As Roe vs Wade is slowly chipped away at by the federal government, I wonder what will happen with abortion is America.
Will the federal government outright ban it? Or will the overturning of Roe vs Wade result in mass outlawing of abortion nationally?
Here's the thing:
I support a woman's right to have an abortion in my state or anywhere else. The thing is, as a practical libertarian I know that many other people vehemently disagree with me, and that they have the right to vote the opposite. Moreover, I also don't believe the federal government should be regulating abortion at all.
Here's why:
Abortion is a complex social issue with a myriad of positions that one could take. A planned society, a society wherein a framework of social uniformity is legislated from the central government, cannot address complex social issues adequately. Anti-abortion agenda finds its way into different states' legislation constantly, the government flip-flops on it (all the while continuing to take our money and use it for its consistent moral changes), and we end up with this ugly courtship.
The United States government has evolved into a massive central power that focuses ever more on the planned society. Things are further exacerbated by the two party system. Whatever social programs the next president begins, or renews, etcetera, are the the whim of the next president, who may be of the other party. This president will let those programs degrade, or he/she may cancel them all together.
Some of us will shake our fists. Others will cheer.
In the end, the status quo will continue, and the change so many of us want to see within our society will never come about. They will only ever be hinted at. If we think local, however, then we can begin to truly help shape our society. In a free society the communities that vote for freedom of minds and bodies, are the ones that flourish.
Is it utopia? There's no such thing. In fact, that word sounds like a turd. I refuse to use it anymore.
It would, however, allow those of who do believe in progress to have more effect on the immediate world around us: our towns, cities, counties and states.
Morality cannot be legislated. Central planning assumes that it can, and will be. When aggression is used, it is resisted.
In short, the federal government does not have the right to regulate abortion. It is too complex of an issue, and the citizens, for better or worse, have to work it out.
Ayn Rand, Nihilisme, dan Egoisme
5 hours ago
3 comments:
You know what was a complex issue at the time? Slavery. As were Jim Crow laws, sufferage, and most of the civil rights legislation that are now the foundation of the modern US. If people with your same ideas had their way in the days of abolition, and had selfishly cried "states rights!" there would still be slavery in this country, there is no question (it was after all the economic corner stone for much of the South).
So, are you saying you would support individual states rights to allow slavery? To ban women from voting? To allow child labor? To execute homosexuals? To oppress people simply because they can? Because whether you like it or not, that is what you are saying. But we don't live in a democracy, where mob rule allows atrocities such as this, we live in a constitutional republic, and as outlined in the constitution, the federal government not only has a right to insure the general welfare, but they have a responsibility to enforce it, even if it goes against a majority (as it did when the civil rights laws were passed).
The ability to find and have a safe abortion for a pregnancy is a matter of public health, too many women died when this wasn't the case, and therefore it falls easily under the jurisdiction of the general welfare.
And try to remember Dr. Kings words in this, 'Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere". It's clearly not all subjective, a simple difference of opinion is not enough of a reason to allow people to act however they want, some ideas are simply demonstrably wrong, and have no place in deciding the governing of the lives of others. Slavery proponents were wrong, misogynists were wrong, creationists are wrong, corporatist are wrong, libertarians are wrong, anti-choice zealots are wrong, homophones are wrong. Just because they happen to think differently does not give credence to their opinions.
The more your views are injected into the public domain by market activists (which you constantly and incorrectly confuse with government), the worse poverty gets, the greater income disparity gets, and the more the rate of abortions increases. That should hopefully give you pause, as should the fact that it wouldn't be the first time your newly and eagerly adopted views have lead to ruin in this country.
Another thing you're not considering, and that you really should, since contradicting logic is one of the great failures of libertarianism (aside from the historical fact that it has always failed horribly), but you are arguing against your own tenets of this new and bizarre religion of yours. What you're essentially arguing for is LESS freedom. Because government inaction in this case (leaving it up to states) would mean the LOSS of freedom, the LOSS of liberties, the LOSS of choice for individuals, and the LOSS of peoples ability to determine their own destiny. It would take federal government action to ensure these freedoms from the bigots who want to remove them (the ones you are siding with). So your stance is completely hypocritical, unless of course you're not actually on the side of liberty, but on the side of the strong crushing and oppressing the weak.
With this argument, you're either one or the other.
Love,
Your Own Personal Jesus, and SocioEconomics Professor.
Thanks for letting me troll you :)
Slavery was already outlawed in much of the Union prior to the Civil War. Lincoln entertained buying up all the slaves then freeing them (which is what other civilized countries have done when abolishing slavery) but instead chose to wage a war that killed 600,000 people. Read his papers.
The central government plays an important role in the country, I am not arguing against that.
I have ever argued as a minarchist, not an anarchist. It is not contradictory to say that the government can abolish slavery, that the government can keep states from allowing child labor and executing homosexuals. I do not argue for anarchy (which is what you are arguing against) which can imply that the central government does nothing, or further, ceases to exist.
In fact, there is no civilized government in the world that simply does nothing.
You're right, abortion is a public-health issue. But what you keep averting your eyes to is the stark reality that conservative states will continue to create laws working their way around abortions. And if you propose to take that right away, what other rights are you willing to give up/take away? Progressive states were winning with slavery in the Union, and they would win with regulation of abortion.
Every scenario you described goes against the non-aggression axiom, therefore allowing the government to intercede. Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson didn't trust big government, but they still knew it played an important role for the nation.
As for the historical record of libertarianism in action, well, all I have to say is that the powers that be will never allow a system to exist that redistributes the power and wealth. Again, what you argue against is complete government inaction, which is not in accordance with my minarchist liberatrian philosophy, and therefore not compatible for this discussion.
I'm not Ayn Rand, dude. Leave me out of your weird fantsies. :-)
I'd also like to add that to even begin to think about the betterment of society so that we don't need so many abortions in the first place, and I will always return to this, the government must assume a humble foreign policy of non-interventionism, thereby saving incredible large sums of taxpayer's money, and then begin to chip away at the income tax.
When you let people keep more of their money, they take more control of their own destines. It's just how things work.
But ours is the road to serfdom. Just because we live in a Republic, it doesn't mean that so much power needs to funnel to a small group whose morals shift like the wind.
Post a Comment