Pro-Life Socialists: an open letter to "conservative" republicans in Texas

(Warning: recommended for people who are voting in the election. Or are close to voting age. This is… shall we say… mature, but hopefully not vulgar. It is my intention to deal with issue honestly, not to offend.)

A bill that reduces abortion

Here at the office of Representative Robert J. Rino, we are very proud of our pro-life record. We are doing everything to not only stop, but also reduce the number of abortions, because we believe every life is sacred.

That’s why we’re sponsoring the “Pro-life Socialism in Action” house bill: a bill designed to not eliminate, but fight the tide of abortions. The genius of it is that it will not only cut down on abortion, but also gain bi-partisan approval, and get Rep. Rino elected again.

Here’s how it works: every time a male comes in for a check-up at his doctor’s office will be given a condom and explained its use in preventing unwanted pregnancy. If a doctor fails to hand out these pro-life condoms, he will loose his license.

Don’t we have the right to do this as a state? After all, we’re the ones that give the doctors their licenses and Roe v. Wade says we have the right as a state to regulate in order to reduce the number of abortions. Currently, almost 8,300 unborn lives are destroyed every day. If we can’t stop abortion, don’t you want to see that number at least go down?

That’s a good thing, right?

No. I’m being very sarcastic here. I hope you get my point.

I’ve been quite upset by the way that UT hands out condoms like they’re cough drops. I do not want the government to think it has the authority to tell doctors that they need to give me one every time I go in for a checkup. Wouldn’t you vote against such a law requiring doctors to do so?

Why does this matter?

I know you probably wouldn’t support a bill like this (if you would, then I’m not writing to you). But conservatives all over this state are just about to do the exact same thing, or at least use the same reasoning.

I’m not saying here that doctors shouldn’t show the sonogram. For me, it’s a duh. They should. However, I object to the government making it mandatory.

The Sonogram Proposal: Socialism is Socialism, even if it’s Pro-life

First, there’s Ballot Proposition #5 on Sonograms, which will appear on the Republican Primary ballot today. Then, there’s the Texas Alliance for Life griping over Medina supporting liberty. Finally, I said enough is enough.

Socialism is socialism, even if we would like to call it pro-life. There is a fundamental difference between incrementalism and unrelated compromise. How can we tell the government it doesn’t have the authority to tell doctors what procedures to preform (or what to hand out) if we reserve the right to tell them to be pro-life?

So, take it or leave it. But if you agree with what I’m saying, I hope you vote that way today. If you disagree, then post a comment. I’m open to the possibility that I’ve missed the elephant here.


34 Responses

  1. Generally, I would agree with what you are saying. However, in the case of life, it is the governments job to protect unborn children, so I would disagree with you on the sonograms. However, I do think handing out condoms is a bad thing, because that only makes the problem worse and its not very conservative at all.

  2. your right about that Luke.

  3. Exactly. It makes the problem worse. That’s exactly the problem with making Sonograms. (and if you’re thinking condoms would make unwanted pregnancy increase, there’s a flaw in your logic) In this time of need, government created the problem. They aren’t the solution.

    If the Sonogram bill protected life, I’d support it. But it does so only indirectly, exactly like a Condom law would.

    ><> Brian

  4. I would have to agree with Luke on this one. One of the fundamental responsibilities of government is to protect the lives of its citizens, and the sonogram bill would help to do that in the case of babies. The condom thing is completely different, as it basically encourages sex under the guise that it is “safe”.

  5. btw, I couldn’t care less about being conservative. So that appeal doesn’t work. I’m just voting conservative because they’re right. At least in the issues I’m voting for them.

    So, appealing to my conservative is useless. Just FYI. Explain why the conservatives are right.

  6. Conservatives are realistic. They realize that in order to make progress in reducing abortions we have to take incremental steps (i.e. sonogram prop). For you to say that you won’t support anything pro-life unless it’s outlawing abortion is kind of illogical. You have to eat the elephant (lmao) one bite at a time.

  7. Brian – interesting distinction. Are you a libertarian?

  8. @brianfactor What I’m saying is that extramarital sex is one of the facets of the issue as a whole. When we can continue with the current policy of not giving them out, we can say that the state has less of a hand in the issue, except for abortion.

  9. STRONGLY disagree. Telling people not to murder is not socialism. You say it will only indirectly affect abortions- Brian, we can’t end abortion right out, we have to take the steps incrementally. What you are proposing is that we ignore any legislation on abortion unless we are ending it out-right- even William Wilberforce saw the need of incrementalism when ending the slave trade in England.

    I do disagree with the condom law, however, for NUMEROUS reasons- first being that it only influences the males (who are not the ones having the abortions), and that it violates moral principles (or, it would for me)…

    The rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness guaranteed in our constitution and outlined in the Declaration of Independence are the SOLE duty and purpose of government. This legislation allows the children to speak for themselves. If the parent is going to kill the child, let them first LOOK INTO THE EYES of their child, then make the decision.

    It is not socialism if it is giving the unborn a voice. Or, at least, a face.

    btw, something really saddens me about this post. Why aren’t you ranting against true socialism, Brian? Why attack the pro-life movement with your false accusations when the rulers of the darkness of this world move openly to take your liberties away?

  10. I’m with you, Brian. Forcing a medical procedure on someone is wrong. Period.

    However, this bill does not require pregnant women to get a sonogram. It requires pregnant women SEEKING AN ABORTION to get a sonogram before the procedure. We require heart patients to undergo blood work and echocariograms as well as informed consent before heart surgery. All sorts of tests are required before all sorts of medical procedures. If you don’t want the sonogram, don’t seek an abortion. (Or better yet, just keep your clothes on!)

  11. ps, I love your posts, dude… ๐Ÿ˜€ they really get me to think! I realize I may have been a bit harsh in the above comment, please know that I mean none of this personally… but I am passionate on the subject and wouldn’t count myself as much of a man without letting my opinion be known. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    I do enjoy getting an outside perspective, you put a lot of thought into this post and it is indeed refreshing. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Just fyi, I almost always agree with libertarians, pretty much only disagreeing on moral issues like this one.

    Keep it up, man! ๐Ÿ˜€

    Your socially conservative and fiscally libertarian friend, and bro’ in Christ,

    Ben ๐Ÿ™‚

  12. So, I discern three main thread:

    1) Requiring condoms does not reduce abortions.

    I honestly haven’t looked into abortions, but let’s assume that there is STRONG statistical evidence that handing out more condoms would reduce abortions in America. Would your view change?

    My point is that you can take incremental step to the right thing, but you can’t do something that’s wrong in hope that it’ll make something right happen.

    2) Incrementalism

    No link between sonograms and incrementalism has yet been established. An incremental step toward outlawing abortion is, say, outlawing partial birth abortions. This is more akin to another example I thought up:

    Some have actually proposed this (I have no idea who). We obviously want to reduce the use of nuclear weapons. Preferably, they never be used again. Since we can’t really get rid of them all yet (I mean, some bad guys might still need to be nuked), let’s take a step to make sure they are less likely to get used. (You’ve seen the guy that follow the pres around chained to the brief case with codes to launch a nuclear weapon, right?)

    Before the president can open the briefcase with the nuclear codes in it, he must first kill the person that is handcuffed to it and pull the key out of his chest.

    Don’t you think the president would launch only if absolutely necessary if he had to look into the eyes of a dying person in order to do it?

    The analogy falls apart if you apply it to literally, but I think you get the point. Incrementalism is not doing a little wrong and hoping for a big right; it’s doing little good things and hoping for the big good, as I said above.

    3) Libertarianism
    @scottishclaymore If I only agree with conservatism when it’s right, when do you think I agree with libertarianism?

    If conservatism (or libertarianism) was God, I’d follow without question. They’re not. So I follow them only when they’re right. I have a political philosophy, but I just don’t have a label for it yet.

    @BenC Thanks for letting your opinions be known. You have to be trying really hard to get me to take something personally. ๐Ÿ˜‰
    And I do rant against other kinds of socialism. I just believe in attacking both the wolves and the wolves in sheep’s clothing. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    4) Other medical regulations

    @Tracie U This is basically the whole point of my post. Two little wrongs cannot make one big right, even if two little rights can. Just because the government thinks it knows best what a patient needs before heart surgery doesn’t make small socialism right.

    ><> Brian

  13. “Just because the government thinks it knows best what a patient needs before heart surgery doesnโ€™t make small socialism right.”

    There is absolutely nothing about information that can hurt a patient, and in fact, withholding information can only 1)hurt a patient, 2) if it doesn’t, the doctor got lucky. There is no reason not to require the disclosure of information. The only thing requiring information disclosure does is protect innocent people. Protecting innocent people is the job of the government.

  14. It is not unconstitutional to require people to be honest about their “trade” dishonest trade is the same as stealing.
    Currently abortion is a twisted form of trade. But forcing people to be honest about what they are doing will not jeopardize other forms of trade. Not only are these doctors killing people but they are stealing from the mothers because they are making them think that they are doing something that they aren’t doing and aren’t showing them what they are doing.

    If I go to a donut shop and say “Get my a sprinkle donuts now!” and they give me a box shouldn’t they open it up and show me that there are sprinkle donuts in it and not an infant?

    In a sad sense many mothers think that what they are getting something as mundane as sprinkle donuts when they get an abortion. The doctors are stealing from the mothers because they are saying that they are giving them an operation that is just removing a blob of tissue. If the mothers went into the trade wanting a blob of tissue removed they should be shown that its really just a blob of tissue and not an infant.

    This will force (in theory) the doctors to be honest and tell the mothers what they are actually giving them. not the destruction of a blob of tissue but the destruction of a baby.

    Perfect information is vital to a free market and forcing perfect information isn’t going to threaten the free market. On the contrary it will build it up.

  15. The Asker is right, it is not just a blob of tissue. I have seen a miscarriage at some where between 8 – 12 weeks and the “blob” look exactly like a child, just a lot smaller.

  16. “It is not socialism if it is giving the unborn a voice. Or, at least, a face.”

    Is forcing doctors to tell patients the truth socialism?

    It’s not about what the government thinks is best for the patient, it’s about making sure doctors tell the patients the Truth. That there is indeed a baby inside their stomach, and not just a “blob of tissue” as David put it.

  17. @brianfactor

    Clearly, there is something greater at stake here than this one issue. So let’s discuss that. You don’t define yourself as a conservative, nor necessarily align yourself with people who are.

    Since you have made God (and therefore, Scripture) the standard in this (which I believe it should be); why is socialism wrong? I mean, I think everyone on JN will agree it’s a patently stupid idea. But why is it /wrong/?

    ^^^This right here is the Gentleman Adventurer getting off-topic, something which bugs the Gentleman Adventurer greatly. Perhaps in this we have source material for a future JN debate?

  18. @brianfactor

    Back on-topic:

    While I have typically very heavy leave-me-and-my-stuff-alone leaning when it comes to the government, I /personally/ do not mind the government requiring citizens be fully informed about what they are going into. If the consensus of the American people eventually is that a sonogram should be a necessary part of the information a woman needs, I am not going to argue. Potentially something like this could do an awful lot of good.

    At least, that’s how I’d feel about this IF it weren’t human beings we are talking about. To treat murder as though it is just another medical procedure that needs certain safety guidelines is frankly a revolting and disgusting concept. This resolution has the danger of desensitizing us to the horror that abortion really is.

    Then again, it also has the potential to wake some woman up to the horror of what she is about to do.

    So this is a values debate, as always. Which is the bigger issue? Abortion, or socialism? Which is the better recourse; taking what we can get, or refusing to settle for anything short of victory? Yes, this could save lives, but what the government gives it can take away. Right?

    Anyway, it’s certainly not as cut-and-dried an issue as it might seem at first glance. I will have to say in closing that I voted for the proposition… And Medina.

  19. Richard hits on something that I had actually wanted to ask–what is your standard for what is and is not within the government’s rights to require?

    That seems to be your main argument-“the government cannot require”-but what is in the government’s jurisdiction?

    This law helps to protect life. If that’s not within the government’s jurisdiction, what is?

    Your arguments seem to come from a very intense disdain for anything that even remotely looks like socialism. Which is where Richard’s point comes in. Is it wrong? And why?

    And–what is socialism? Your argument seems, at least from my perspective, to come from a very flawed view of what socialism is. If we don’t understand what it is, we can’t define why it’s wrong, and if this bill comes under that.

    (I apologize for constantly commenting in two places–both here and on facebook. This is just something I’m very passionate about. Please don’t take it as a personal attack.)

  20. @david I find your reply very interesting.

    “Perfect information is vital to a free market and forcing perfect information isnโ€™t going to threaten the free market. On the contrary it will build it up.”
    Wait, who was just arguing that nothing in this world is perfect, so you need to be willing to go for the best you’re going to get?

    “If I go to a donut shop and say โ€œGet my a sprinkle donuts now!โ€ and they give me a box shouldnโ€™t they open it up and show me that there are sprinkle donuts in it and not an infant?”
    I agree. But, let’s make this analogy applicable to my point:
    Would you support a law that closed any donut shop that didn’t open the box for their customers? That would be ridiculous.

    You have a right to be misinformed. You just don’t have a right to kill other people.

  21. Richard,

    Where exactly does it say that abortion is wrong in the Bible?

    We infer it is wrong because the Bible talks about the baby in the womb as a human, and that killing is wrong.

    Similarly, we infer that socialism is wrong because the Bible prohibits violence except as response to violence. The assumption of socialism is that the government can do things people can’t. I’m simply saying the government should not use it’s power except were an individual is able to use that power to.

    If you’re not fine with going into a doctor’s office and threatening the doctor with death unless he shows the sonogram, you shouldn’t ask the government to use its monopoly on violence to do so. More on that later, but for now, just read The Law by Frederick Bastiat.

    ><> Brian

  22. I’ve heard it paralleled to the practice of sacrificing babies to pagan idols, which the Israelites did do several times. THAT WAS an abomination.

  23. Yes, as I said, force/violence (the two are very similar in my mind, though they have very different emotional connotations) is justifiable at some points, so here are specific criteria:

    1) The Individual would be justified in this instance
    The people can’t give the government something they don’t have, so it’s important that you be fine with doing it yourself. If you wouldn’t be fine with using a gun against an action, then you probably shouldn’t use the government.
    Good examples are self-defense. Obviously, we have the right to kill someone who tries to murder us in our beds, so why not give the government the power and let them get really efficient at stopping those guys, too?
    On the other hand, holding a knife up to someone’s neck so they pay your health care hardly seems moral, so the government can’t do it either.

    2) The violence is responsive, rather than aggressive.
    That’s a fancy way of saying “they started it.” Violence is a horrible thing. In my opinion, there is only one thing worse: more violence. When violence prevents more violence, it’s justified.
    War is the classic example. It should never be created just for sport, but waging war would prevent more violence.

    So, to summarize with the words of Frederick Bastiat.
    “We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.”

    And I’ll have to call it quits, guys. Thanks again. Homework Homework Homework…

  24. @dunveganhighlander And I can compare socialism to Isreal’s desire for a King. Same result. The point is socialism is wrong for the same reasons abortion is wrong: it’s aggressive violence. (by aggressive I mean instigated, not in response to another violence)

  25. “the Bible prohibits violence except as response to violence”

    Excuse me, good sir, but what ISN’T violent about a metal tool being shoved into a woman’s womb and ripping body parts off of a living being?

    The government’s SOLE purpose is to ensure PEOPLE’S rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    WHATEVER the government has to do to make sure babies are born and have the RIGHT TO LIFE IS the duty of government. Now stop debating abortion and let’s do something about the REAL socialistic policies that will literally rip this nation apart! (aka, HEALTHCARE! CAP AND TRADE!)

  26. Did I ever say abortion wasn’t violent? :goes back and read: Maybe you read differently than I do…

    All I’m saying is there isn’t anything violent about not having an sonogram. Am I missing something? Doesn’t seem very violent to me…

    “WHATEVER the government has to do to make sure babies are born and have the RIGHT TO LIFE IS the duty of government. ”

    Woah… tell me you don’t mean that. So, you’d support the government burning down planned parenthood clinics? You’d support making a public example of every mother who has had an abortion by public hangings? You’d support required condoms if there was evidence it reduced abortion?

    I’m being drastic, but you statement allows for that. Do you seriously believe that the government can do WHATEVER? I don’t think you’ve thought this through…

    The point, Ben, is that just because it deals with something against abortion doesn’t make it a good policy. A point, I hope you agree with, because it seems you might not… Like I said, Ben, (and I hope you read, I’m beginning to have my doubts) “I just believe in attacking both the obvious wolves and the wolves in sheepโ€™s clothing.”

  27. @brianfactor

    That’s an interesting take on socialism. However, I don’t necessarily disagree with your definition (or anything else you’ve said), so I’ll go with it.

    However, Scripture also makes it clear that violence can be used justifiably by the government to enforce the law. They do not bear the sword in vain, etc etc.

    So when is the government enforcing what is right, and when is it embracing socialism? Again, off the topic of this conversation by now, but I’m morbidly curious.

  28. In any instance where the issue is over what the government should or should not do, the best option is almost always to be against them. Forcing a sonogram to be shown or making doctors hand out condoms IS NOT THE JOB OF THE GOVERNMENT. Why would they hand out condoms? Maybe because we are breaking moral law in the first place!!!

  29. Ditto. Sorry. Just answering the question you put to Richard. ๐Ÿ™‚

  30. That’s @BrianJM, fyi.

  31. @brianfactor

    Perhaps, put more succinctly, any power we give the government to enforce the things we like can also be used to enforce the things we don’t like.

    Which, in a way, I guess makes anarchy slightly better than tyranny.

  32. Richard, I don’t know that I say that. I’m still trying to figure out what exactly you meant.

    I don’t buy the argument that giving the government the power to do something gives them the power to enforce it differently. “Outlawing abortion is wrong because if you give the government the power to outlaw abortion, they could also make it mandatory.” Hu? Doesn’t make much sense to me. A lot of libertarians who argue that are mistaken in my opinion.

    However, I agree with the libertarians in that the government has to follow the same rules we do. My standard is something more like:

    If you could morally exercise your powers of force here (assume there was no government), then you can tell the government to. The converse is also true.
    If you don’t feel alright with using a knife to make the woman get a sonogram and look at it, then you don’t have the power to tell the government to do that.

    Is that more succinct? In my opinion, it’s a simple concept that just requires a lot of words because English is… english.

    ><> Brian

    PS: So much for short, hu? ๐Ÿ˜€ Ah, the curse of knowledge…

  33. Hmm… Okay. I think I get where you’re coming from. Which brings up an interesting question: If force is justifiable to save a life… And a woman’s looking at the sonogram /could/ save a life… Would using force to force a woman to watch a sonogram be justifiable or not?

    Gonna have to ponder that one.

  34. It’s a good way of putting the basic disagreement down. The whole point of my condom analogy is that just because it could save a life doesn’t automatically mean it’s something the government should do.

    But, as you said, it is a tough issue. Something to think about. I definitely don’t take it lightly.

    Till’ next time,

    ><> Brian

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: