Based on this notion and this argument for the abortion debate, why don't we just mandate everyone that gets married have to have a child? Hell, two children? Apparently the fix to our economic issues is just to make people screw.
because government is not the solution, society is. Government certainly has places where I think we should change our incentive structure (for example, eliminating mariage penalties in the tax code, and altering social welfare programs so that they do not pay you more if you remain a single parent than if you wed). Recognizing that something is
right and
good is not the same thing as concluding that government should therefore
mandate it. Though you are certainly correct that maintaining a fertility rate above 2.1 is critical to the continued economic success of this nation. For much of the post-war era, Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, et. al. have had a fertility rate
well south of the replacement level. Now there aren't enough workers to support the numbers dependent upon the state and social welfare system...
and there never will be. Every 100 Grandparents having their retirement paid for by 42 Grandchildren? You can only run an effective pyramid scheme if you keep adding
increasing numbers of new suckers.
You are mistaking the argument over abortion - recall that the real difference is between whether or not you consider an unborn child to be a human being. for the Social Conservative, saying that you may not kill your child 1 week before it is born is no greater or smaller government than saying you may not kill your child 1 week
after it is born. both are legitimate expressions of the government mandate to protect our natural rights.
There's a lot of reasonable arguments in regards to the abortion debate, but the "Its costing us fiscally" argument is one I jus tnever buy as legitimate.
:shrug: then I would urge you to take a closer look at it, and specifically I would urge you to take a look at nations with low birthrates, and how that has effected their economy.
It assumes far to much in regards to both the people having the abortion, the children that would be born, and the lielihood that said child would've still been concieved had aboritons been illegal. It also an obviously stitched on hollow argument since the notion of how important it is to increase our birth rate is rarely if ever mentioned by the people making the argument in any other instance outside of abortion when talking about the economics of our country
well, yeah. just as nobody spent all their time pointing out that over time the use of free labor would lead to greater per capita productivity in the argument against slavery. the human rights debate takes far precedence to economic concerns. it just so happens that Tessy argued that we would save more money if we didn't have the Pro-Life Movement, and she happened to be wrong.
Also, in regards to same sex marriage, I understand your thoughts regarding our country being one where the people control government as well, rather than instead of, the government just controlling the people. However, at the same time, conservative ideology states that government needs to adhere strictly with the constitution.
indeed, and the Constitution at this point in time seems to clearly leave the matter to the states. however, adhering to the Rule of Law is not the same thing as adhering to the Constitution As Written. Conservatives need not mourn the amendments banning slavery or overturning Abolition. The Amendment process was left with us for a reason, and while I agree that the threshold is rightfully high (bias should usually be against rapid movement), that does not make it inherently wrong.
And whlie some conservatives may not like portions of the constitution, the Equal Protection Clause is still found within it
and since conservatives hold to the legal viewpoing of Original Intent, it says nothing whatsoever for them with regards to marriage.
Its actually this conflict which has shifted me from believing that it should be a state only issue and personally not being in favor of a redefinition of marriage to believing that we need to either rewrite the law or accept SSM on the federal level because I believe constitutionally it's gender discrimination and, despite what Mr. Santorum believes, my morals do not trump the Constitution. But then this of course harkens back to the fact that its hard to really define a "true" conservative because so often various conservative ideals collide head on with each other. When that happens each individual then makes a choice as to how much weight they want to give one ideal or another in that particular scenario.
true. but we need not assign each other false motives for coming to differing conclusions.
