reply to post by filosophia
Calling Ron anti-personal freedom may not have been the appropriate phraseology. I'm not entirely sure I'll be able to really clarify this, but
I'll give it a shot...
It's not so much the he is anti-personal freedom, I guess, but more that I disagree with him on some roles of the federal government.
Regarding the abortion issue, he's against it, which is fine (so am I, btw). Where we differ is that for me, the damage to society of an unwanted
child being brought into the world FAR outweighs the damage of the mother having an abortion.
Some argue that a fetus is a human from the time of conception. As with animals, we don't really know. What we do know is that for a significant
length of time, a fetus is a clump of cells with the potential to grow into a human. If that clump of cells is aborted, maybe a concious, sentient
entity has been killed, maybe not. We do not know.
What we do know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that if an unwanted child is brought into the world, they are likely to be abused from the get-go, and
quite possbily eventually raped and killed at age 7 by the fifth Uncle Bob they've had. And a 7 year old child is definitely, beyond any argument, a
concious sentient being.
To me, the second scenario is a far greater crime, or sin, or whatever term you wish, than is the abortion of that unwanted fetus at an early
stage.
And if a poor person is in this situation, whether through their personal irresponsibility or due to the fact they cannot get viable birth control due
to costs, I don't care. I'd rather spend some of my tax money subsidising the abortion than subsidising the result of an unwanted child.
Ron, if I'm understanding his position correclty, disagrees. But yes, the phrase anti-personal freedom was probably inaccurate.
Let's take the other hot item... gay marriage. Ron says let the states decide on a per state basis. But as mentioned in my OP, this is prohibited by
the US constitution, which states that all citizens of all states are guaranteed equal protection under secular law. So if a state has a legal
contract called 'marriage', it must be applied to all citizens of the age of majority, without regard to their respective plumbing.
To me, this guarantee of rights is every bit as important as the guarantee that all citizens in all states have the same right to vote. That is also
guaranteed by the federal constitution, and prevents a state from saying women, blacks, latinos or gays are not allowed to vote in that state.
These two rights, and others, are guaranteed by the federal constitution, and it is the job of the federal gov't to enforce them in all states.
I'm not sure I've clarified, here, I hope so...
