Green Energy
I think this may be Reliapundit's best post ever:
I think there's a deep connection on the positions that Left and Right take on two seemingly unrelated issues - two issues which are at the center of America's political debate: abortion and liberation.
The Left is pro-abortion and anti-liberation. The Right is anti-abortion and pro-liberation.
ON ABORTION:
The Right is basically anti-abortion, believing that the only non-arbitrary point at which to argue individual life begins is at conception, and that because each and every life is sacred they must be treated as such - from conception. Abortion is the taking of human life and should be avoided; adoption should be promoted as the only acceptable way to deal with unwanted pregnancies.
The Left argues that a woman's control of her own body is a fundamental human right, and that ths includes control over the fetus until viability. The Left feels that the Right only cares about the fetus, and that as soon as the baby is born "the Right doesn't give a rat's ass about that person - otherwise they'd support a cradle-to-grave welfare state." (I have personally heard this argument a thousand and one times!) The Left believes that people should have their basic needs GUARANTEED by the state - FOR LIFE.
ON LIBERATION:
The Left argues that Iraq and Afghanistan are disaster zones where chaos and violence rule the day, and that there was more stability ands safety for Iraqis and Afghanis, and for their region - if not the world - before Bush decided he had the duty to "impose democracy" on people who probably aren't ready for it.
(BEAR WITH ME: Forget that this conclusion doesn't jibe with the facts, for a moment! Forget that the annualized death toll during Saddam's reign of terror was GREATER than the last three years! Forget that MILLIONS of Afghani refugees have RETURNED to Afghanistan, and that women are learning to read again - and see doctors, and children are flying kites.)
The Right argues that democracy is not ever "imposed" - rather, what we had in Iraq and Afghanistan were tryannies - which WERE imposed - that have been removed. The Right thinks it's unfair to criticize the inefficient and messy "sausage-making" process (called self-government by consent of the governed) in nations which have JUST begun to form their democracies; IOW: democracy is a messy process not an catered event. "SURE SURE SURE," the Right admits, "things are tough now, but the people are materially better off already and they have more liberty, too. And the situation is improving. And, ultimately... IT'S UP TO THE IRAQIS AND AFGHANIS THEMSELVES (to paraphrase Franklin):
They have their democracies, now they must defend them!
"THE PARALLEL: literal birth and figurative birth
The Left might criticize the Right's position on BOTH abortion and liberation as desiring the baby to be born, but then NOT guaranteeing a honkey-dorey life, after that. In the absence of that GUARANTEE, the Left says it's a better deal if the baby - and the democracy - HAD NEVER BEEN BORN. Iraq and Afghanistan have had rocky starts; to the Left, this proves these democracies should have never been born.
The Right believes that LIFE and LIBERTY are fundamental human rights derived from the Creator - AND NOT THE STATE. And that it's up to each of us - not the state - to do the best we can for ourselves. On a national scale, ONCE LIBERTY HAS BEEN SECURED, it's up to each nation to do the best that it can, too. Italy and France can do it their way; the UK and Poland can do it another way. Democracies allow the governed to decide - by majority rule. It ain't one size fits all, and some will do better than others.
The Right's positions are entirely consisitent and based on First principles: LIFE AND LIBERTY ARE SACRED. THE LIVES OF ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE - INCLUDING MUSLIMS WHO HAVE NEVER YET LIVED UNDER DEMOCRACY AND FETUSES.The Left's positions are consistent, too: they'd rather have less liberty and a strong state guaranteeing cradle-to-grave welfare and "public safety" - (like the USSR and Saddam's Iraq) - than have more liberty and more personal risk.
This acceptance of hazard and risk (as a COST OF FREEDOM) is also why people on the Right are more comfortable with the idea that wars do not always go so well, but that if we perservere we will win.The Left wants victory guaranteed - in a short time-frame, too. Without any costs. That's why they get wobbly and defeatist when the going get tough. Just as the Left thinks it's WRONG to "IMPOSE" life on a fetus, the Left feels it's wrong to "IMPOSE" democacy on the tyrannized.We on the Right thinks it's our duty to do both.
This basic difference between the Left and the Right is why the enemy is counting of the Left gaining power, and aborting the nascent democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq.This is no mere metaphor. Lincoln rightly said - in the Gettysburg Address - that VICTORY in the US Civil War would lead to a NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM. It did. So too will WW4. If we win. Not a final victory, but an important victory in the continuing saga of ever-expanding human liberation.And we gotta just keep fighting. Keep fighting, baby! It's a good fight. THE GOOD FIGHT.
God Bless America. God Bless Our Troops.
- Medical Ethicists From Oxford University: Newborn Babies Not “actual Persons", Do Not Have A “moral Right To Life”
"'After-Birth Abortion’ (Killing a Newborn) Should Be Permissible In All The Cases where Abortion Is" From The Telegraph: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify...
- Latest Infanticide Push About More Than Killing Babies
An important article from the Daily Caller: The ancient Romans used to expose unwanted babies on hillsides. Thankfully, we have come a long way since those bad old days. We would never countenance letting a baby die of exposure or get...
- Gop Rep. Marsha Blackburn Calls For Congress To Defund Planned Parenthood Over Infanticide Endorsement
A leading pro-life member of Congress says Planned Parenthood’s latest endorsement of post-birth abortions, or infanticide, should be reason enough for Congress to yank its taxpayer funding. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, has sent...
- "so What If Abortion Ends Life?"
MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS, of Salon stating baldly, I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice”Now, I can understand the argument that at conception only FAITH can demand the belief...
- Obama Ticks Off The Vatican
Obama already alienating the Church. I, personally, would rather not have my tax dollars funding abortion anywhere, let alone overseas. Times of India: Vatican accuses Obama of 'arrogance' 24 Jan 2009, 2105 hrs IST, AFP ROME: A senior Vatican...
Green Energy
Left Vs. Right: Abortion and Liberation
I think this may be Reliapundit's best post ever:
I think there's a deep connection on the positions that Left and Right take on two seemingly unrelated issues - two issues which are at the center of America's political debate: abortion and liberation.
The Left is pro-abortion and anti-liberation. The Right is anti-abortion and pro-liberation.
ON ABORTION:
The Right is basically anti-abortion, believing that the only non-arbitrary point at which to argue individual life begins is at conception, and that because each and every life is sacred they must be treated as such - from conception. Abortion is the taking of human life and should be avoided; adoption should be promoted as the only acceptable way to deal with unwanted pregnancies.
The Left argues that a woman's control of her own body is a fundamental human right, and that ths includes control over the fetus until viability. The Left feels that the Right only cares about the fetus, and that as soon as the baby is born "the Right doesn't give a rat's ass about that person - otherwise they'd support a cradle-to-grave welfare state." (I have personally heard this argument a thousand and one times!) The Left believes that people should have their basic needs GUARANTEED by the state - FOR LIFE.
ON LIBERATION:
The Left argues that Iraq and Afghanistan are disaster zones where chaos and violence rule the day, and that there was more stability ands safety for Iraqis and Afghanis, and for their region - if not the world - before Bush decided he had the duty to "impose democracy" on people who probably aren't ready for it.
(BEAR WITH ME: Forget that this conclusion doesn't jibe with the facts, for a moment! Forget that the annualized death toll during Saddam's reign of terror was GREATER than the last three years! Forget that MILLIONS of Afghani refugees have RETURNED to Afghanistan, and that women are learning to read again - and see doctors, and children are flying kites.)
The Right argues that democracy is not ever "imposed" - rather, what we had in Iraq and Afghanistan were tryannies - which WERE imposed - that have been removed. The Right thinks it's unfair to criticize the inefficient and messy "sausage-making" process (called self-government by consent of the governed) in nations which have JUST begun to form their democracies; IOW: democracy is a messy process not an catered event. "SURE SURE SURE," the Right admits, "things are tough now, but the people are materially better off already and they have more liberty, too. And the situation is improving. And, ultimately... IT'S UP TO THE IRAQIS AND AFGHANIS THEMSELVES (to paraphrase Franklin):
They have their democracies, now they must defend them!
"THE PARALLEL: literal birth and figurative birth
The Left might criticize the Right's position on BOTH abortion and liberation as desiring the baby to be born, but then NOT guaranteeing a honkey-dorey life, after that. In the absence of that GUARANTEE, the Left says it's a better deal if the baby - and the democracy - HAD NEVER BEEN BORN. Iraq and Afghanistan have had rocky starts; to the Left, this proves these democracies should have never been born.
The Right believes that LIFE and LIBERTY are fundamental human rights derived from the Creator - AND NOT THE STATE. And that it's up to each of us - not the state - to do the best we can for ourselves. On a national scale, ONCE LIBERTY HAS BEEN SECURED, it's up to each nation to do the best that it can, too. Italy and France can do it their way; the UK and Poland can do it another way. Democracies allow the governed to decide - by majority rule. It ain't one size fits all, and some will do better than others.
The Right's positions are entirely consisitent and based on First principles: LIFE AND LIBERTY ARE SACRED. THE LIVES OF ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE - INCLUDING MUSLIMS WHO HAVE NEVER YET LIVED UNDER DEMOCRACY AND FETUSES.The Left's positions are consistent, too: they'd rather have less liberty and a strong state guaranteeing cradle-to-grave welfare and "public safety" - (like the USSR and Saddam's Iraq) - than have more liberty and more personal risk.
This acceptance of hazard and risk (as a COST OF FREEDOM) is also why people on the Right are more comfortable with the idea that wars do not always go so well, but that if we perservere we will win.The Left wants victory guaranteed - in a short time-frame, too. Without any costs. That's why they get wobbly and defeatist when the going get tough. Just as the Left thinks it's WRONG to "IMPOSE" life on a fetus, the Left feels it's wrong to "IMPOSE" democacy on the tyrannized.We on the Right thinks it's our duty to do both.
This basic difference between the Left and the Right is why the enemy is counting of the Left gaining power, and aborting the nascent democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq.This is no mere metaphor. Lincoln rightly said - in the Gettysburg Address - that VICTORY in the US Civil War would lead to a NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM. It did. So too will WW4. If we win. Not a final victory, but an important victory in the continuing saga of ever-expanding human liberation.And we gotta just keep fighting. Keep fighting, baby! It's a good fight. THE GOOD FIGHT.
God Bless America. God Bless Our Troops.
- Medical Ethicists From Oxford University: Newborn Babies Not “actual Persons", Do Not Have A “moral Right To Life”
"'After-Birth Abortion’ (Killing a Newborn) Should Be Permissible In All The Cases where Abortion Is" From The Telegraph: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify...
- Latest Infanticide Push About More Than Killing Babies
An important article from the Daily Caller: The ancient Romans used to expose unwanted babies on hillsides. Thankfully, we have come a long way since those bad old days. We would never countenance letting a baby die of exposure or get...
- Gop Rep. Marsha Blackburn Calls For Congress To Defund Planned Parenthood Over Infanticide Endorsement
A leading pro-life member of Congress says Planned Parenthood’s latest endorsement of post-birth abortions, or infanticide, should be reason enough for Congress to yank its taxpayer funding. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, has sent...
- "so What If Abortion Ends Life?"
MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS, of Salon stating baldly, I believe that life starts at conception. And it’s never stopped me from being pro-choice”Now, I can understand the argument that at conception only FAITH can demand the belief...
- Obama Ticks Off The Vatican
Obama already alienating the Church. I, personally, would rather not have my tax dollars funding abortion anywhere, let alone overseas. Times of India: Vatican accuses Obama of 'arrogance' 24 Jan 2009, 2105 hrs IST, AFP ROME: A senior Vatican...