(05-03-2022, 07:50 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]As a pro-life libertarian I'll say this, it is now in the pro-life supporters to prove it going forward. Yes I want a ban on any abortion after the first trimester and that means I'm also willing to support expanding birth control, welfare, and education cost at my state level. We can't just be pro birth I'm pro life so if I'm going to support abandoning abortions in my state I have to be more open to helping those that need in my state.
At the state level I'd support free birth control, I'm willing to expand welfare and I'm also open to paying more for schools. That's how important this issue is to me.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why the left has basically run un-opposed in American Culture for the last 100 years. Why is it, that even with victory on a major issue in our grasp we have to adopt the stance and talking points of the left?
Of course, from a purely TACTICAL STANDPOINT if the only way to legislatively save the lives of millions of people meant a trade off on social services I would take the deal. I'm a warrior, not a monster. But i wouldn't a would never acquiesce to the basic talking point of Pro-Birth (The idea that you don't really "care about children" unless you are willing to increase the size scope and reach of government.)
Has anyone ever stopped to consider the fact that the current abortion regime, currently taking over 65 million lives in these United States alone, happened AFTER the greatest expansion in the welfare state in our countries history? The New Deal, The Great Society, The War on poverty, the Department of Education, Universal Public Schools, state subsidies for secondary education, nationalization of student loans, I can go on. Yet in NY State more than half of all black pregnancies end in abortion (the #1 killer for black people in America.) Yet with all this supposed Altruistic activity the left is openly threatening the safety and well being of sitting Justices of the United States Supreme Court to preserve the practice on behalf of their constituents.
Why? History tells us why as a Society becomes more collective, then the rights of the individual disappear. In China, Cuba, Cambodia and the Soviet Union it was determined that the lives and property of the bugiouse were insignificant to achieve the goal of an ascending proletariat and socialist utopia. Why then is it any Suprise that some would see the lives of unborn children as insignificant to the goal of Overthrowing the Patriarchy and closing the pay gap?
I for one would like us to consider that the answer to the question of 1 million more people being born each year is to advance the cause of Freedom. In so doing, allowing people to make their own choices and advance their own values they will invariably take more personal stock in those choices and as such themselves. Through that natural prospect of self ownership there will be a far less impulse to destroy an extension of themselves, their own unborn offspring.
Moreover, at current we directly fund 13 years of primary education, and subsidize (both to institutions and through nationalized loans) secondary education. And yet, with all that assistance, the educational establishment has still generated over 1 trillion dollars in student loans its own students don't feel they have the economic ability to pay back! In my view this level of largesse and inefficiency only exists because the primary consumers (Parents and students) have been divorced from the decision making process by those wishing to do them "good." They are forced at the policeman's gun to pay into a system they have no control over and must participate in. In a truly free educational market there would be no reason for frivolous electives or social engineering when the parents are involved in deciding what to pay for. You will have a much higher rate of production among graduates, lower costs, and greatly reduced time scale.
Why does the time scale matter? At current, when stratified for age, Women out earn their male counterparts until around Age 35. Why is that a bad thing? Well is order for a woman to see a man as a potential long term partner, they generally look for a man that makes roughly about 50% more than they do. So what does that mean? That means that structurally unless a woman in her prime years of fertility is willing to date someone about 10 to 15 years older than her, 90% of her options are going to be, by modern definition, casual. If a young woman is involved in casual hookup culture then its far more likely that a potential pregnancy is going to be with a partner that doesn't answer her Longterm hypergamous question and wouldn't be able to adequately provide for her and her offspring. In short, our tax dollars are funding a system that essentially necessitates hook up culture! If men reached their economic peak at 25 instead of 35 then it would be a lot easier for a young woman to see a blip as an opportunity than a ticket to dependence or poverty.
We Can reduce barriers to entry to start businesses, curtail unnecessary licensure, reduce taxes and fees, lower the minimum wage to allow teens to enter the work force, liberalize zoning, liquidate federal lands for private use, I can go on. There is a laundry list of things we can do that will reduce the size of government and allow young parents greater freedom to provide a better life for themselves and their children. Not to mention the fact that in this country we give away close to 400 billion dollars in private charitable activities. Never let it be said that in order for you to oppose modern genocide that you have to vote for Bernie Sanders.
FoBourgeoisie w