Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Sloth
Pro-lifers generally would support such a ban... but with abortion available up until birth, protecting embryos is not even close to being on the table right now. So it doesn't constitute a wedge issue.

On the contrary, banning abortion is what's currently not on the table due to Roe V. Wade. There is no constitutional right to use human embryos in experimentation, however. A ban on such experimentation would very likely be upheld in the courts, since it would not conflict with the legal rights of another human being, as an abortion ban would. Yet, we hear nothing from pro-life groups about this issue.

I would say that very few social conservatives care much for sodomy laws. Many criticized the Lawrence vs. Texas decision, for instance, not out of a desire for sodomy laws so much as disgust over the judicial intrusion of one's sexual likes and dislikes into the Constitution.

You may not support sodomy laws (if so, good for you). However, many religious right groups support them quite vigorously. Just one example would be the debate in Arizona a few years ago over whether to repeal that state's sodomy law. Religious conservatives mobilized in an attempt to defeat the repeal.

Most are only interested in protecting children from inadvertent exposure to these things, for the same reason that we have laws against walking down the street nude. Almost nobody cares what you do in your house.

No, it's not about protecting the children. Children can't patronize a strip club or rent a porn video. There are groups on the religious right who's primary mission is to close these businesses down.

You sound like you're not a hardcore social conservative. If so, I congratulate you for respecting the right of other adults to live as they please. However, don't try to excuse those who really do wish to use the power of the state to crush lifestyles they consider sinful. I can assure you they do exist and they're disturbingly influential.

12 posted on 10/13/2006 1:35:05 PM PDT by BearArms
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: BearArms; Sloth
It is my sense that since the time of Reagan, the political positioning of virtually all social conservative groups has gotten more sophisticated, in a number of ways, including quietly incorporating "enough" libertarianism.

Among the rank and file, as seen here, there are varying degrees of appetite for outright bans. Go back 20 years, you can see where social conservatives said what they thought, and they were fried for it. Take for example Frank Zappa appearing on CNN with Bob Novak and some unfortunate guy from the Washington Times discussing "profane" rock lyrics. To the extent what the guy advocated sounded like censorship, encroaching on free speech, noone would listen to him. You wouldn't see that today.

14 posted on 10/13/2006 2:52:47 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: BearArms

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1719082/posts?page=40


15 posted on 10/13/2006 6:49:52 PM PDT by KDD (A wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: BearArms
Sorry for the delay, took a while to get around to replying to this.

On the contrary, banning abortion is what's currently not on the table due to Roe V. Wade. There is no constitutional right to use human embryos in experimentation, however. A ban on such experimentation would very likely be upheld in the courts, since it would not conflict with the legal rights of another human being, as an abortion ban would.

I suspect that the pro-abortion lobby would fight tooth & nail in both Congress and the courts to ensure that such a thing wouldn't stand. And it just wouldn't make any sense to pursue it from that end. If a almost fully-developed fetus, with brain waves & a heartbeat & the sensation of pain cannot be legally protected, then what argument could be made that tiny embryos deserve any more protection?

Yet, we hear nothing from pro-life groups about this issue.

OK, so what are you complaining about? Obviously this issue is NOT driving any wedge between the 'Religious Right', the country club GOPers and/or the libertarians.

You may not support sodomy laws (if so, good for you).

No, I do not.

However, many religious right groups support them quite vigorously. Just one example would be the debate in Arizona a few years ago over whether to repeal that state's sodomy law. Religious conservatives mobilized in an attempt to defeat the repeal.

The link you provide mentions less than 4,000 e-mails received about the matter, in a state of 5,000,000+, in conjunction with a campaign involving scare tactics about lowering the age of consent to 12. In other words, I think that the data you provide *support* my contention that it is only a small, albeit vocal, minority of "social conservatives" who really want to pass laws about where other people stick their assorted appendages.

No, it's not about protecting the children. Children can't patronize a strip club or rent a porn video. There are groups on the religious right who's primary mission is to close these businesses down.

True, but a lot of these people just don't want it in their town, and don't much care about whether some other city has such a thing. In other words, it's not some grand desire to control what other people are doing, but to control the environment they live in.

You sound like you're not a hardcore social conservative. If so, I congratulate you for respecting the right of other adults to live as they please.

I find this comment somewhat insulting. I AM a hardcore social conservative, and I DO respect the right of other adults to live as they please. And I am hardly alone in that respect. As far as my social conservatism goes, let's see... Elective abortion = premeditated murder all the way back to conception, unrepentant homosexuals are sinners bound for eternity in Hell (along with adulterers, all non-Christians, etc.) -- even most so-called Christians are condemned because they don't follow the Bible closely enough -- I'm a prude about sexual content in public venues or airwaves, I value the traditional family structure, and so on. Is that enough to establish my credentials?

Many of the people I know who share those beliefs and are politically aware call themselves libertarians (small L) or in a couple of cases, anarchists / anarcho-capitalists. The rest are Republicans who are not going anywhere else, partywise. I consider myself a minarchist -- I support national defense, preferably funded by sales taxes, but that's about it the Federal level. I would be quite content with a government that abided by the Constitution.

However, don't try to excuse those who really do wish to use the power of the state to crush lifestyles they consider sinful. I can assure you they do exist and they're disturbingly influential.

I'm not excusing them, I'm suggesting they are not the force you make them out to be. Politicians who think so and pander to them are making the same mistake as you, and many on the left -- hearing the loud voices of a few pseudoreligious fascists, and assuming that they represent a large theocratic movement.

You said earlier: "...they don't seem to mind the Republican Party spending this country into the ground as long as they get their anti-abortion, anti-gay, and anti-sex priorities addressed."

Can you provide even a single quote from any mainstream socially conservative pundit or interest group -- even the relatively anal retentive ones, like the American Family Association -- that express pleasure or even tacit approval over the spending of the current administration?

16 posted on 10/16/2006 8:31:05 PM PDT by Sloth ('It Takes A Village' is problematic when you're raising your child in Sodom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: BearArms
On this point the question is, why don't the social conservatives favor a total ban, not only on private embryonic stem cell research, but on all private scientific or fertility treatment related uses of human embryos that result in the destruction or discarding of such embryos? If these embryos are human persons as valuable as you or I, why don't social conservatives believe they are deserving of legal protection?

Pro life conservatives oppose the destruction of innocent human life period. Those that support the destruction of innocent human life are currently labeled as pro choice. Like you.

17 posted on 10/16/2006 8:37:44 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson