The point here is the "slippery slope" that I know you think doesn't exist...Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Person A wants legal abortion
Person B wants universal healthcare
Person A wants to have a medical procedure without restriction
Person B wants to have a medical procedure without restriction
I'll break it down real simple-like...
It doesn't matter what the current government allows, or wants, or approves of. The point is control. If you give the government the power to control, you're setting yourself up to follow that to its indeterminable end. When the government you want is in place, that's a good thing for you...when the next government comes along, it's not going to be good for you.
Only by standing closely to our Constitutional Rights...and nothing more, or less...are we able to avoid both extremes. I know we started this whole project hundreds of years before any of us were born, and it's really hard for someone born this late in the project to grasp the global scenario going on when all this took off, or a lot of the reasons why we have the things we have...but it is all there if you actually care enough to spend a little time researching.
The point I think Tg was trying to make is, the huge Women's Lib/anti-abortion movement wants government out of their lives when telling them they can't have abortions...but wants them IN their lives to tell employers they have to pay for such. On the face that seems like a conflict of interest, and it is. It goes back to what I said before...either you give them control or you don't. Instead of lobbying for new laws that give whatever government more power, start lobbying for limiting power back to the 1800's.
Government isn't a computer. It's not a ground-breaking laser treatment for cancer. At its core, it's based in logic, and nothing more...logic that is timeless. It is one of the few things where new isn't always better. Quit trying to change it and focus more on using it the way it was intended.
The only reason abortion is an issue is because people disagree on when a life becomes a life. To abortion proponents, I think I can safely say the VAST majority would be completely against a mother killing their 6-year-old child...or even their 1-year-old child...but have no problem killing a fetus. I'm not at all a religious person, but to me, as soon as that seed breaks in to that egg, that's a person, unless there is some known medical condition that would otherwise prevent and/or seriously complicate that fetus growing to birth. The issue here is that while that fetus doesn't yet know it is a person...we know that it will be. That line of reasoning is invalidated by the fact that you're not allowed to kill someone with advanced Alzheimer's.
Reply With Quote
