Posted on 03/08/2009 5:07:15 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
This Pro-Life, Generation-X Conservative was among the few Gen X’ers just old enough to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984.
I consider myself very fortunate.
It is a failure of Conservatism to portray a “Right to Life” as a purely religious construct. All innocent life has a right to exist. That is regardless the existence of a God or not.
Conservatives lose all credibility to fight every nanny state issue because of abortion. Or are Conservatives for a nanny state when the rules play into their preferences? Why alienate millions of women because of our pro-life stance?
I get furious over the blatant dishonesty in the pro-abortion arguments and justifications. They show time after time how they are the ones with zero credibility
Saying enacting pro-life protections is "nanny government" is as ridiculous as enacting laws abolitioning slavery as "nanny government."
The proper role of government is not "nanny government" but securing our civil rights and liberties from hostiles, foreign and domestic. Therefore, it is the proper role of government to protect all, especially those most vulnerable in the history of our nation, slaves in the early part of our nation, and pre-born children in the most recent times.
Women who understand the concept of civil rights and liberties are easily at-home in the Reagan Conservative movement (pro-life cannot be divorced from the Reagan Revolution as much as pro-aborts attempt to convince otherwise), and on the flip-side, these same women are alienated from the pro-death/slave party the Democrats and their spin-offs parties, but you seldom here about their alienation. The spin is always pointed toward pro-lifers.
Agreed. I also believe it can (and Feminists for Life is a step in the right direction) be framed as a women’s and human rights issue.
Why alienate millions of women because of our pro-life stance?
The false dichotomy is between woman and pro-life - as though the two were mutually-exclusive. If anything, more women are pro-life than men.
Xer Ping
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
I am always appalled, as at a cock fight, a bus crash, or a cancer, when encountering the arguments of these “libertarians” who rail against the illegalization of abortion, and then shift instantly to a discussion of the “moral bedrock” claim that government exists to protect people from “force.”
If there is no God, the only rule is “Do whatever you wish, as long as you can get away with it.”
Roe v Wade should be overturned. If it were to be overturned it would not ban abortion, it would be remanded back to the states, so eachstates would then swt it’s own abortion laws. Liberal states would have liberal laws and conservative states more restrictive laws.
>>It is a failure of Conservatism to portray a “Right to Life” as a purely religious construct. All innocent life has a right to exist. That is regardless the existence of a God or not.<<
I agree 110%. I’m not especially religious, but I’m extremely pro-life. A combination of science and common sense should be enough to make anyone pro-life. It should be self-evident that a being with its own DNA and its own heartbeat - which clearly APPEARS to be a baby on the vivid ultrasounds we have these days - is, in fact, a baby.
Why isn’t this getting through to people? First of all, because pro-choicers have produced such pervasive propaganda framing this as a women’s rights issue and refusing to even discuss the personhood of the fetus. But pro-lifers have let them get away with it by allowing them to portray abortion as a religious issue.
You can’t argue religion to people who don’t believe in religion. “Sanctity of life” arguments mean nothing to secular people. You have to engage them on grounds they recognize: science, logic, and evidence. There is plenty to go around.
After you've dispensed with the unalienable right to live, which other unalienable rights do you want to allow the states to alienate?
Religious liberty?
Free speech?
The right to peaceably assemble?
The right to petition government for redress of grievances?
The right to keep and bear arms?
Trial by jury?
What?
You are so right about the DNA. Though the fetus has DNA which is similar to both of its parents, it is totally unique. The argument that “a woman can do what she wants with her own body” is false because the fetus is NOT part of her body. It’s really more like a temporary parasite that is dependent on her body for a time, but who will soon be fully capable of surviving outside of it.
Because if you have the moral rectitude to MURDER another CITIZEN based upon his or her age, or lack thereof, you pretty much cant be trusted with SQUAT!
Missed Reagan but voted for Bush Sr. I disagree with Keyes in this one. It again tries to shut out the values and morals of the party and what they should promote! My two cents...
I agree. Those who say "there can be no morality without religion" tend to turn it into "there can be no morality without my particular brand of religion." So many young people, who know little about Christianity, assume that ethical questions are not relevant if you do not have a religious viewpoint. They have been trained to see ethical questions about life and death as the equivalent of arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The left has been able to frame abortion as a matter of sexual morality between two consenting adults - the question about whether the unborn child has any rights is ignored.
The left has been able to pose as freedom-loving mostly because they have been allowed to get away with their incomplete view of abortion and a few other issues. Most young people do not see that the left wants a regimented, authoritarian society where almost every personal aspect of one's life is monitored and controlled.
Ok, I'll bite. If religion and other metaphysical moral arguments are out-of-bounds, what makes "personhood" (to use pro-life terms) any more special than the animals that we routinely slaughter for food? If you are just going rely on logic and evidence, then why is it ok to say "this group of unique DNA is more special than that group of unique DNA"?
It seems that each person has their own threshold of what DNA is expendable and what should be kept as special. I'm not sure how you counter this without turning our society into a contradictory pretzel of reasoning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.