What about other being's bodies? Do I own my dog, bought with my money? What - from a liberty standpoint - is wrong with dog fighting? Do women own fetuses? And what about slavery?

I give you William Wilberforce who did more for liberty than you or I ever will.

He was instrumental in abolishing first the slave trade (via large scale government action including acts of war via warships) and then slavery (via large scale government action as well) within the British Empire. He founded the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Yet, as an evangelical Christian who tried to legislate against adultery I'm pretty sure he would have supported the rights of the unborn to keep their bodies.

Liberty for the unborn is real liberty. It's strange to me that making dog fighting illegal works - and it does work, dog fighting was much more common before it was made illegal - yet you seem to think that making late-term abortions illegal wouldn't save the lives of some unborn beings.

In short, I think it's cheap to keep small-government (not no government) socons like me in the coalition. Face it, pro-life is pro-liberty. Without government we would have slavery, the slave trade and dog fighting.

Remember, Simon, a government with enough power to forbid you to own a slave is also a government with enough power to require you to buy one - or be one.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

Tom,

I would suggest that, while slavery was not the reason for the Civil War, it was a huge factor in riling up the North. Look at the recruiting posters of the day. Especially in New England, they're all about slaves in chains and families being torn apart and other horrors of slavery. For the South it might have been minor, but don't you think Lincoln's spinmeisters would have upplayed slavery and downplayed states' rights? Especially since New England states were heavily into autonomy but heavily against slavery.

As for overreaching gov't, that's why we have a Constitution.
Following that has worked better than any other form of government or non-government has ever worked.

No, we haven't followed it perfectly, and that's when things get their worst.

The problem is that people need government, we're not nice.

So far following our Constitution is by far the best system this sorry world has ever seen.
It's when we deviate from it that there have been problems.
Congress gets in on drugs because they might be sold interstate. So even if you grow your own and don't sell it, you're a criminal.
Now, if they want to make interstate sales of drugs illegal, that's a different story, but they didn't do that.
So we have the multi-generational debacle that is the drug war.

Remember, Tom, a government with enough power to forbid you to have an abortion is also a government with enough power to require you to have one.

But I have a proposition for you. IMO the only moral position on the subject is that of the Catholic Church. If the government is going to force women to raise children it should provide generous welfare benefits for the poor to reduce some of the financial burden and give the child a better chance in life.

As soon as I see a movement among the anti-abortion folks to increase welfare for the poor and for unwed mothers I'll change my position. Better get busy.

And the welfare need not be public money. Private money in sufficient quantities will do.

My general position is that smaller government with all the evils that engenders is better. But for this one case I'll change my position if I see sufficient movement in the direction I envision.

Forcing women to have children has its cost. Some one has to pay. Why not the people who believe in force to solve problems? Then if private welfare is insufficient we can get government to force extractions from all citizens to pay for the policy.

As is usual in these schemes force begets force. But hey. This is so important that it is worth it. The pro life community would gladly reduce the support for their children to help raise other people's children wouldn't they?

What I don't understand is why the right to life community isn't already paying women to carry their babies to term.

If the pay was high enough I believe most abortions could be eliminated. I don't know why the right to life community isn't doing this and advertising it.

Of course there is the moral hazard of women having babies just to collect the money. Nothing is perfect. A small price to pay to eliminate one of the premier evils of our time don't you think?

Tom,

Moral socialism inevitably leads to economic socialism.

One example: fathers who abandon their children due to a prohibition conviction. We now pay for not only the father but also the mother and her children.

Once there are enough children of poor people due to anti-abortion laws there will be agitation for the government to support them.

What folks who demand simple solutions (government enforcers) forget is that humans are not machines. As a mass they are more like balloons. Push in one place and you get a bulge in another.

My solution? Stop pushing. Will we get a perfect world? No. Far from it. We will only get a better world with fewer enforcers.

I know nothing I can say will turn you away from your chosen path. Fine. Experience will be your teacher.

And experience is a hard teacher. Some men will have no other.

Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other. - Benjamin Franklin

"Remember, Tom, a government with enough power to forbid you to have an abortion is also a government with enough power to require you to have one."

What a stupid tautological admonishment.

Remember, a government with enough power to forbid you from murdering random citizens is also a government with enough power to require you to murder random citizens.

Remember, a government with enough power to forbid you from breaking into your neighbor's home and stealing his property is also a government with enough power to require you to break into your neighbor's home and steal his property.

Remember, a government with enough power to forbid you from raping small children is also a government with enough power to require you to rape small children.

etc. etc.

"What I don't understand is why the right to life community isn't already paying women to carry their babies to term.

If the pay was high enough I believe most abortions could be eliminated. I don't know why the right to life community isn't doing this and advertising it.

Of course there is the moral hazard of women having babies just to collect the money. Nothing is perfect. A small price to pay to eliminate one of the premier evils of our time don't you think?
"

Why I don't understand is why the pro-drug community isn't just paying off politicians to overturn drug laws.

If the bribes were high enough I believe most drug laws could be overturned. I don't know why the pro-drug community isn't doing this and advertising it.

Of course there is the moral hazard of politicians scheduling votes just to collect the money. Nothing is perfect. A small price to pay to eliminate one of the premier evils of our time don't you think?

star5--

What politician has the character to stay bought?

star4,

The American government on any level has no power to prevent murder. The only power it has is to punish it after the fact if the miscreant can be caught.

There is a LOT of muddled thinking in your exposition.

People think laws prevent things. Well actually prohibition laws prevent nothing. One need only look at the drug war. For kids pot is easier to get than beer.

We assume the law has some deterrent effect. Maybe it does. But people really determined to evade laws generally can. The drug trade is flourishing in America.

But I'm going to assume you are smarter than you let on. A smart person like you surely can find ways to sharply reduce or curtail abortion without government guns. Government enforcers. Government Bureaucracy. i.e more socialism.

Which is why I call your position Moral Socialism.

====

On top of that it is Democrats aborting their babies (mostly). I like Napoleon on the subject:

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

The choices seem rather stark to me. Abortion or an ever larger constituency for socialism.

Which evil do you prefer?

===

Why I don't understand is why the pro-drug community isn't just paying off politicians to overturn drug laws.

Being involved in that I can give you the answer. Not enough money. Big pharma, the alcohol and tobacco lobbies can out bid us.

The way around that: education and organizing. It is working.

Oh Star 4, where to begin? Is it not obvious to you that keeping drugs illegal is in the best financial interest of the growers, manufacturers, smugglers, and also the cops and law enforcement?

C'mon doll, you can do better than this. Pick up your game or stfu.

From the Manhattan Declaration:

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. Christians under Wilberforce's leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.

Simon, if you aren't willing to protect the lives of the powerless you aren't willing to protect the liberties of the powerless. And, since, clearly you don't care about protecting the lives of the powerless I don't believe you will do anything to protect liberty when push comes to shove.

In short, socons are the only true libertartians willing to risk their lives for freedom. Libertines, on the other hand will sacrifice any intellectual liberty for pleasure, like, for example, taking drugs.

Become a libertarian, Simon, by embracing your inner socon. As for your use of the phrase Moral Socialism to label laws as something they are not, it is of a piece with the Democrats who label 'health care' as a right. They seek to abuse the concept of rights by calling their preferences a right. You seek to abuse the concept of socialism by calling anything you don't like socialism.

I have already compromised and met you more than halfway by seeking only to criminalize late-term abortions. And what do I get? Low quality mockery backed by specious arguments. Meh. Become a true man of liberty, Simon, by protecting everyone's body, not just yours.

Yours,
Tom DeGisi

Tom,

You don't get it. The Democrat culture is an adaptation to city life.

The Republican culture is an adaptation to rural life.

And BOTH are exactly the CORRECT way to live in their ecological niche.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/11/the_blue_and_th_1.html

Read the above link.

If you want to bring the whole country around to your point of view there is a simple way.

DESTROY THE CITIES

All of them.

Tom,

You ought to become a libertarian. Libertarians believe the government should have no opinion on culture war issues.

Why? Because the culture required for city living is different from the culture required for country living.

And each considers the culture of the other grotesque.

The Republican Party is doomed unless it can make room for city culture. Why? Because population centers are still growing.

Tom,

By 1900 slavery would have been over in America due to the electric motor.

And you will note that slavery has not ended. It is only gone in places that have ample access to power.

You really want to end slavery? Start building electrical plants in places that are short of them.

Buckminster Fuller talks about energy slaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Slave

Price slavery out of the market.

Tom,

There may be one true God. There is not one true culture.

And that is why the culture war is stupid and dangerous.

Pro Choice is City Culture. Pro Life is Rural Culture.

You start mucking about with that and you will find yourself playing with forces you do not understand. Dangerous.

Unless you are interested in a civil war.