Posted on 03/08/2009 5:07:15 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
It’s silly to pretend that secular people don’t distinguish between human and animal life. Both religious and secular people see murder - the destruction of an innocent human being - as an abhorrent crime, where only a small percentage of PETA types see the destruction of a cow or chicken the same way. Our laws reflect that. If pro-lifers put more energy into pointing out that abortion is the destruction of a human being - a being with unique human DNA, not some amorphous part of the mother’s body - more people would be against it.
And I never said religious arguments were out of bounds. For people with some religious background, I’m sure those arguments can be effective. But for those who don’t come from that worldview, it’s useless to argue on that basis. And I think the pro-life movement has severely overplayed the religion card at the expense of other approaches.
Okay, as far as I know about my generation, we have always been to few in number to have the impact of the Boomers or the Gen-Yer’s. Most of my generation has accepted this and pretty much understands that we have very little influence on the way things play out compared to those two groups. That being said, I would think that abandoning pro-life concepts to make nice with the youth would be the end of the conservative party. That is one of the few things that remains that actually is a difference between the two parties.
I would actually like to see them ramp up their efforts to champion pro-life and to point out that we have essentially allowed a massive crime against humanity to occur in America thanks to Roe vs. Wade. They should force the issue to be debated and voted on and quit relying on letting the judges make the laws. Historians will be hard pressed to not compare the crimes against humanity of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao with the abortion industry when all is said and done.
The Republican Party is pro-life in name only now. Don’t kid yourself.
I was right behind you, first voting in 1988. I thought Dukakis made it a blazingly simple, obvious choice, but every single one of my friends thought I was nuts for voting for a republican. Guess they’re the Gen-Xers we should be worried about. :/
Liberty doesn’t exist without the morality of the individual. Period.
This Gen-Xer is pro-life. Many of us are.
Here is something that helps:
Forms of government explained…
This video explains:
Why what most of us are taught about right and leftist
governments is wrong
Why libs honestly think that to be too conservative is to be leaning towards Nazism and why this is not correct
Why most long lasting government s were Republics
What the Founding Fathers said about Democracies vs. Republics
Why 0Bama is trying to get us in an Oligarchy
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment
I’m thinkin’ we’re already there.
Thanks for the post!
This reminds me of a person posting here, I won’t call this person a freeper because they were very, very new here. He argued that we need to give up conservative positions on gay marriage and abortion because he could not convince college students that those conservative positions were correct and the republicans would never win unless they could sway the college students and moderates who believe in abortion and special rights for gays. He also stated that Ronald Reagan’s principles would not be effective in today’s world.
The things I realized from his post were, he had no ability to win a debate or convince anyone to believe conservative ideas because he himself did not believe them. He could not speak conservative because he did not think like a conservative nor could he reason like a conservative.
Instead of being a sign of government interference, protecting life inside the womb is a sign of government consistency. We protect life outside the womb. It is only inside the womb where we refuse to accept the right of govt to do its job protecting its unborn citizens.
Instead of being an invasion of privacy, laws protecting marriage and the family have always had a societal benefit. To bring up children in love to understand the existence of rules, authority, and how we should relate to one another — there is no more ideal place than in a stable family with a mother and a father. Though not all families meet that, a family with a married father and mother is the highest standard for a family.
The state should be allowed to encourage traditional marriage and not forced to create a new set of laws, new set of rules, for marriage, divorce, and dealing with people who will never become one or produce children. In allowing gay marriage, you will have to increase the number of social workers and rules and regulations to protect the children who will never have two parents who are related and connected to them nor will they protect them by love and blood.
I had a discussion with a college student myself who could not understand why gays could not marry. After I explained that as a benefit to society, there was a compelling reason for govt. to have a say in what is acceptable in marriage, they began to understand the conservative position. No one had ever explained that to them before. They did not completely understand, but as I made the argument for limited govt., that there must be a truly compelling reason for govt. to create laws, they understood even more. If we add the fact that the federal govt. has gotten way off track making laws it has no business even deciding, I’m sure gen-x and even gen-y will see the need for limiting govt. reach.
The biggest problem I see is that few conservatives think conservatively enough to be able to present a conservative argument. If you don’t see how social conservatism meshes with fiscal conservatism and limited govt., then you will not be able to make a conservative argument that will convince anyone. Personal responsibility is at the core of each of the pillars of conservatism and personal responsibility comes straight from belief in God. He is the ultimate authority we all must answer to someday.
btt
I turned 18 in time for the 1984 election, too.
I recall my first disagreement about an election—I got into an argument with a classmate in 1980 about who would win. He was convinced Carter would get a second term. I told him he was nuts, Reagan would win.
I was in middle school. Guess this political thing runs deep.
And another GenXer who is Pro-Life here. Any conservative friends my age are the same way.
It is a huge mistake to allow leftists to cast abortion in religious terms. Is religion relevant to abortion? Sure it is. It’s also relevant to other public policy matters like tax policy, the 2nd Amendment, etc., but we don’t support our arguments on those by saying “Jesus said so.” Every pro-lifer ought to be able to make a case against abortion on secular scientific & human-rights grounds.
Actually, I have observed that the liberals actually make more religious arguments on abortion — they talk about how it is impossible to determine “personhood” or when a baby gets a “soul” — these are nebulous, metaphysical concepts that are deliberately injected to cloud the issue. When a liberal starts talking this way, we should cut them off & say that their religious beliefs have no business being codified in law.
Of all the countless times I’ve asked those who argue for abortion (or compromise with it) simple questions about which of their own unalienable rights they’re willing to give up, using their own “logic,” I’ve never had one give an answer. They invariably slink away into silence.
The arguments from equality cuts to the bone.
Which of course is in keeping with the stated purpose of our Constitution: “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND our posterity.”
The Founders put the rights of those not yet born on an equal plane with their own rights.
“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”
“For the most part, Generation X leans to the right when offered Reagan Conservatism; it’s when the religious right shows up, most check out.”
Speak for yourself.
I think secular people do distinguish between human and animal life, but the reason they do is based on convenience, not logic. Pigs, for example, are happy when you pet them. They squeal when you cause them pain. They eat, sleep, reproduce - all on their own. They are alive in every sense of the word. What makes killing them for food more ok than killing an unborn baby?
Again, I think it comes back to a threshold of convenience that each person has, which is entirely subjective and not based in logic at all. It is OK to kill animals for food because its an efficient way to get calories, and its ok to kill an unborn fetus because that kid may put a crimp in the plans of its parents.
I disagree - while there are immoral and amoral people whose values revolve only around their own convenience, there are many secular people who have a strong moral code and place inherent worth in human life over animal life. You can argue with the logic of that - Where, you might ask, can we derive that worth, or any values at all, if not from a higher power? - but that’s not my point.
My point is not philosophical; it’s practical. I still contend that most people don’t think it’s okay to kill an innocent human being. The challenge of pro-lifers, then, is to show them - in scientific terms that everyone should be able to agree upon - that the fetus IS a human being.
If we put more energy into this approach, it would also be more difficult for libs to dismiss us as religious wackos - which they have done successfully - and don’t tell me you don’t care what they think. We are trying to save lives, and PR matters. If we let ourselves be painted as a bunch of Bible-thumpers, many people will ignore our message, and more babies will be destroyed.
Exactamundo! Roe v. Wade’s violation of basic precepts of federalism is its greatest flaw.
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.