I Support The Police

Degrassi -- Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, and almost everyone in America share very similar objectives. We all want freedom, liberty, peace, fairness, opportunity, etc.

Where we all differ is not in what we want. It is how best to achieve our desires. Liberals in general happen to see government as a solution to problems. Conservatives and libertarians in general see government as a large part of the problem, if not THE problem.

If you take the time to closely examine and really study those things that government has said it would do, government has achieved almost none of its stated objectives and in many cases has caused problems due to the unintended consequences of its ill-considered programs.

For example, look closely at the "Great Society" programs instituted under President Lyndon Johnson. Their objects were good. To address poverty, primarily in minority communities. The unintended consequences of the Great society programs include the breakup of black families, a huge increase in the number of single mothers raising children, a huge increase in the number of children raised without a father in the home, multigenerational poverty, young (13-14) year old mothers having children who then themselves have children at a similar age, with no means of support and no prospect for a better life. These were the results of Johnson's Great Society programs. These were liberal programs intended to "help" those in need.

I don't have the statistics handy but my understanding is the economic progress of blacks in America was actually much greater after world War II and before the onset of 1960s economic liberalism which is still with us today. Their progress actually slowed down at the very time liberals believed they were being blacks' economic saviors. (I point out that the matter of civil rights is a separate issue from the welfare revolution and Keynesian economics. Unlike the latter two things, Republicans were solidly behind civil rights and the full opening of American society to blacks.)

Lickitysplit, I have to say that the progressive consensus on behalf of freedom and liberty is fading fast. Liberals have made clear that they believe that the government should be able to force Catholics to fund birth control and morning-after abortion and to force people who aren't keen on homosexuality to make gay wedding cakes. Conservatives are arguing only religious freedom on the latter point, but in fact there are plenty of not too religious people over 40 who take a dim view of homosexuality. The government has absolutely NO business telling any people, religious or non-religious, what kind of cakes they have to bake. And it's not even an authentic discrimination issue. There are no bakers who are known to have hesitations to sell cakes to homosexuals, and the people in view would doubtless object not one iota less to making a gay wedding cake for straight liberals who wish to flaunt their views. It is forced expression; it's no better than North Korea requiring its people to praise their latest Kim. You know what what progressives have done to squelch freedom of speech on college campuses. John McCain should never have been forgiven for pushing through political speech limitation legislation that was demanded and notably beloved by the left. I think the Supreme Court has knocked it all down; correct me if I'm wrong. The urges have not died. Read about what is being contemplated at the Federal Election Commission.
http://www.teapartypatriots.org/keeptheinternetfree/
http://www.freedomworks.org/content/fec-proposes-regulate-internet
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/25/i-told-you-this-was-coming-online-political-speech-could-face-new-regulations-next-year/

I completely agree with what you have just written. However, I have to say the same has been true for a very long time on the part of many "Social Conservatives." Social conservatives insisted that "human life begins at conception" and opposed abortion for any reason at any time. This was a reasonable religious position to take, but not a valid position as a matter of government law and policy.

At the other extreme, liberals want abortion at any time for any or no reason at all. One the central nervous system of the baby is intact, at about 20 weeks, the baby develops self-awareness, and I believe, the soul. Furthermore, a baby is now quite viable at about 24 weeks. Abortion beyond that period is clearly the killing of a human being, also known as murder. That is not a reasonable position as a matter of government law or policy.

Additionally, while it should be every private store or company owner's right to choose who and who not to service, it should not be the power of our government, especially our Federal Government, to decide who may and who may not marry. From a government perspective, marriage should be treated as nothing more or less than a contract between two or more people, establishing the conditions under which they agree to formally and legally associate. I can see no compelling reason, from a secular policy perspective, for the state to play any role at all in marriage, and especially not a moral role.

I accordance with our First Amendment rights, we should be free to practice our religion as we see fit. If fundamentalist Mormons wish to have plural marriages of multiple adult persons, where is the government's compelling interest to interfere?

All sides of the political spectrum seem to want to impose their views on everyone else. This is not legal or valid in accordance with our constitution and we all must fight for those rights, whether we agree with them personally or not.

I indeed agree with the view that life begins as soon as sperm and egg unite. I would point out that we social conservatives have never sought to criminalize the speech of those who disagree with us on this or other issues. We have the courage of our convictions. The progressive urge toward silencing suggests to me a compensation for a less than sturdy inward condition.

I do indeed respect your position that life begins at conception. However, not everyone accepts that belief or even the foundations that underpin that belief - that all humans are endowed with a soul by God. Many believe in no God at all.

Our Government must protect the rights of all citizens.

You are correct that progressives seem to want to stifle dissent. Any policy, and the belief behind the policy, with which they disagree is a threat to their agenda. This comes from the fact that in many cases, these people represent small minority's of our population, fighting for what the majority often opposes. It is wrong and hypocritical of them to do so, but as a tactic, it has worked for them. I do not like nor respect this tactic, but I understand it's use. If they can stifle debate, they have won the debate.

Thank you. I'm not desiring to be argumentative, but I wouldn't say the pro-life position is only theological. When the sperm and the egg unite, they form a being with new DNA that differs from both parents. The being is 50% likely to be XY, so the being certainly cannot be said to be part of a woman's body. A woman can only have XX cells as part of her body.

The real question is not and has never been whether a fetus is the genetic progeny of its parents. The arguments are whether or not a fetus, or a human adult for that matter, has a soul, who created the soul, and when does the fetus transcend a genetic joining to become a human deserving of a value and legal consideration equal to that of the mother.

As a matter of public policy and law, I have chosen to believe that a fetus has become a human child at a point between 20 and 24 weeks, based on the maturity (completion) of its central nervous system, its self-awareness, and its viability outside the womb. It is certainly a compromise position but one I believe makes sense as legal public policy. For anyone who believes as do you, you should and do have the right not to abort a child from conception and to express your freedom of speech to oppose abortion at any time after conception based on your religious and moral beliefs.