Playing the abortion card: The GOP strategy fail of 2014

I thought I’d share my response to a piece by Darrell Cheney on The Blaze. In his “conservative” ignorance he uses abortion as an issue when rampant authoritarianism and government involvement in personal decision is what people are actually pissed off about.

Many in the right don’t understand this and that does nothing but exacerbate the anger.

To save space this is just my response.

You may want to read Cheney’s original post so this all makes sense.

Pro-life and pro-choice is a religious issue

True, no it’s not.

It’s a freedom issue and it’s clear most so-called freedom loving conservatives love neither freedom, nor conservation of the founding. They wish to use government to enforce their morality, just as the Marxists.

Darrell Cheney may believe in the sanctity of life, but not liberty. Protecting a life that is not inside of you has nothing to do with you, or especially government.

It’s between God and parent.

Religious socialism is still socialism, and that’s really what he’s preaching — he doesn’t actually believe this is a non-religious issue.

The two sides are pro-life and pro-choice

Both of his points are invalid. They do not offer you a free choice on either side.

The Leftists want abortion to lower population and the right-wingers wants to force their will on your personal realm.

Adding to my prior point, this argument is constantly surrounding the involvement of government. It is not in their authority, as per Jefferson’s “The World Belongs to the Living”.

Government has no say what-so-ever in that which is not here breathing. Either opinion — pro-life or pro-choice — is a matter of social debate and personal activity. Violation of this is by definition tyranny.

Men shouldn’t exact their will upon women

“The laws we pass as a country and the laws on the books are exactly that – a system of beliefs that are, in essence, pushed on everyone.”

This person is a tyrant and thus their opinion is null and void.

The goal in the advancement of the Republic is to whittle government at every level out of the personal decisions of each individual and only to be able to arbitrate punishments after the fact.

His ignorance is compounded and proven in stating illegal law (such as Obamacare, which everyone ounce of Jefferson and Madisonian ideology tells us not to obey) is an appeal to keep false authority in your mindset so when those he agrees with get in charge and pass infringing laws you are convinced to obey them.

Self-government is not sending representatives, it is living as you see fit, taking responsibility for the effects from those choices by no one else. Unless those you interact with incur damage, theft, or trespass. Even then they have a right to immediately respond against you.

“Do no harm”, is what Locke said not, “Stop harm from being possible.”

Small minds like this believe you have the right as a community from keeping bad things from even possibly happening.

Not only does this attempt to violate nature and liberty, but it is again… tyranny.

The baby isn’t a human life until a certain point, it’s just a mass of cells

None of government’s business. If you believe murder is happening… use your gun.

It’s not a human unless it’s viable outside of the womb

None of government’s business. If you believe murder is happening… use your gun.

It’s a woman’s choice and right to decide what she does with her body

None of government’s business. If you believe murder is happening… use your gun.

This is a false issue.

There are communists in the government making law. That’s the issue.

Abortion is being used for Christian Socialism to creep in and propel the lie this is a “Christian Nation”.

It is actually a Nation of the Free.

This issue isn’t one of authority to mind themselves with, and is only a matter for those involved. If you think its murder, shoot those committing it and let your community decide through jurisprudence if you did the right thing, or not, on a case-by-case basis.

Use of force to defend is a right of nature, laws specializing authority illegally is how we have socialists thinking they could use public money for any of this in the first place.

If legislators had obeyed the founders and not funded churches within the states, there would have been no argument for others to fund their socialist programs in the first place.

You who keep building your own demise and threatening those of us who are truly free will be held responsible for it.

posted by Ginsburg
  • Blindbid Team

    The definition of liberty is the power to act as one please as long as those actions don’t infringe on another person’s power to act. Liberty is also the power to act as one pleases without the fear of the State.

    A fetus is a person. After about 4 months, the fetus resembles a human baby. After 5 months, a fetus can live outside the womb. Does not the State have an obligation to protect its citizenry? I think that it does. Does not the fetus have a right or liberty not to live in fear? I would argue, the fetus does. These truths make abortion is incompatible with liberty.

    • Guest

      A fetus resides in a preexisting person. The “State” has no authority
      where they’re flesh begins. Your argument is invalid as you appear to
      not understand the definition of Liberty or the importance of
      sovereignty.

      noun: liberty

      1.
      the
      state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed
      by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.

      2.
      the power or scope to act as one pleases.

      Being and incubator for life does not give society say over how you incubate.

    • Ginsburg

      A fetus resides in a preexisting person. The “State” has no authority
      where their flesh begins. Your argument is invalid as you appear to
      not understand the definition of Liberty or the importance of
      sovereignty.

      noun: liberty

      1.
      the
      state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed
      by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.

      2.
      the power or scope to act as one pleases.

      Being and incubator for life does not give society a say over how you incubate.

  • http://vforvandyke.com/ Stephen VanDyke

    I drive by Planned Parenthood every day to go to work, and most days there are a handful of protesters. I’ve seen it swell to a few hundred on a Monday (assuming there was a fiery sermon that Sunday).

    These protesters have already claimed victory over the closing of one office here. I actually kind of almost admire them for their dogged determination to close the other (I have a healthy respect for crazy religious people).

    And on the other side of this coin, I know women who have confessed abortions to me with all the compelling ethical arguments and I could be a wad and make them feel like scum. I don’t.

    This is clearly not not something that anyone ever takes lightly on either side and I wonder if “use your gun” would exacerbate the issue by creating another victim.

  • http://vforvandyke.com/ Stephen VanDyke

    I apologize for holding your comment up in moderation. It was flagged because it had a link and I must have missed the email (I just now did my regular once over of everything and approved this).

    Again, many apologies and we’ll try to do better.

  • Ginsburg

    The father is not the mother. Her body, her borders, her liberty. The action he takes, because of what he believes she’s done is his choice. Not societies. Society can acquit him of his action if they think he did the right thing.

    I repeat:

    liberty

    the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.

    Your call is for the use of government to restrict. That is oppression not liberty.

    • Blindbid Team

      Then there can be no such thing as paternity if the father refuses to care for the fetus. Each child born to the mother in your world view is the sole responsibility of the mother.

      The mother is the sole arbiter to decide life and death, even though without the father the mother would not have been able to have the baby.

      As for Liberty, the woman chose to sleep with the man. There is some responsibility on both parties for the consequences. You want a world where there are no consequences for your action. In this case, the result is a human life, whom you deem expendable for the sake of holding up the torch of liberty. No life is expendable. That is the difference in our opinions.

      • Ginsburg

        While inside the mother, only the mother can directly protect the child and has the most direct effect on the child. FACT.

        Where did I say “the father refuses to care for the fetus”? I specifically said “The action he takes, because of what he believes she’s done is his choice” If he thinks she murdered his child he should act. It’s not the governments business.

        The difference in our opinions is that you think only 3rd parties can distribute “consequences.” I say leave it to the people involved. You want to shove your ideals into every facet that doesn’t agree with you. Using a tertiary power to accomplish your societal engineering. One that through vote, legalese and manipulation, and of course the claim it “keep us free” you seed power and then whine when the opposition uses your own tactics against you. This doesn’t concern me, because I’m free from authority. Your opinion is of tyranny. Mine is of liberty.

        liberty

        the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.

        • Blindbid Team

          I’m not sure I understand your point. In a civilized society we take our grievances to court instead of in our own hands. In a society with minimal government, a legal system is seen as an essential part, just as a militia or a military. In the case of abortion, the law should involve the rights of the third person who has no voice, the fetus. I think you would agree that infanticide is wrong even after a few minutes after birth. Why is than OK to kill the baby (fetus) a few minutes before birth? a few hours, days, months? Is such action justified because the baby is still connect to the placenta? Are you willing to state that all babies still connected to placenta’s can be killed? Or do babies assume full constitutional rights once the cord is cut? So when does a person receive constitutional rights and liberty?

          • http://blogtalkradio.com/ginsburg Ginsburg

            “In a civilized society we take our grievances to court instead of in our own hands.”

            What makes you think that?