Neo-Logic
Reality Checker
It seems to me the points the Republicans are making about abortion and gay marriage are a departure from their general guiding doctrine and principle ideology of small government--that the government that governs least is one that governs best. Some may suggest this is only meant for economic policies, but we also see this small government doctrine permeating through nearly every social/cultural policies of the Republican agenda from gun control, religious affairs, parental rights and education--all except in abortion and gay marriage.
When it comes to abortion, and with the recent issues of contraception in particular--such as the proposed laws requiring women seeking abortion to receive trans-vaginal ultrasounds--it's peculiar that the party that thinks small government is one that governs best all of a sudden wants government to start forcing medical procedures on women or force them to be not-so-easy-bake-ovens to carry fetuses to full term. And yes--I can see how the belief that life starts at conception can change the scales, but even this belief requires government to become larger and more intrusive and costly, especially in the future.
The current Roe v. Wade and SCOTUS rulings on abortion give mothers the right of choice based on the central condition of viability--the point at which a fetus's chance of survival outside the womb is very likely. This is a problem for 'small government' believers because viability is a moving target. As technology improves in prenatal and neonatal care, fetuses will be able to survive outside the mother's womb earlier and earlier, soon at the point that the fetus could practically be grown in a lab, perhaps at the expense of tax payers, the abortion stance becomes both Un-Republican in doctrine and unsustainable in logic.
When it comes to gay marriage, it's also peculiar that the party for small government wants marriages to be regulated and that for a party that screams slippery slope when it comes to gun control, that they don't see the slippery slope of government being able to control the legal recognition of your soul mate. To me, they can't have it both ways--they either believe marriage is religious or familial, in which case government should stay out of marriage all together, or they concede that it is a governmental affair, in which case they cannot discriminate whom they give equal treatment to. They can't both call marriage religious and as a result, force government to discriminate on that basis.
In both cases, it seems, the Republican party's ideas are calling for expansion of government in weird ways that violates their own party's central doctrine and inconsistent with their other beliefs about religious freedom and family privacy.
When it comes to abortion, and with the recent issues of contraception in particular--such as the proposed laws requiring women seeking abortion to receive trans-vaginal ultrasounds--it's peculiar that the party that thinks small government is one that governs best all of a sudden wants government to start forcing medical procedures on women or force them to be not-so-easy-bake-ovens to carry fetuses to full term. And yes--I can see how the belief that life starts at conception can change the scales, but even this belief requires government to become larger and more intrusive and costly, especially in the future.
The current Roe v. Wade and SCOTUS rulings on abortion give mothers the right of choice based on the central condition of viability--the point at which a fetus's chance of survival outside the womb is very likely. This is a problem for 'small government' believers because viability is a moving target. As technology improves in prenatal and neonatal care, fetuses will be able to survive outside the mother's womb earlier and earlier, soon at the point that the fetus could practically be grown in a lab, perhaps at the expense of tax payers, the abortion stance becomes both Un-Republican in doctrine and unsustainable in logic.
When it comes to gay marriage, it's also peculiar that the party for small government wants marriages to be regulated and that for a party that screams slippery slope when it comes to gun control, that they don't see the slippery slope of government being able to control the legal recognition of your soul mate. To me, they can't have it both ways--they either believe marriage is religious or familial, in which case government should stay out of marriage all together, or they concede that it is a governmental affair, in which case they cannot discriminate whom they give equal treatment to. They can't both call marriage religious and as a result, force government to discriminate on that basis.
In both cases, it seems, the Republican party's ideas are calling for expansion of government in weird ways that violates their own party's central doctrine and inconsistent with their other beliefs about religious freedom and family privacy.
Last edited:
). Ron Paul is the only real conservative who gets booed at when the Golden Rule of foreign policy is explained.
