How Pro-Choice Are Democrats?
Tags: Bacon, Existential Dread, Free Speech, Government, Government Failure, Individual Rights, Liberty, Politics, Role of Government, Social Commentary
Wow this was a great video! Those pesky contradictions in ideology. I especially loved the fervor about people having the audacity to choose their own light bulbs. WOW.
Thanks for posting this!
Yeah, I found it a little ironic that across the board they were pro-choice, but supported intervention in things that had far less impact than an abortion would. The term “liberal” has come to mean the opposite of what it once did.
Your point is what?… That if people demand the freedom to choose “if” they reproduce or not they must grant others the freedom to choose between any and all alternatives to anything… or, they are being hypocritical? Somewhat ridiculous, don’t you think?
We are a nation of laws, not beliefs. Having what are called liberal views on some subjects and conservative views on others is not in any way inconsistent with having a coherent and perfectly consistent world view. It is entirely possible for a person to support reproductive rights AND strict speed limits on our nations highways. Maintaining both those views, simultaneously, by no stretch of the imagination, redefines liberalism, or, is even in the slightest “ironic”.
Being anti-abortion and pro death penalty….. Now, that’s ironic!
I really wish WordPress did threaded comments better, but this reply is to you, Mrs. Neutron.
To be honest, I don’t find it somewhat ridiculous at all. To me, liberty is being able to act according to your conscience to the extent that you won’t interfere with anybody else’s liberty (From our previous conversation, I’m not entirely sure if you would agree with this definition; feel free to improve). So, to use the soda example, it would be an infringement to a person’s liberty for government to prevent them from buying soda in the quantity that they want, because government is a third party to the transaction.
The speed limit to me is a good example of proper role of government, actually; Excessive speed can lead to accidents, possibly fatal, and can easily involve somebody who was driving more responsibly (which would be an infringement on that person’s liberty). Something like the soda ban is much further removed.
I’m not intending to redefine liberalism in the modern sense, but at one time being a liberal was closer to a modern day libertarian than it is currently.
On being pro-life and pro death penalty, I don’t support the death penalty, but I can *kinda* see where someone would be coming from. A person who commits a sufficiently heinous crime could be seen as worthy of having his right to life revoked, whereas a fetus never had that opportunity.
We can agree to disagree, I’m sure. The ban on huge sodas, in New York City, is a conservative Republican Mayor’s idea of social engineering. So, you can buy 2, or a six pack of soda if you wish. What I take issue with is your statement… “The term “liberal” has come to mean the opposite of what it once did.”… I think that is a silly statement.
With regard to abortion… I have heard people say that life is sacred, but, I have not seen the evidence to prove that they mean it. From where I sit there are already too many people in the world. A child dies of malnutrition related causes every 3 to 4 seconds, 1.6 million children are homeless in America and one child in five lives in poverty here. How many humans are too many humans? If you don’t wish to attend to that question now, when will you and will it be to late? These are the things that bother me about the “right to life” crowd. Those are the things I find to be the antithesis of conservatism in a planetary sense. That and, of course, the hideous homophobia and scapegoating that so often accompanies the religious. For me liberty begins with control over one’s body. If a woman tells me she doesn’t want and can’t provide for a child I applaud her honesty and champion her right to terminate a pregnancy. The earth does not suffer from a lack of people.
What I will never understand is a person against sex education, freely available birth control, “Planned Parenthood” … AND abortion. The inconsistency is staggering to me. …And yet, fascinating from the point of view of “What it Means to be Human”. We are the creature that “Invents” a reality to comfortably inhabit. Dissociation is our drug of both choice and necessity. The problem, as I see it, is space and resources. When differing cultures and realities begin to rub up against each other… well, I’m sure you watch the news.
I confess, it’s all far beyond my understanding. Never having had or felt even one second of “religion, or religious belief” in my life I’m either the blind man in a world of the sighted, or, it’s the other way around. I prefer the later. But, perhaps my meaning and my fears can be better understood here.
Perhaps I can clarify my “liberal” statement: From the perspective of liberals in the vein of Lord Acton or Frederich Bastiat, liberal meant a belief in the freedom from government coercion. At some point, liberal ideas married themselves to progressive ideas, and while I think there may be some distinction between the two currently, I find the modern liberal to be far more accepting of government intervention.
With regards to planetary overpopulation, I agree that it’s terribly sad that there are children living in poverty, dying of disease and hunger. It’s an enormous contributor to my general feeling of existential dread, actually. However, if a fetus is a human life, as I contend, it doesn’t make it morally justified to terminate it’s life.
I actually agree with you about dissociation, which is one of the reasons why I don’t think anyone can ever have a “perfectly consistent worldview”, to quote your earlier phrase. There will always be something somewhat amiss in our thinking, which is why we are able to change our minds about things and learn.
I am somebody who “Never… had or felt even one second of “religion, or religious belief”, until I did. I didn’t grow up in a religious household, didn’t attend church, and grew up in the Northeast which is rather secular. Nonetheless, I had a paradigm shift whilst in my 20’s. All I would ask of you is that by preferring the latter, you aren’t ignoring the possibility of the former.
I think you are absolutely right about this… ” liberal meant a belief in the freedom from government coercion. At some point, liberal ideas married themselves to progressive ideas, and while I think there may be some distinction between the two currently, I find the modern liberal to be far more accepting of government intervention.”…
In my opinion the reason for this affinity is quite natural. One would not expect a conservative to be as attracted to “progress” as a liberal. As we run out of empty space agreed upon rules of conduct become ever more important if chaos is to be kept at arms length.
Not to belabor a point, but, if overpopulation is “an enormous contributor” to your feeling of existential dread… why on earth would you want to force women to have babies they don’t want and can’t support? I see no “moral justification” in letting the whole ship sink because of a religious belief that there can NEVER be too much of a good thing…. or too many people.
As far as your “paradigm shift” in your 20’s… it isn’t at all unusual. Can you mark precisely when you found the idea of your own extinction so abhorrent that you were forced to conclude that you were, in fact, magic meat and would, if you took the proper precautions and steps, exist forever. [Have you read: “Denial of Death” by Ernest Becker?]
All the best
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
The Existential Christian
Blog at WordPress.com.