What I choose to believe is right or wrong is inconsequential to the conversation, since it was asked if Boortz—not me—supports a pro choice position. My personal belief is that abortion is wrong. Yes, I am not for abortion as a libertarian. I also vote Republican unless a Democrat is an honorable rational person that is the better choice (a very rare activity).
I was stating what most libertarians seem to believe, based on googling libertarian websites. But since libertarians can range from anarchists to conservatives, putting Boortz, libertarians, or me into a box is a mistake.
Regarding my freedom to ignore or exercise religion—that’s my right and prerogative NOT THE GOVERNMENTS. No one can constitutionally impose religious dogma, especially when there are 100,000 sects in christianity alone— there’s even two different versions of the ten commandments. And one of my examples is how I perform sexually with my girlfriend or wife or girlfriend and wife. Nor is it your constitutional right to impose dry counties based on a misunderstanding of several scriptures in the Bible. Nor is it wrong to teach that masterbation is a form of birth control, which it is.
I mention this because religious intrusion seems to the habitual act of the GOP when they get into power... something that isn’t conservative or constitutional by definition. And that is what turns many people off.
But I digress, Boortz is simply stating his opinion that certain social issues that have no basis in constitutional discussion and when the GOP rises to power, demand government intrusion in certain areas they have no business being in. Democrats intrude differently.
Is abortion one issue? It is not my position. Is Boortz being contradictory? I don’t think so. Would be nice if we stick to constitutional issues rather than making the government an overbearing Karl Marx, overbearing Hitler, or overbearing Billy Sunday. Stick to basics and idea of limited government will return in all areas.
I consider life inside a womb to be a person who has just as many rights provided by the constitution as the person carrying them. They have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, just like the mother does.
I believe it is a horrible intrusion by government to revoke the rights of one of it's citizens simply because that citizen lives in the wrong place at the time.
Could we not use the same logic simply state that people who reside in Hospice care have no rights and we are free to do as we wish to them? We can declare via Supreme Court decision that they have no rights by virtue of their physical, mental and logistical condition. Which is exactly what we have done with the unborn.
Is it really that great a leap from one to the other? This is not a religious issue, it is a moral issue which becomes fuzzy only when we place our own rights in higher regard than the rights of others.
Government intrusion has no place in the womb or in the private life of the unborn. It is their right to live, NOT THE GOVERNMENTS right to dehumanize them.