It sounds like you are advocating true libertarianism … But don’t forget the father as well. He was a participant in the creation of said baby/embryo/etc
I could be on board, tell me more!
Fine simply meant that I would be in agreement, not necessarily that I would NEED to be fine. I am not the government.
Yeah, about that- In case of a tie vote who gets final say, in your opinion?
A tie in which way? Father wants/Mother doesn’t might be problematic.
But mother wants/father doesn’t? Tie goes to the mother, with the possibility of not receiving child support.
But of course, these are my opinions and do not carry the weight of the government mandate.
I am not advocating that. I am pointing out that all of us have boundaries of where we think it’s OK to put ourselves in an elite position, and the charge of “liberal elite” is really just someone getting upset when someone else does the same thing.
The father’s only participation was to ejaculate inside a woman while satisfying his own pleasure. His concerns should be subordinate to the person faced with carrying the pregnancy.
But we are the government. We make these choices via our political expression. Not choosing is also a choice.
Liberal elites, as espoused in this thread, is simply those people who have designed laws to protect people from themselves but this thread devolved from that to abortion…
What it devolved to the insistence that elitism is “nobody knows better than the individual” what’s good for them, and society has no role in making that choice.
Abortion is one good example where conservatives enthusiastically believe the opposite of that. I could also name marriage equality, the war on drugs, sodomy laws, and a host of other morality-policing instances. Conservative elitism reigns supreme in those cases.
I use those examples not to complain about forms of elitism that I don’t like, nor to say that there are no liberal elites in the entire world, but to demonstrate that “elitism” is a misdirection tactic to draw attention away from policy arguments that are weak or altogether missing.
It is never, ever about protecting you from yourself. It’s about protecting society from having to deal with your corpse in the gutter, your broke ass living on the street, your injured body that you conveniently didn’t bother getting insurance for and can’t afford to deal with.
Want evidence? Look into where those helmet laws apply. Private property? Nope! Die on your own time and more power to you. But don’t slather your corpse on OUR roads! Die if you like, but don’t litter!
This leads me to ask what our libertarian friends would do with regard to the consequences of eliminating all this “nannyism?”
Don’t tell me everyone would do the right thing. The consequences of breaking the law are a lot clearer than those of not saving for retirement, and people still do it.
Motorcycle helmets are fairly trivial since fools kill themselves, so no big deal (so long as they don’t splatter blood on my car.) But what about Social Security? Do you propose to let improvident seniors starve? Be homeless? Or would society be forced to tax itself to give them the money they chose not to save when they were working? Seems like a textbook moral hazard.
I’m curious, because people have been tiptoeing around this problem in this thread.
Umm, they don’t give a shit? I don’t know how many different ways they can explain this.
There may be no practical difference between a policy of “make them face the consequences of their actions” and “just step over the old people dying in the street,” but they sound different, don’t they?
And who knows, they might be for welfare when it comes down to not facing the consequences of their policies.
The usual line is that they expect private organizations like churches and charities to take care of these things. The operative difference between churches/charities and the government being that donation to the former is optional.
It may further be noted that I’ve heard it argued that the real moral hazard is that if you’re forced to donate money, then it’s less of a moral good than voluntarily doing it. Which, arguably, is true - it takes no moral enlightenment to pay taxes. And so these folks are angry that their taxes are used for social reasons because it deprives them of getting feel-good vibes from the helping of the poor that their money is doing.
Yes, I’ve seriously heard this argued.
I believe it.
Given that the rich have gotten giant tax cuts, the rich now have tons more money to donate to real (not Trump) charities. If this has happened, I haven’t heard about it.
As for churches, I doubt churches have been able to bear this load ever in the history of mankind, which is not the fault of the churches. Plus, if you are poor you had better be a member of a church with rich members.
Anyhow, I guess those who believe this can come up with numbers showing that the wealthy during the Hoover administration (when taxes were low) stepped right up and solved poverty during the Depression.