The debate "It is not the government's place to deny an abortion" was started by
March 25, 2015, 11:32 am.
14 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 12 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
eric1943 posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 3 arguments, eric1943 posted 1 argument, Naudious posted 4 arguments to the disagreers part.
eric1943, kimmy92, mdavis1309, Bodaciouslady16, l2lll, Cormi98, Untamed, transfanboy, jesusorgy and 5 visitors agree.
Naudious, frozen_emily, PsychDave, tarun, stormshy, blakelovesjesus and 6 visitors disagree.
That's just it, your statement that believing in small government and being against abortion being a contradiction has no basis. There are people who feel that any abortion is murder. The belief in a small government does not mean that you feel the government should not prevent murder, so there is no contradiction. In this case it isn't an analogy, it is a statement.
Depends on if it's a person or not. The analogy doesn't really work. lel
To a pro-life believer, the two are both murder. Since the fetus is considered human to them.
Are believers in small government also obligated to demand the government not interfere in involuntary ritual sacrifice?
The belief alone does not, but, my question refers specifically to the government.
If you believe a fetus is human, then abortion is murder. Not a social or economic issue. If the state is small enough it doesn't ban murder, then it isn't really a government at all.
Exactly what I meant! It would not, however, be a defining trait as an anarchist because the government still exists first off, and second off can play a more passive role in both the social and economic realms. That would define a truthfully small government; however, modern republican beliefs reflect more of a small government rhetoric with, mostly, big government actions.
If you believe abortion is murder, but the government shouldn't intervene because yhe it would be too big. Then your not a believer in small government, you're an Anarchist. Actually, many anarchists would argue a system of force should intervene out of charity.
Shouldn't it be the doctors choice to participate in such an act? Late term abortions are rare in America, and the vast majority of doctors refuse to participate based on their own moral reasoning. Your views should be consistent; however, many "pro-life" supporters are also in favor of small government. This creates a massive contradiction at the very core of Right Wing values because it's a tad hypocritical to want the government to be "small" when it comes to economics, but, be in favor of what is basically government regulated vaginal pap - smears and reproduction. Yeah, leave wall street alone but regulate what a woman decides to do with her own body. That in itself poses the delightful idiocy at the core of what once was the party of Lincoln.
Disagreeing about one point is not a contradiction to small government. Feeling that there should be rules about abortion does not change views on other areas, it simply means that small government does not mean anarchist.
One of the purposes of government is to define acceptable behavior (no killing, raping, stealing, etc). Without some government oversight and rules, abortion would be legal for any reason, and at any stage of pregnancy. Even among staunch pro choice advocates, very few would be in favor of late term abortions. If someone wants to get an abortion 2 weeks before their due date, I would say that it is the government's place to deny it.
If you disagree with this statement you cannot also believe in small government because that is a massive contradiction.