- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Now we have an economy run on IOUs.
On the pro-choice thing: First, it's not philosophically inconsistent IF you believe that natural rights begin at conception. That doesn't make it the right view, just the philosophically consistent one.
That said, his view of the role of government means that the federal government shouldn't be involved in the question at all. That's a viewpoint that on the face of it should be acceptable to both sides. When you let the states deal with it, the people who live in the states are the ones that ultimately decide.
Of course, it means you have to actually care about state politics for that to work (oh noes!).
Also, whatever happened to contraception? Does it suddenly not exist? There seems to be an automatic assumption online that the instant a woman decides she has equal rights with a man, she becomes pregnant through some philosophical immaculate conception, and only universally legalized abortion can solve this crippling moral problem.
It's ridiculous. The man's allowed to hold a pro-life view if he wants to... after all, his entire stance is that government shouldn't be the reflection of the ideologies of just one man, or of the rich and powerful elites. He's not Bush. He wants to have the power so that he can pare it down, not to enforce his worldview in areas the government has no business poking its nose.
Novel concept, isn't it?
