4 ms·

It sounds like you think Republicans are in general against government regulation. However, there is a history of Republicans increasing government regulation o

by dfxm12 2y ago

It sounds like you think Republicans are in general against government regulation. However, there is a history of Republicans increasing government regulation on private businesses, most recently around private doctors providing health care for women. Republicans say they are pro small government, but their actions clearly prove otherwise. Also, trying to strong arm the media is well within the Republican political ideology, especially under the guidance of their current presidential nominee.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lliamander 2y ago
> However, there is a history of Republicans increasing government regulation on private businesses, most recently around private doctors providing health care for women. No one (except certain strains of anarchists) is against laws restricting "big" crimes like murder, theft, etc. Regardless of how you think about it, Republicans tend to think of abortion as murder, and so it is perfectly consistent to constrain that behavior while still being against government regulation broadly speaking. Now, I'm not going to try and convince you that abortion is murder, I'm just saying your accusation of Republican hypocrisy is not convincing at all. > Republicans say they are pro small government, but their actions clearly prove otherwise. I would say that Republican politicians are much more comfortable with big government than the average voter that supports them.
- orwin 2y ago
  So if they believe abortion is murder, they actually have to punish it like it really is. So with years in prison for the woman, the supporting husband, the nurses and the MD. To be clear, I do not think it is murder. But if I did, I would try to send to prison all participants. Not doing so seems philosophically weak, not quite hypocritical, but really self-serving or delusional 'look, those are murderers, a small fine and an administrative slap on the wrist seems enough'. I respect the opinion 'capital punishment/life sentence for any abortion, even in case of incest, rape, or unviable fœtus' way more, even if I find it unhinged. At least they are consistent.
  - lliamander 2y ago
    > I respect the opinion 'capital punishment/life sentence for any abortion, even in case of incest, rape, or unviable fœtus' way more, even if I find it unhinged. At least they are consistent. Why? In no other place in the law do we completely ignore any potentially mitigating factors and always seek the maximum penalty. There's nothing more "consistent" about being overly-simplistic in this one area of law when we aren't anywhere else. Every crime has degrees. There are always factors that affect the severity of punishment. When I say that conservatives see abortion as murder, what I mean is that they see it as falling on the spectrum that includes murder and manslaughter (voluntary and involuntary) etc. All of those people you listed bear legal and moral culpability, but the degree of culpability is something that has to be weighed in light of the facts. There's also always an element of practical politics: the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, incest, viability, or threat to the life of the mother. Even allowing for these exceptions (some of which I would argue are in fact morally consistent) would result in a dramatic decline in the number of unborn deaths.
    - orwin 2y ago
      Yes, and abortion means intent, which is an aggravating factor. Is killing an infant a mitigating factor? Killing someone with a genetic handicap? Maybe in case of 'threat to the life of the mother', you can argue for 'self-defense', but still, you would have to be judged. And that still leaves malformation, viability, rape and incest for which I don't find any moral mitigation tbf (and also leave the 'right of the father to see his kid' question up in the air). > the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, incest, viability, or threat to the life of the mother. I wouldn't be so sure about that, especially if you count as rape removing the condom when the lady asked not to. And if you only count abortion after first heartbeat, 8 weeks (I don't, to me the limit should be 'when it can live out of the uterus'), at least in France, it's even the vast, vast minority. The number in the US should be different (50% of abortion here are for people already with children, vs 30% in the US, 32% are for women aged 14-29, vs almost 50 in the US), but that's probably because you don't do sex ed in some part of your country. Which would be a non-coercing, liberty-preserving way to reduce abortions btw.
autoexec 2y ago
> However, there is a history of Republicans increasing government regulation on private businesses They also like regulating people's private lives. Who you can marry, who can have kids, who can use birth control, who can go to pornhub.com, who you can have sex with, what sex positions you're allowed to use, what books you can read, what you can teach in schools, what meat you can eat, etc.
calibas 2y ago
> It sounds like you think Republicans are in general against government regulation. Nope, but I think most Republicans think that. Personally, I think politics is more about money and power than adherence to any kind of ideology.
flyingpenguin 2y ago
If you want a really fun time, try to explain that Border control, immigration, and citizenship are all large government bodies enacting a government created construct wherein they control where different people are allowed to live and stay... that pisses most small government people off.

by dfxm12 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lliamander 2y ago

> However, there is a history of Republicans increasing government regulation on private businesses, most recently around private doctors providing health care for women. No one (except certain strains of anarchists) is against laws restricting "big" crimes like murder, theft, etc. Regardless of how you think about it, Republicans tend to think of abortion as murder, and so it is perfectly consistent to constrain that behavior while still being against government regulation broadly speaking. Now, I'm not going to try and convince you that abortion is murder, I'm just saying your accusation of Republican hypocrisy is not convincing at all. > Republicans say they are pro small government, but their actions clearly prove otherwise. I would say that Republican politicians are much more comfortable with big government than the average voter that supports them.

orwin 2y ago
So if they believe abortion is murder, they actually have to punish it like it really is. So with years in prison for the woman, the supporting husband, the nurses and the MD. To be clear, I do not think it is murder. But if I did, I would try to send to prison all participants. Not doing so seems philosophically weak, not quite hypocritical, but really self-serving or delusional 'look, those are murderers, a small fine and an administrative slap on the wrist seems enough'. I respect the opinion 'capital punishment/life sentence for any abortion, even in case of incest, rape, or unviable fœtus' way more, even if I find it unhinged. At least they are consistent.
- lliamander 2y ago
  > I respect the opinion 'capital punishment/life sentence for any abortion, even in case of incest, rape, or unviable fœtus' way more, even if I find it unhinged. At least they are consistent. Why? In no other place in the law do we completely ignore any potentially mitigating factors and always seek the maximum penalty. There's nothing more "consistent" about being overly-simplistic in this one area of law when we aren't anywhere else. Every crime has degrees. There are always factors that affect the severity of punishment. When I say that conservatives see abortion as murder, what I mean is that they see it as falling on the spectrum that includes murder and manslaughter (voluntary and involuntary) etc. All of those people you listed bear legal and moral culpability, but the degree of culpability is something that has to be weighed in light of the facts. There's also always an element of practical politics: the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, incest, viability, or threat to the life of the mother. Even allowing for these exceptions (some of which I would argue are in fact morally consistent) would result in a dramatic decline in the number of unborn deaths.
  - orwin 2y ago
    Yes, and abortion means intent, which is an aggravating factor. Is killing an infant a mitigating factor? Killing someone with a genetic handicap? Maybe in case of 'threat to the life of the mother', you can argue for 'self-defense', but still, you would have to be judged. And that still leaves malformation, viability, rape and incest for which I don't find any moral mitigation tbf (and also leave the 'right of the father to see his kid' question up in the air). > the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape, incest, viability, or threat to the life of the mother. I wouldn't be so sure about that, especially if you count as rape removing the condom when the lady asked not to. And if you only count abortion after first heartbeat, 8 weeks (I don't, to me the limit should be 'when it can live out of the uterus'), at least in France, it's even the vast, vast minority. The number in the US should be different (50% of abortion here are for people already with children, vs 30% in the US, 32% are for women aged 14-29, vs almost 50 in the US), but that's probably because you don't do sex ed in some part of your country. Which would be a non-coercing, liberty-preserving way to reduce abortions btw.

autoexec 2y ago

> However, there is a history of Republicans increasing government regulation on private businesses They also like regulating people's private lives. Who you can marry, who can have kids, who can use birth control, who can go to pornhub.com, who you can have sex with, what sex positions you're allowed to use, what books you can read, what you can teach in schools, what meat you can eat, etc.

calibas 2y ago

> It sounds like you think Republicans are in general against government regulation. Nope, but I think most Republicans think that. Personally, I think politics is more about money and power than adherence to any kind of ideology.

flyingpenguin 2y ago

If you want a really fun time, try to explain that Border control, immigration, and citizenship are all large government bodies enacting a government created construct wherein they control where different people are allowed to live and stay... that pisses most small government people off.