Politics: choose a side, you hypocrits

[baavgai]

The problem with people is that their mental view of the world can support so many opposing beliefs at once. The problem politicians is that they want to be politicians, their beliefs are often a facade, and even in the well crafted facade, they can't be consistent.

Take Ron Paul. Under his site's Personal Liberty section we find, "The Constitution was written to restrain the government, never to restrain the people." Right on, brother! I can agree with pretty much everything on this whole page. Most of the site is like that. Here, here for the rights of the individual. Don't tell me want to think, believe, do with my body... wait, what?

A little farther down, ironically under the Life and Liberty section of the site, we find this gem. "The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty." So, after all that individual freedom dogma, the rights of a pregnant woman are crap?

It doesn't really matter how you feel about abortion, this position seems fundamentally hypocritical. It causes one to question the sanity and sincerity of the individual. I'm far more comfortable with an anti-abortionist who takes the position that we should have a nanny state and that their perceived social evils will not be funded. That's at least honest fascism.

Unfortunately, they're all like that, really. Ronnie's hypocrisy is just painfully black and white obvious. I hate politicians. This particular one has just been nagging me. That is all.

Comments

[bunnyjadwiga.livejournal.com]

I don't really get the idea that the rights of the pregnant woman always trump the rights of the unborn fetus, myself. It seems to me fundamentally hypocritical because it marks an arbitrary point as the beginning of the rights of an organism, a point chosen specifically for the convenience of the argument. Inside: no rights. Outside: human being with rights. Huh? This point is clearly chosen in order to advance a right to terminate the organism inside.

I don't trust a Choice advocate that doesn't explicitly admit and deal with the idea that the right to abortion as she is presently preached in the choice movement includes the right to terminate a viable fetus whose only difference from a viable newborn is the process of birth, as well as the right to terminate non-viable or pre-viable fetuses.

[baavgai.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, I don't think we should bother naming the things until they survive a season. Agreed, it's arbitrary.

Is abortion bad. Yes, terrible thing. Shouldn't ever happen.

Will it be better if it's illegal? No, quite a bit more horrific, in fact. Desperate women will be dropping like flies, trying desperately to avoid their unwanted condition.

Regardless of the morality or legality of the act, it will continue. The fallout under state ignorance will just be that much more brutal.

I can quite understand why people don't want abortion condoned, I'm just always at a loss as to why the same people seem to want to make it worse.

I guess the point of my prior rant is one of unilateral choice, mind and body. Tell me you support individual freedom and then start adding significant amendments to that, and you've lost me.

[beldon.livejournal.com]

I'm actually of the mind that Ron Paul is trying to do to the Libertarians what Pat Buchannan, et al. did to the Reform Party: Namely, hijack the label for the Religious Right. Fortunately, I think he's failed miserably.

The religious fascists that try to legislate their own dogma into law have a right to form their own party-- and furthermore, to call it anything they want. Trying to muddy the waters by calling themselves by other names just proves how weak their "faith" really is.