This was my response to someone on their journal essentially making the claim that Ron Paul is a religious wingnut who would plunge our nation into a theocracy
( Read more... )
Great commentary/analysis--just one minor pointlisa_janineFebruary 2 2008, 18:54:44 UTC
"Furthermore, I think his apparent claim that an abortion is never necessary to save the life of a mother or another child to be somewhat specious. While I cannot bring to mind any cases where an abortion was medically necessary, I can certainly imagine circumstances where it could be necessary. Imagination, however, does not a convincing argument make
( ... )
Ron Paul doesn't want the government to impose anything on women's bodies. His position is to keep the federal government out of said decisions. Now, you can argue that this opens up states for abuse, but think of it this way--it's far easier to get pro-choice legislation passed at the state level than at the federal level, and even if a state was to go pro-life, the movings out of state to perform abortion would be a clear sign that said legislation is not working. It would most likely be abandoned.
When has a clear sign that legislation is not working ever meant that such legislation is abandoned? IME, it usually the people backing such legislation usually take it to mean, "that shows that it is a good idea, we just aren't doing it hard enough."
I give you exhibit A: The War on Drugs. Exhibit B: prohibitions against prostitution.
With the question of abortion, such legislation is imposed as a moral value judgement. Morality legislation does not go away just because it isn't working; if it did, 49 states would be looking at Nevada and saying, "Hmm, prostitution is limited to certain areas, incidents of STD's are way down because working girls are checked in order to keep working, less incidence of violence against either prostitutes or clients. Perhaps we should rethink our original position."
When people move out of the pro-life state and stop paying taxes to support that state's government. With our domineering federal government, that normally isn't an option, but if we reversed the power distribution, it would be.
Comments 8
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Ron Paul doesn't want the government to impose anything on women's bodies. His position is to keep the federal government out of said decisions. Now, you can argue that this opens up states for abuse, but think of it this way--it's far easier to get pro-choice legislation passed at the state level than at the federal level, and even if a state was to go pro-life, the movings out of state to perform abortion would be a clear sign that said legislation is not working. It would most likely be abandoned.
Reply
I give you exhibit A: The War on Drugs.
Exhibit B: prohibitions against prostitution.
With the question of abortion, such legislation is imposed as a moral value judgement. Morality legislation does not go away just because it isn't working; if it did, 49 states would be looking at Nevada and saying, "Hmm, prostitution is limited to certain areas, incidents of STD's are way down because working girls are checked in order to keep working, less incidence of violence against either prostitutes or clients. Perhaps we should rethink our original position."
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment