Some one asked in a comment if at the very least Social Conservatives and Republican libertarians couldn’t agree on no Federal funding for abortion? As a small government guy, I’m absolutely on board with that.
Now my social conservative friends let me ask you a question. Do you see the perniciousness of instituting Vagina Police?
I do like the approach of this anti-abortion group. The short version: “It is none of the government’s business. We can solve social problems without government help. Thank you very much.” I liked their attitude so much I blogged them. If you click the links you can get to their www site to help with their efforts. And where did I meet these people? At a TEA Party.
The iron rule of government: “Every power you give the government to do good will eventually be used by the government to do evil.” A close reading of the Bible (which my social conservative friends claim to be experts on) shows this to be true. Didn’t Samuel say that appointing a king would be a BAD idea? Yes He did.
4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
5 and said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.
7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10 And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king.
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.
Now as I understand it the Israelites wanted a strong central government to combat the sons who did not walk in the way of the Lord. And Samuel said: this is a very bad idea – on practical grounds. And the people said: but every one else is doing it.
Well, whether you believe in the Lord or not, I think the advice is quite practical. You make the government bigger and stronger and it will steal you blind. Even if your intent is to apply the rod of correction to errant children.
Now of course reaching errant children one at a time instead of collectively through the force of law is longer and harder. But way more sure. Why? Because they will teach their children, who will teach their children. As time goes on the effort gets easier. With government? Well you know how that works.
One example I like is The Drug War. When Nixon ramped it up it was costing on the Federal level $100 million a year. Now it costs about $25 billion a year. About 250 times as much. Even adjusting for inflation that is a huge increase for not much or no improvement in the situation. Think of it. There are two grow op stores in my town of 150,000. They have been operating for 10 or 15 years. There were none when Nixon started ramping the war. Some progress.
Well, Samuel is still speaking to us. If we have the wit to listen.
Cross Posted at Power and Control
Comments
15 responses to “My Abortion Politics”
Actually the Israelites were complaining just that they had no confidence in Samuel’s sons as just inheritors in the mantle of leadership as prophets of God and members of the priest class administrators. In this they were already judging the governing structure of Israel according to the measuring stick of the kingdoms surrounding them, since their history to that point is a recounting of special Judges anointed by God to lead in times of distress, interspersed among less noted period of priestly administration of the Law. In other words, the Israelites were concerned about secular succession in a system that was designed not to have that feature.
What they wanted was a strong, central leader who could finally break the back of the Philistines, to whom they had been reduced to a vassal state. They wanted to make the word of one man the (inherently changeable) law, rather than following the set Law of Moses, as administered by the priests and occasional Judge. Big difference.
Social conservatives would do well to spend more time in the Old Testament, and less in the New–remembering that Jesus came to “fulfill the Law, not do away with it.” The Christ was prophesied because even the people to whom the best instructions were given would not be able to keep them, and run off to abuse others and create chaos (ie. the book of Judges).
The Federal government’s business? –staying out of moral issues and focusing on its constitutional mandate. If the people of a state want to pass laws on abortion that may or may not be in their power under the state constitution, but at least the people can leave the state if they dislike them.
–JC
To that I would add that even though I support legalization, there should be no entitlement to free drugs.
It may sound funny, but I will never forget the way that whenever he was asked to weigh in on drug legalization, Charles Rangel (who was against it, of course), would loudly harrumph, “But who’s gonna pay for these drugs?” It was inconceivable to him that anything could be legal without the government paying for it. But in his twisted way, he made sense. If food and housing and abortions and medical care are “rights,” then some taxpayers should be paying for them so that the others can have them.
Hah. My response (which agrees with you, Eric) came out too long for a comment, so it’s here.
Regards,
Ric
Thanks JC.
This is a clear argument for anarchy.
That is not actually a put down. I have been taking anarchism a little more seriously … partly because of pro-choice arguments. To the extent they make sense, they are arguments for anarchy.
On the other hand, a War on Abortionists makes at least as much sense as a War on Terrorists.
Many think we have an ongoing debate about “abortion.” We don’t. There is no argument about abortion. There is an argument about when life starts. That’s all.
Rhetoric about “vagina police”* and whatnot is superfluous and irrelevant.
(* And wouldn’t it be “uterus police,” anyway?)
Just to clarify: “Vagina police” rhetoric isn’t so much irrelevant as it is begging the question.
It proceeds under the presumption “This is not murder,” when “Is this murder?” is actually the very issue being argued.
Tom,
Uh. No. That is not my point. I will concede abortion is murder (although from my informal “surveys” it seems the consensus is “misdemeanor manslaughter and the woman goes free”)
What I question is the kind of enforcement that will evolve from putting the government in charge of abortion. I take Drug Prohibition as my model. i.e. drug testing, 3 AM SWAT team raids, shredding the 4th Amendment further, etc.
We will get vagina police when it turns out “regular” law enforcement hardly puts a dent in the black market. And there will be a black market, and menstrual extraction parties, and RU-486 and stuff I haven’t even thought about (a black market in birth control pills for “the morning after” is another one).
Why go that route when changing minds is really the best way to improve the situation?
I swear. “Conservatives” who can not think of any way to solve problems other than government guns are as bad in my mind as the fookin liberals.
I call those kinds of “Conservatives” – Cultural Socialists.
Your remarks about conservatives are… interesting, I guess. But I’m not sure what is prompting them and their accompanying frustration (“I swear”), because I’m certainly not a conservative.
Unlike you, I don’t concede that abortion is murder. I’m not sure when life starts. If I did figure it out, though, and consequently deemed abortion to be murder, then I’d expect society to address it as it addresses any murder. If I weren’t to expect that, that would indicate I don’t actually consider it murder. At that point I’d need to step back, revisit my logic, and figure out what I actually do consider abortion to be.
That’s what you should do, because while you claim abortion is murder, your argument proceeds as if it’s not. If after reexamination you settle on, say, “misdemeanor manslaughter,” then we’re back to square one, and you’ll need to explain why “human being deliberately killing other human being” is not murder in this case as it is in others.
Now, whether the thing we call “murder” should be addressed with government guns is a different question altogether. But if Action X and Action Y are both the thing we call “murder,” then they get addressed as murder — whether or not that way happens to involve government guns.
Your post did not seem to be about how society should address murder generally — e.g., with or without government guns — so I don’t think my initial comment missed any point.
Tom,
My concession was for the purpose of exploring the enforcement issue.
BTW very few in my “survey” were willing to go the Murder One route although it in fact fits the definition. The few who said “Murder One” also said such legislation was at this time politically unfeasible.
I’d say we pretty much agree although coming at the question from different angles.
i.e. there are lots of reasons why outlawing abortion is a bad idea.
My views are in line with yours. I believe abortion is a mortal sin, and I will do everything I can to convince anyone I know not to participate in it. That includes demanding that the tax dollars I pay in not fund it.
I won’t, however, advocate throwing pregnant women and doctors in jail over it.
EL Phelps,
If you know of a group that is doing work in that area (ant-abortion, anti-state intervention) leave a link here or at any of my posts and I’ll write something.
There is of course the link above – to a group in my town of 150,000. Libertarian thought has always had a strong presence here.
There is an argument about when life starts.
Isn’t the argument over when legally entitled personhood should start? Animals and plants are alive. Sperm is alive, and so are eggs. So for that matter, is a skin cell. But the argument is made that once the sperm and egg join (or once a scientist rejiggers the skin cell so that it can start dividing into a blastomere), then that is now a person with full legal rights, and throwing the test tube on the floor would be murder. So would many forms of contraception.
I think that violates common sense.
The question in its most simple terms is: when is an acorn a tree?
I’m still trying to figure out the uproar over a problem for which the consensus punishment is misdemeanor manslaughter and the woman goes free.
Seriously. If abortion is murder it is murder one. Premeditated with an accomplice paid by the instigator – who goes free. Wha?
I mean seriously. Can’t any one think outside the slogans on this question?
I’m sure reasonable people could agree. If there was any reasoning going on.