![]() Abortion is precisely not only about a mother’s body, as Lahren asserted, but also about the body of another human being.Īpply Lahren’s logic to any other misuse of one’s body, and it falls flat. ending the life of an unborn baby) society and (hopefully) the law deems it wrong or unlawful. When an action adversely affects another human being (i.e. Under a system of limited government based on fundamental human rights, particularly the one guaranteed Americans by our Constitution, one person’s freedom ends where another’s begins. This kind of predatory tyranny is exactly what a constitutionally limited government that guarantees equal fundamental human rights to all is supposed to prevent. Limited government doesn’t mean no government that would be anarchy, which culminates in a “Mad Max” scenario where the powerful rule the weak based on their desires rather than enduring principles of right and wrong that apply equally to all people. In fact, that’s precisely what legalized abortion does: enables the powerful (grownups) to prey on the weak (unborn babies those grownups created, in almost all cases in a consensual act). (Not trying to hate, just discussion.) /xMPNNkCv9O It's not hypocritical for limited government people to call for laws against abortion. ![]() For one, the Tenth Amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” But that doesn’t mean people have an unlimited powers. The Constitution certainly dictates the United States keep a limited government. Lahren’s statement is not only a complete misrepresentation of the Constitution and the concept of limited government but a defense of abortion that’s both implausible and immoral. Abortion is and always has been first and foremost a moral issue. There are conservatives who are pro-choice, and many libertarians espouse this view, but it’s never been logical or compelling. Coming from pretty television personalities, it damages conservatism and the influence it seeks to have on the public. This is not only the most illogical reasoning I’ve ever heard, but stupid, even dangerous. She claims that since she believes in limited government, the government should let her do what she wants with her guns and her body. Sweetheart, I know those blonde locks are gorgeously real-right?-but let’s at least feign an attempt at grammar: I think you mean constitutionalist. Let’s take her arguments, such as they are, one at a time. ![]() Your Rights End Where Another Person’s Rights Begin There is no "my truth." There is only the truth. Just an old fashioned "constitutionalist."Įven Hillary Clinton didn't call pro-life conservatives hypocrites. explains why she's pro-choice: "Stay out of my guns and you can stay out of my body, as well." /0kFXJ7oL9L ![]() I can sit here and say that, as a Republican and I can say, you know what, I’m for limited government, so stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well.”Īt this the audience applauded and the Internet exploded. “So I can’t sit here and be a hypocrite and say I’m for limited government but I think the government should decide what women do with their bodies. I’m someone that’s for limited government,” she said. I am a constitutional, y’know, someone that loves the Constitution. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |