ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for Libertarians

About the religiously secular

by 4 Comments

Oh dear, Andrea. How right you are. I’m talking about your comment to my earlier post, below, re some libertarian types who can get quite a bit religious about their non-religion. And I don’t mean that in a good way.

Maybe Tanya is right; perhaps there are only 27 people like me – folks who mostly side with the religious social conservatives on the issues but who are not religious. And are not about to be, either; I’m not areligious because I never experienced life in the Church – quite the opposite. I don’t know. But I hope not to be mistaken for a militantly secular libertarian just because I’m not religious.

I was quite excited about a week ago when I heard that a few guys were starting a new blog called Secular Right. I thought I’d found a new home; I thought they were going to discuss conservative ideas and ideals more or less like we discuss life issues here at PWPL – without justifying our positions on the Gospel. But so far, that’s not what SR is doing. They seem more intent on demonstrating that religion is somehow inferior to reason, as though the two were necessarily mutually exclusive. I find that annoying.

It doesn’t have to be that way. There ought to be some room between the oogedy-boogedy and the dry (and aggressive) libertarian brand of militant secularism.

Oh well. It’s early in the morning and I’ve got to dash out for a couple of hours, so who knows what’ll await me when I log in again this afternoon.

Happy Saturday morning, everyone. Hey, Andrea, how’s Thunder Bay?

_____________________________

Andrea adds: On numbers–it could just be me, but my world has always been made up of vast numbers of secular conservatives/libertarians, making very clever comparisons between those who oh, say, support traditional marriage and racists in the deep south. (No word of a lie–wow did I ever wish I was somewhere else for that particular luncheon.) I tell ya–I got stories. (And back to the Super Annoying Religious Christian–Brigitte, most people are areligious because they have an experience with the church, not because they never went. Back in the day, I do believe it was those sitting in the pews who convinced me that I didn’t want to.)

Legislation versus culture

by 2 Comments

Rebecca writes here: “Feasible ways of reducing abortion should not be sneezed at.” And Brigitte writes, same post: “Why is it so difficult to find someone willing to say he or she is against abortion because it is wrong?”

What I desire is courage in politics–something along what Brigitte says–someone willing to say abortion is wrong. Or they could simply acknowledge abortion is not (for the vast, overriding majority of cases) medical treatment.

That’s why the opening line of the Libertarian policy is hard to stomach.

There’s no libertarian candidate in my riding–just the regulars plus one Marxist-Leninist. That’s a statement on the Canadian political scene right there–the only additional candidates I get in my riding are running because the mainstream left-wing, socialist-oriented, big spending parties aren’t left enough.

Rebecca’s point is a good one, too. In this climate–where courage is not evident, many don’t consider abortion wrong, or even understand what it is–an attempt to bridge the gap by defunding is a very important one. Even just saying those words. It’s a step that won’t happen, incidentally–if a small portion of “arts funding” can’t be removed without the better part of Toronto falling into a collective swoon, you can bet your bottom dollar the removal of abortion funding is beyond the pale.

Which leads me to my point all along: Addressing abortion through legislation is not the avenue I choose to fight. Many claim fighting abortion is a lost cause–clearly I don’t believe this is the case. But it’s in fighting for hearts and minds that I know we are winning. Enter the legislative arena, and it’s just one angry pro-abortion supporter after one apathetic politician after one embittered pro-lifer–all in a depressing row.  

I’ll always gravitate toward the politician who exhibits great courage in the face of adversity. I don’t see it in the main candidates, and I don’t hear it from Dennis Young either. That means I vote for the least worst candidate, while holding my nose and hoping to change the culture we live in all the while, in spite of bad political choices.

You lost me at “safe”

by 2 Comments

The Libertarian Party will fight to keep abortion safe and legal! That’s the opening statement of a policy puportedly intended to woo pro-lifers. To be fair, they go on to say:

…but we also feel a compromise is needed to ensure that the deeply held views of pro-life Canadians are respected. If elected, I will work to protect the freedom of conscience of pro-life medical workers and taxpayers by getting the federal government out of the business of financing abortions and pro-choice advocacy groups,” Dennis Young, Leader of the Libertarian Party.

______________________________

Rebecca adds: Hey, it’s a start. I live in a riding in which 83% of voters consider themselves pro-choice, and it’s far from the only riding that displays this sort of demographic. Not only is campaigning on stopping abortions a non-starter, but the Conservative Party of Canada officially denies that it will even discuss changing the abortion status quo – there will be no radical changes in the aftermath of this election concerning abortion in Canada, no matter what the outcome.

If abortions cost people money, more people would ensure that they didn’t need abortions, just as increases in the per-child welfare allowance in the different US states lead to higher births to moms on welfare. Even three year olds can weigh costs and benefits, and if people know something will cost them, they are motivated to find a way to do without it.

This wouldn’t make me vote Libertarian (I’m not a big fan of protest votes in elections that matter, and this one matters – although don’t they all?) but an attempt to stop using tax dollars to pay for elective abortions is the single most feasible step, that could be enacted in the short term, that governments could take to reduce the number of abortions. Feasible ways of reducing abortion should not be sneezed at.

______________________________

Brigitte doesn’t want to sneeze, but golly. Why is it so difficult to find someone willing to say he or she is against abortion because it is wrong?

______________________________

Rebecca says: One reason why it’s so hard to find someone who states that he or she opposes abortion because it is wrong is that, if he is running as a CPC candidate, he is not allowed to say that. This may or may not be a sensible strategy for getting elected, but I’m not hugely comfortable with asking people to suppress (as far as I know they’re not asked to lie about) their beliefs on a controversial issue.

The other thing is that I’m pretty sure the leader of the Libertarians, like a lot of his supporters, doesn’t believe it is wrong. Should we not make common cause with whomever we can, in the interests of fewer abortions happening? I personally am not at all troubled by joining with libertarians, who think abortion is morally and ethically fine but are offended by the public purse paying for them, in order to stop taxpayer funded abortions. We may not agree on what step to take next, but SoCons, libertarians, and a lot of other Canadians who may or may not be pro-life can move one step in the right direction in this case.

 

Meta