|
November 18, 2010
Letter To A Friend
As you know the abortion discussion has been going hot and heavy here in the last few days. I have written a fair number of posts on the subject lately. Abortion Prohibition is a good example of the discussion. And of course the subject spills over into my e-mail box. So I wrote a letter to a friend. === I am positive you and those of similar opinions (lots of them in my inbox) mean well. But you are a one level thinker. "If the government with my party in power did xxx we would have a much better country." You fail to take it to the second level. What could be done when a party not in power gets control and that party did not have the best interests of the country at heart. Like the current soon to be partly replaced regime. What could an evil party do with the precedent? We see that already with Raich. Wickard was on the way to being overturned (Lopez - gun free school zones case) and then Scalia let his social conservatism overcome his reason. And now Raich will be used to justify the Health Care Abomination. Be very careful what you wish for. Why are engineers mostly libertarians? Because they take second and third order effects into account as a matter of course. "I designed this for a household environment. What happens when it is used in a leaky garage. Or a steamy bathroom?" You are thinking optimum environment. A mistake made by rookie engineers. It takes seasoning to get an engineer think at all times about what could go wrong. So yeah. Banning abortion sounds like a good thing. But humans are involved. American humans. A notoriously obstreperous species. They are famous for circumventing laws they don't like. One of the reasons Alcohol Prohibition failed. Look up Ron Paul on abortion. He is as prolife as it gets. And yet he thinks that at least the Feds ought to stay out of it. And if the Feds stay out of it you can only affect it at the margins because people will travel. And groups (above ground or below ground) will come in to provide funds to the indigent. Once you allow government into women's vaginas how could that precedent be used for mischief? I can think of lots of ways. Even on the State level. TSA cavity screening for instance. Or something that will come up when 200+ million are thinking of the subject. It only takes one - and then it goes viral. Why not contact Rockford Pro Life and tell them the Simon family sent you. My mate and I are friends with some of the members. Find out their program. Repeat it where you live. And get a secular version going too for those who are not religiously affiliated. So much to be done while you waste your time fighting with me. Why do I fight back? I worry about unintended consequences. And think of it. Do you really want women who don't want children reproducing? Darwin in action. In a generation or three and certainly ten we will have women with very strong reproductive urges. Micro evolution in action. Cold? Yes. But the problem is self solving over time if you avoid meddling. We see it already when it comes to lefties. Those are the folks (mostly) having abortions. They have no children to "teach". You want them reproducing? Why? Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake. You are not my enemy. Thus my intervention. === Kathy Kinsley responded to the letter which I also posted in the comments of Abortion Prohibition. Here is what she had to say: === "Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake." Indeed. Thing is, even if they succeed in outlawing abortion, it's still going to go on. Except among the poor, who won't be able to afford them easily. (I speak as someone who was a teenager - middle class - BEFORE Roe v Wade - no, I never needed one, but I knew a number who did. And they all got one - and not back in alleys, either.) All that Roe v. Wade really did was make them more affordable for the poor. The rich got 'd&c for polyps' from their own doctors - they never had any problems at all with 'legal' abortions. The middle class found sympathetic (and quite sterile) doctors to do much the same. Cross Posted at Classical Values posted by Simon on 11.18.10 at 08:19 PM
Comments
Once you allow government into women's vaginas how could that precedent be used for mischief?
The Feds are already involved in abortion up to their eyeballs. You just happen to like the current Fed involvement. If the Feds are going to "stay out of it" the first thing they will need to do is scrap Roe and return the issue to the state legislatures where it belongs. What's the chance that a super-duper libertarian like you will support such a thing? flenser · November 19, 2010 03:37 PM Probably about the same chance there is that someone like me would support the idea that it would have been better to get rid of the sodomy laws state by state than have the Supreme Court do it: http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2003/08/curtains_for_ga.html Eric Scheie · November 19, 2010 04:12 PM Sorry, was that an indirect admission that Roe should be overturned and that you agree with the social cons on that point? I don't doubt but that if push came to shove, you and Simon would have to agree that you are in significant agreement with social cons on a number of important issues. Which makes the fondness for this talk about the government clambering inside womens vaginas all the stranger. flenser · November 19, 2010 04:39 PM flenser, The government can hire quite a number fingers especially for the job. Barring that TSA Agents can do double duty. Yes I do completely agree with socons. The drug question is not in Federal purview. Good to see so many making that point over and over. M. Simon · November 19, 2010 10:32 PM Really flenser, You have to be really smart to be that obtuse. I could never ever be that smart. M. Simon · November 19, 2010 10:33 PM Joseph, I've never heard libertarians bash the founders for being slaver capitalists. I believe the socialists do that. M. Simon · November 22, 2010 04:07 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
November 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2010
October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
I saw you face thieves coming! So hands off my f-ing face!
How long will I be allowed the safety of my own car? Out In Force My Imagination Is Getting Better A Mopping Up Operation A "right" that puts an end to rights I Have Another One A Grinding Mill No sardines and no quarter? Rolling Back Socialism In America
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Someday there will be a last abortion. (Nearly everything becomes obsolete sooner or later.) Fifty years after that, there will be a belated and unnecessary ban. Fifty years after the ban, the sort of person who regards the U.S. as illegitimate because some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves will use the defense of legal abortion by some libertarians as an excuse to bash capitalism.