Thursday, October 14, 2004
Even a Stopped Clock...
I know our raving liberal visitors will find this hard to believe, but after viewing the last two debates I've realized that John Kerry is dead right on at least one issue. Since his positions seem almost random and change every few days I guess it's not surprising that he should get something right, even if it's by accident, but it was still a pleasant surprise.
When the issue of religious faith and abortion came up my first reaction was "wow, he admits to being a catholic yet the ultra-reactionary walking corpse in Rome hasn't excommunicated him", but my second reaction was surprise, because after stating his completely insincere religious allegiance he said something remarkably sensible. Rather than saying that he supports abortion because women have the right to control their own bodies or one of the standard liberal takes on the issue, he took the very appealing position that regardless of his personal religious beliefs it's not the job of the government to legislate issues of personal morality or faith.
This is rather out of step with the general democrat effort to meddle as much as possible in peoples personal lives and I don't think it signals a general libertarian trend for Kerry, but it was a bit more sensible than I expected from him. It's the right stand to take on abortion, because science is anything but definite on where life begins and while sensible people may form a consensus on a particular point from conception on, any absolute determination is a matter of faith more than science.
Ultimately issues like abortion, birth control, sexual orientation and other aspects of individual morality and behavior are personal decisions, not the proper domain of government, and they should be left up to individuals, or at the very least to the individual states. This certainly should never be the realm of the federal government.
So Kerry proves the old maxim that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Too bad about the other 22 hours.
Dave
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't like to discuss abortion because it is much too personal, much too emotional. I agree with Kerry's statement at the last debate -- it's between a woman, her God, and her doctor -- but I totally disagree with his vote against the partial birth abortion ban. There is no health reason for a woman to have a partial birth abortion. When the baby is killed, it has already made it through the birth canal. The only reason for such a procedure is for the convenience of the mother, not her health. She just doesn't have the strength of character to deal with whatever problem the baby has.
My reason for responding to you, Dave, is your comment about the proper domain of the federal government in such issues. If Rowe vs. Wade were to be overturned, abortion would return to a state matter, not a federal matter. That is where it belongs. We are headed down the slippery slope of federalism which will also bring socialism. We fought a civil war over states' rights once before, and I believe it could happen again. It won't be a north-south issue this time, but something much more difficult, perhaps urban versus suburban/rural, and just as deadly as the last.
I truly believe this is the most important election of my life; it is certainly the most divisive. God help us all. We are in for a bumpy ride. Vote for Bush.
>>I don't like to discuss abortion because it is much too personal, much too emotional. I agree with Kerry's statement at the last debate -- it's between a woman, her God, and her doctor -- but I totally disagree with his vote against the partial birth abortion ban. There is no health reason for a woman to have a partial birth abortion. When the baby is killed, it has already made it through the birth canal. The only reason for such a procedure is for the convenience of the mother, not her health. She just doesn't have the strength of character to deal with whatever problem the baby has. <<
Can't argue with you there. While the ultimate decision on how to limit abortion is one of personal morals and faith, there is a point at which science can draw a definitive line. Aborting a fetus which would be viable outside the womb without any kind of intervention beyond just removing it is clearly beyond the pale of any reasonable definition of life. I despise the right-to-life crowd as much as I despise the militant abortionists, but common sense sayd that partial birth abortion is barbaric.
>>My reason for responding to you, Dave, is your comment about the proper domain of the federal government in such issues. If Rowe vs. Wade were to be overturned, abortion would return to a state matter, not a federal matter. <<
Interesting how rarely you hear this. The left act as if overturning the decision would immediately lead to piles of dead fetuses behind every clinic, when the truth is that state law would step in and there would be little or no change. It's a classic example of scare mongering designed to strike unreasoning fear into moderates and try to drive them further to the left.
>>That is where it belongs. We are headed down the slippery slope of federalism which will also bring socialism. We fought a civil war over states' rights once before, and I believe it could happen again. It won't be a north-south issue this time, but something much more difficult, perhaps urban versus suburban/rural, and just as deadly as the last.
I truly believe this is the most important election of my life; it is certainly the most divisive. God help us all. We are in for a bumpy ride. Vote for Bush.<<
It's that slippery slope and the desire not to set a foot on it which keeps me supporting Bush myself. Sure I wish the republicans had offered us a more attractive candidate, but as the lesser of two evils goes Bush isn't all that bad. Truthfully I doubt that Kerry would be as big a disaster as some people fear - congress and the senate and the courts would keep him under control - but unlike Bush there's a big unknown factor and a clear history of political inclinations which are very frightening.
Dave
>>Well, that all sounds very good, until you get right down to what Bush has actually done "for" individual liberty and smaller government. <<
Not much by my standards, but so much more than we'd have gotten from Al Gore that I find it hard to complain to hard.
>>The slippery slope can angle in any direction, and we're on it -- courtesy of such governmental wonders as the Patriot Act (possibly the biggest legislative misnomer in history), <<
The Patriot Act does suck, but it's just part of the grand tradition of the extreme civil rights abuses of the War on Drugs. It's actually less intrusive than some of the practices of the DEA. It should be done away with and I bet it will be eventually.
>>the "Faith-Based Initiative," <<
Don't necessarily have a problem with this. Taking money away from government bureaucracies and putting it in the hands of any private institution, even a church, has to be an improvement.
>>and the greatest increase in the size of the federal bureaucracy since, what, the "New Deal"? <<
That's a red herring. The increase comes almost entirely from the creation of the TSA, and all that did was move jobs from the private sector to the government. Not a good thing in general, but not the same as bloating up the education bureaucracy or something along those lines.
>>Oh, yeah, then there's that whole neocon war-as-development lie.<<
You listen to those silly people?
>>You can vote for Bush, it's your Constitutionally-granted right as an American citizen. But please don't frame it as a conservative, or God forbid libertarian, action.<<
I view it as a pragmatic action.
>>Were I in a "swing state" I'd be forced to vote for John Kerry. Not that he's any prize pig, but at least a staunchly Republican congress will tend to keep him in check to a certain extent, and at least he seems to be willing to consider an exit strategy in Iraq -- a conflict that all the warfighting heavy-thinkers deem both unwinnable and a foreign-policy tarbaby of incredible, or should I say Titanic, proportions. Bush and his Neocon company intend to make it our new base of operations in the middle east, as our, what, 17 permanent military bases there prove.<<
Only 14. The other 3 are in Afghanistan. That you could consider Kerry puts the lie to your libertarianism. Bush is off on a few issues, but he wants to cut taxes and privatize social security. That puts him miles ahead of Kerry who wants to raise taxes, petrify social security and create an incomprehensibly enormous and expensive medical bureaucracy. Bush is taking our problems overseas and Kerry wants to create a disaster at home. I'd prefer not to live in Kerry's socialist utopia.
>>Since I live in Texas now, I am free to vote for Michael Badnarik, Libertarian Party candidate, with not a single qualm. If only there were a chance he could actually win...<<
Then we could all carry our six-guns on our hip and be happy. I'm also glad to be in Texas so I can vote for Badnarik instead of Bush. But if I were in a state where it was meaningful I certainly wouldn't sell out my vote to the lumbering mouthpiece of the socialist agenda.
Dave
Post a Comment