I guess if you're just a social Conservative, then having a lot of government wouldn't bother you. If you're a small government Conservative and a social Conservative, then it would make sense to me that you would try to find a way that would limit abortion in a way that wouldn't conflict with your small government views.
Again, one can be a governmental conservative and view that the government can still function in its specifically authorized tasks, which protecting individuals from another individual killing them is one such thing. Its not against governmental conservatism to be in favor of a government program that attempts to curtail murder by making it more difficult for the person who has the specific stated intent to kill.
Yes, there are ways I'd prefer limiting abortion that don't grow government, but I consistently prefer small government. If those are the only two questions that are important to you on this issue, then you're only thinking like a social conservative.
I'd prefer that too. What you'd PREFER doesn't mean its the ONLY thing that that fits. And no, you're thinking like a conservative whose primary concern is social but is respectful to what the governments role is. If not being conservative in EVERY facet of conservatism equally makes someone "somewhat" conservative there are a **** TON of libertarians on this board that need to stop considering themselves to be conservative.
Most abortion activists don't consider abortion murder either.... See, I can dismiss your argument just as easily..
It would help your attempts to dismiss my arguments if your dismissals make sense. Pro-Life people are to Gun Control people as Pro-choice people are to Gun Rights people. Yes, abortion activists don't consider abortion murder, but what an abortion activist thinks is 1) irrelevant to the discussion of what CONSERVATIVEs think and 2) doesn't change the fact that a conservative viewing abortion as murder does not have to equally agree with Gun Control folks based off singularly the notion of "rights".
Your dismissal is illogical and irrelevant to what I'm arguing. Its like dismissing me by saying "Yeah! Well the cow is brown!"
In the gun example I'd dare say the majority on BOTH sides do not consider owning a gun means you're going to kill someone. In the abortion debate, the majority of both sides do not have a similar understanding.
Or, I ask again, are you suggesting that most pro-gun control individuals think owning a gun means you're going to kill someone?
Likewise people argue that abortion can be legal but unnecessary.... Keep abortion legal, just work to eliminate it from society by addressing other needs.
Yes, people can absolutely argue that. Where did I say that they couldn't? Again, you've failed to give me a clear reason why you can't come to this conclussion from a conservative view point. All you've told me is how you disagree with it or you think there's BETTER ways.
You see, you're just dancing around actually addressing the point I am trying to make. SD wants to eliminate access to abortion... They want to make receiving an abortion very inconvenient, to the point that it will be too much of a hassle. These people want abortion illegal.
Yes, the people pushing this law, if they had their way, absolutely would like to see abortion illegal. Where have I denied that? Where have I argued in any way that that's not the case? I think I've said routinely through this thread they view the act similar to murder. That's not the "extreme" activists in the group, that's the majority of pro-lifers. Most pro-lifers would like to see abortion illegal.
An extreme anti gun activist is the same way... they view access to guns as a threat and adverse to society. Guns are bad things. They kill people. You don't want them around. They want to eliminate access to guns completely, much like these anti abortion activists hate anybody getting an abortion. It doesn't matter a lot of times.... rape, incest, health.
Yes, EXTREME anti-gun activists want to see guns taken away. Your average, run of the mill, majority of anti-gun advocates generally want stiffer controls and not all out bans. Even then, as I said, are you SERIOUSLY ... I'm asking YOU to stop dancing as you accuse me of doing ... suggesting that the majority of anti-gun activists believe that OWNING a gun will automatically lead to killing someone?
And I laugh every time you give the rape exampe, because you again completely miss the point and show you have no desire to actually even ATTEMPT to understand what I'm saying. If a woman is raped, gets pregnant, has the child, and then determines everytime she see's the child she thinks of the rapist and thus kills the child....would that be okay to you? Because to the people who view the fetus as a child, that is
zero% different than a woman who is raped, gets pregnant, determines everytime she will see the child she'll think of the rapist and chooses to abort the child. You may think that's ridiculous, but again...you're worthless addition of it into the debate again and again is based not on logic, not on reason, not on good debate, and purely on emotion of going "Rape! They're mean to rape people! THEY'RE BAD!!!!!! RAPPPPE!"
I am not against guns... You're entitled to your opinion on abortion. I understand that side of the debate.... However, I don't think this law represents small government Conservatives. It does please the social Conservatives though.
Someone who is JUST a small government conservative is no more or less conservative then someone who is JUST a social conservative. If you're suggesting someone that's just a social conservative (which I don't agree with you in this case that this type of person would be) is someone that is "somewhat conservative" then you'd have to suggest the same to someone that is just a small government conservative. Yet I don't see you or rough ever advocating that notion.
