Well, your first tip-off that you're on the left on this issue should be that you're getting so many "likes" from self-ascribed liberals and progressives. That should be a clue.
Because naturally, what you say and actually
THINK on an issue doesn't indicate what your ideological vantage point is....its what kind of "Likes" you get :roll:
Second, your logic is flawed.
Peter Grimm is going to tell me about logic. Oh, this should be fun
Conservatives believe that life begins at conception.
Correct
So, abortion is therefore systematic murder. We don't allow people to get away with murder in the name of small government and the government not wanting to get involved.
Incorrect. As a fabled Conservative, Rush Limbaugh, says....WORDS HAVE MEANING.
Murder = Illegal Killing.
Abortion is systematic killing.
Secondly, the fact that its systematic killing and life starts in the room does not in any way negate my argument that this is a violation of the principles of limited government and personal freedom. While we feel that life begins at conception, the law as it stands CURRENTLY is that abortion is legal and the child is not vested with full rights. Which means, despite our significant moral objections to it, it is a perfectly legal and allowable medical procedure. One that we absolutely should work to discourage people from doing, work to keep the government from funding, and work to provide alternatives to people for. HOWEVER, what we should NOT be doing is investing more power onto the government and taking more freedom away from people in the hopes of having a chance, not even a good certainty but a chance, that it may stop some abortions.
If we actually had it legally established that the fetus was a child with full legal rights then there'd be absolutely ZERO issues with defending them just as we would any other child.
HOWEVER, because the simple fact is it is NOT viewed as such at this point what you're doing is establishing precedent that the government has the power to limit our rights as citizens to purchase goods and services by making requirements that have no legal reasoning to be required attached to said purchase. As I said before...do this and you establish that it would be perfectly allowable and within the power of the Virginia State government to mandate that prior to purchasing ANY firearm that an individual must pay for and attend a course about "The Dangers of Firearm Ownership".
There are other, a multitude, of other ways to work towards protecting life that does not do the damage to the notions of limited government and personal freedom. The benefits that come from the pursing of this socially conservative desire do not outweigh the outright damage and utter disregarding of fiscal and governmental conservatism that it does. It is not surprise Social Conservatives, those with such disdain for the other parts of conservatism when it doesn't fit their pet issue and portion of conservative ideology that they ACTUALLY give a damn about, would embrace something that gives the government more power and takes power away from the people when it comes to a pet issue for them. For such people, which you seem to be yourself, PRINCIPLE matters only to you with regards to social conservatism....the rest is something you use only when its convenient to you.
Policing is a function of government that conservatives agree with. We are conservative, not anarchists.
Thanks for enlightening me to a statement that I say routinely. I've never suggested Conservatives are anarchist. But you can not POLICE something that isn't ILLEGAL. And despite us disliking the fact, abortion is not illegal.
You're giving the government power to exert control over the private purchase of goods and services and giving the government power over individuals pocket books.
It all depends on how you define life.
It has nothing to do with how you define life. It has to do with how life is defined under the government currently and thus what that causes to be established by your actions.
