I MUST agree
I have a question for the right wing conservatives.
Why would a party, concerned with personal freedom and limited government,
attempt to control a woman by denying her the right to choose
whether she wants to abort a pregnancy? Why would they want
to deny the same rights to same sex couples that heterosexual couples enjoy?
with u, Phoenix.
My answer to how this came about involves the political
and ideological history of the situation.
Let me begin by taking notice that the Founders were NOT
; thay gave us a secular republic.
Therefore, being CONSERVATIVE
, or non-deviant orthodox
Original Intendment Americans does NOT
mean being theocratic.
Historically, that is not
If the Founding Generation had WANTED
to create a theocracy,
thay coud have and woud have DONE
Instead, thay explicitly separated church and state,
and protected religious freedom of choice.
During the Third World War, from 1945 to 1991,
there was an ideological split in the polity between those who
strove with every iota of our being against our communist enemies,
on one side, and those who did not see the communists as being all that bad
to get excited about; thay were our allies against the nazis,
after all (beginning when Hitler invaded Russia June 22, 1941).
Many of us were unsure whether freedom or the commies woud win.
Among those on the side of defeating the commies
(as distinct from those who were soft on communism, or who favored it,
like my next door neighbor Comrade Murray,
who loved to praise his Comrade Stalin every summer night in the 1940s n early 50s)
were people who were very
cognizant of the atheist
nature of the enemy, and referred to it ofen.
Both before and after 1991, those folks really seemed to like babies A LOT
and were very, very offended and grossed out by abortions.
(I felt the opposite way, as u do, Phoenix, qua personal sovereignty and somatic autonomy.
Indeed, in my childhood [long before Roe v. Wade]
I was shocked and appalled
to discover that abortion was illegal.)
Anyway, the anti-commie, anti-socialist coalition
these folks to whom theology was of very immediate concern.
It was a coalition
, which means of joining of different
toward a commonly sought goal, in this case re-establishing
the freedom of laissez faire
Members of a coalition cannot reasonably expect other members
thereof to see everything
their own way; if thay do,
then that coalition will not be viable, and it will end.
Either thay will get along, or thay will not, and abandon it.
The purpose of a political party is to WIN
, not to lose,
unless u just wanna make a statement, and leave it at that.
We knew and still know, that if we threw out
the folks who
allege that thay are "conservative" in their semi-theocratic motives,
then we 'd be so badly depleted and debilitated as to make success very unlikely.
In other words, it woud be handing victory to the collectivist -
authoritarians (thereby throwing our own freedom in the garbage).
Therefore, we endeavor to avoid a split, and keep a not-too-happy
marriage together, for the sake of its fruit: the political power
to defend personal freedom.
If u 'd like further elucidation, please lemme know.