor. In either case why would this be a federal government issue? Third to stir the pot, that tissue is 50% the fathers, does he have any say in what happens to it? Also is it a good idea to strip parents of there rights when determining if there child is going to have a major medical procedure?
November 22nd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Tom, on abortion, there are some aspects of it that liberals are very much interested in shoving down people’s throats:
- Forcing taxpayer to pay for abortions. That’s hardly a “keep your government off my body” position.
- Taking away parental notification for this one medical procedure. In that case the government is taking away not only parental responsibility, but is actually facilitating a secret medical procedure on a minor. That’s insane.
School choice is another area where liberals are very much against personal freedom and instead in favor of freedom only for those rich enough to afford private schools without vouchers.
It’s not all one-sided, of course. Conservatives, and particularly religious conservatives are likely to push their agendas in schools with prayer and creationism. I didn’t care for the Bush administration’s stance on medical marijuana and indecency on the public airwaves. There have to be limits, but the fine for accidentally saying “fuck” on the radio got ridiculous under Bush’s FCC.
November 22nd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
a different Tom here but Les stated what I was going to.
In the end ALL life is “tissue” so why have any laws on murder at all? Maybe a mother can eliminate that “tissue” she gave birth to at any age. Those that choose abortion, how many pay themselves?
As for people being forced, how about E-harmony and the recent force of NJ courts to mandate they provide a gay matching site?
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
- Forcing taxpayer to pay for abortions. That’s hardly a “keep your government off my body” position.
as things stand, the government only pays for abortions for medicaid/medicare recipients if the health of the mother is in danger or if the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest. I don’t think this is a horrible use of taxpayer dollars.
Taking away parental notification for this one medical procedure
So a victim of incest should have to get their parents permission to have an abortion?
School choice is another area where liberals are very much against personal freedom and instead in favor of freedom only for those rich enough to afford private schools without vouchers.
By this logic, government should have to pay:
-your toll on toll roads (you should have the choice of roads and many of them are free and only the rich can afford to pay the toll.)
-your campaign costs when you run for office (again, why should only the rich be able to make large donations to political campaigns)
-your vacation to the French Riviera (again, why should only the rich be able to afford vacations out of the country when most of us can only afford to vacation locally)
November 22nd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
cows are “tissue” too. vegetarian much?
(all life is “tissue”, but not all life matters. laws against murder are not laws against killing, not even of humans.)
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Isn’t the opposite of “pro-life” “pro-death”?
I’ll start listening to leftists/liberals/secularists talking about abortion when their friends stop tossing babies that somehow survive the process into dark rooms to die.
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Manish,
“as things stand, the government only pays for abortions for medicaid/medicare recipients if the health of the mother is in danger or if the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest.”
Which is fine. However, Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008 support expanding that to cover elective abortions where the mother’s health is not in danger.
“So a victim of incest should have to get their parents permission to have an abortion?”
If incest is proven that would be fine. But simply waving your hand and saying “it could be incest” is insufficient. If the girl is being raped by her parents, she needs to go to court to get out of that situation.
Liberals like to pat themselves on the back for this one – they’re saving a child from having to have an abortion from incestuous rape. Don’t congratulate yourself too quickly.
The liberal view is that it’s OK to abort the baby and send the girl right back to being raped by a relative. That is not compassionate – it’s cruel and indifferent. It treats the baby as the problem instead of seeing rape as the problem and the pregnancy as the symptom.
On school choice, the government already does pay for K-12 education with taxpayer dollars. All that voucher supporters want is the ability to pick the schools their kids go to without having to move to a different school district. The biggest beneficiaries of vouchers would be black families stuck in lousy school districts.
November 23rd, 2008 at 12:24 am
I’m Pro-Choice for the same reason I’m Pro-Gun, it is something which is a nasty business (and no matter how justified, using lethal force in self-defense is not pleasant), but I’d rather have it and never need it than need it and never have it.
Now, I’m all for doing what we can to reduce the need for abortions, but I’d rather we educate them away than legislate them away. I’d also prefer that girls and women have more options open to them. In that vein, I’m gonna run this up the flagpole.
Did you know, in most, if not all states, it is legal for a woman to have an abortion and never tell the father that she was pregnant, but if a woman gives birth and wants to give the child up for adoption, she has to either have the consent of the father, or show evidence that she has made a good faith effort to find and inform the father.
Now I’m sure some of you are thinking, as fathers/potential fathers, this is a good thing, right? I mean, you want to know if you have any kids out there, and you want to be an active, involved part of their life. The problem is, you are also likely the kind of guy who would use a condom, and who would offer to marry the girl should the birth control fail, or who would at the very least want to be more involved than a guy who writes a check every month (because that fucking judge made him) and only sees his kid when it doesn’t interfere with his social life.
In short, you are not as common as you think.
A disturbingly large number of men in our country are utter failures as men, but they are unwilling to let some bimbo they nailed at a club one night give their kid away to a stranger. The woman, however, is left raising a child with little more than a monthly check that may or may not be enough (and he is going to fight that check every month, or if he can make money off the books, he’ll get the amount reduced), maybe some support from her family, maybe some support from his, and probably not much else except her wits.
Now maybe Thirdpower up there thinks she should have been more careful and kept her legs closed if she didn’t want to get pregnant, but that kind of attitude just excuses the man. The REALITY of our society is we REQUIRE that women, legally and socially, care for children while we only legally require men to contribute financially to the upbringing (there is some social pressure to be involved, but it is nothing compared to the social pressure a woman feels for abandoning her children).
So, when those who oppose abortion can tell me how to compel men to accept more than a meager financial obligation to child rearing, or are willing to accept that a woman you are not married to has the right to surrender a child for adoption without your consent, then maybe you’ll have a leg to stand on regarding telling a woman she has to carry a child to term.
November 23rd, 2008 at 11:44 am
Tgirsch, you fail miserably at analogies. In order for your analogy to be correct the woman being forced to donate the kidney would have had to engaged in behavior to that she knew would cause the other’s kidney to fail. In which case it is not nearly as clear cut.
November 24th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
(I stopped reading the comments half way through before writing this; sorry if I stepped on anyone’s toes)
Regarding Abortion/Pro-Life/Pro-Choice:
I have one demand for the pro-choicers: I want, legally instituted, fully available, :i:MALE:/i: abortions. Yes, if :b:Choice:/b: is the goal, I want a fully-implemented legal proceeding for the severance of of paternal responsibility, affinity, and connection that is legally available during the same period of time a female is able to procure a medical abortion. This isn’t a “save the deadbeat dad” provision, this is a balancing of the scales: if the woman can medically abort the entire pregnancy, why is there no provision for a man to sever the paternal ties? After all, if the man wants to have the baby, and the woman does not, the man has no standing to force the pregnancy to term. Reverse the roles, and why can the woman choose to have the baby, but no choice is given to the man whether he wishes to be involved or not (and, should the baby be born, :i:then:/i: you have the “deadbeat dad” situation should he not pony up cash for the next 19 years.
Once this question is answered – once serious legislation to implement this is placed before he respective legislatures, then – and only then – will I believe that the abortion matter is about choice and not :i::b:control:/b::/i:.
As for the other parts of control – if abortion is to be legal (in both medical/female and legal/male varieties) no third parties can be forced to take part. After all, this is about CHOICE, right?
Now, on to the other major area: marriage.
You can be married without clergy present. There is a CIVIL marriage and there is a RELIGIOUS marriage. The State recognizes only the Civil variety. But, you might ask, I had only one marriage, in a church, and so on and so forth. Perhaps – but you did fill out a marriage certificate at the courthouse, correct? :i:That:/i: document is what empowered the clergy to perform the civil ceremony at the same time as they performed the religious one.
The same deal applies here – if homosexuals wish to get married, fine. The marriage they are getting is the civil construct (with the civil benefits and penalties), not the religious one. I do not want the state regulating my religion or anyone else’s; nor do I want the state telling me what can and cannot be done religiously (subject to certain safety concerns – i.e. poisonous snakes, etc). So, fine, allow the Civil package, but the religious institutions can then take or leave it as they wish, by their internal laws.
A commentator mentioned “putting asunder” per religious doctrine. If that is what that particular individual follows, fine, no problems on my end. Just don’t make other people follow the same doctrines when they are not similarly religiously inclined. After all, a Catholic can procure a civil divorce – the religion of the person filing the Complaint for Divorce is not contingent on their religious affiliation. That they may face repercussions with their church (or, with their own beliefs and faith) does not enter the picture: the legal availability is there, regardless of the religious availability or process.
It is about choice – and control. Getting someone else’s control off of you is not license to then attempt to control them in turn.
November 28th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Much of the distaste that more left-leaning people have for guns is due to the cognitive dissonance that conservative gun owners (probably a majority of the gun-owning population) show when they first claim that the government should not interfere in their right to own a firearm, but then support legislation against gay marriage/rights.