Name Just One
I just keeps coming up. It came up again in a Hot Air thread. A commenter said:
I can’t think of a person who identifies as a social Conservative who isn’t automatically a fiscal ConservativeI can think of one. The former leader of that gang, Mike Huckabee.
Compare and contrast his record with that of Gary "Mr. Veto" Johnson who is very socially liberal and VERY fiscally conservative. What I like to refer to as the libertarian persuasion. He has the added valued that when given the opportunity he walked the walk.
Cross Posted at Classical Values
Posts
2 comments:
I've noticed two sorts of social conservatives: the "statist" kind and the "leave me alone" kind.
The former are the classic sorts who give libertarians fits: they want the state to impose some sort of so-con ideology on society. The latter are actually quite amenable to libertarianism as their main concern is government policies that seek to impose an unwanted ideology upon them or their families, or that weaken non-government institutions such as marriage (ie, welfare policies that discourage marriage and encourage out-of-wedlock birth).
Where both tend to make common cause is in abortion, which is a tricky question, and one that's ambiguous if you're a libertarian, and depends on when you declare when "personhood" begins. If personhood begins at conception, abortion is unambiguously murder. If personhood begins only at natural birth, abortion can be argued to be a "choice" of the mother. If you buy the "somewhere in the middle" argument, you're basically haggling with the unborn child as to when it becomes a legal person.
Even before we knew the details of embryo and sperm we could see the mothers belly fattening.
So why wasn't personhood declared when gestation was visible?
Post a Comment