• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

You can't be for small government AND anti-abortion

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
I bring this up because a trend I've noticed is that many people who are against large government or basically any noticeable amount of government intrusion seem to also be on this side of setting moral standards too. They seem to be a mixture of anti-drug (marijuana, liquor), anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and even anti-pornography.

Am I getting this idea of small government wrong? If you want small government, you can't be demanding laws against these things, those are serious personal intrusions on your basic rights allowing to choose what you are allowed to do with your body.

Discuss.
 

MAgnum9987

Do What Thou Wilt
Cons you are talking about these people called Republicans. They are foremost Conservatives. They hold the bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other. They want limited government but a limit on social issues.

The Libertarians want both small government and no social regulation as well. Those are the true advocates of small gov't.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
I think the idea of a small government is as simple as I was suggesting: one that does not interfere with your personal life. It's considered a fantasy to a lot of people and I can't blame them, it would be pretty much impossible to construct since this country is so used to being babysat.
------
Cons you are talking about these people called Republicans. They are foremost Conservatives. They hold the bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other. They want limited government but a limit on social issues.

The Libertarians want both small government and no social regulation as well. Those are the true advocates of small gov't.
I didn't say "republican" because that's not always true. I know left leaning people who also want less government intrusion, you know?
 
Last edited:

JaneSmith

Registered Member
I really believe we need a new party that isn't Democrat or Republican and makes some sane changes. Libertarian sounds good to me.
 

MenInTights

not a plastic bag
I believe the government should only be large enough to establish a rule of law, protect us from attacks and guard our unalienable Rights, such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So, yes. You can be both
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
I agree with MIT, you can be for a limited government yet still believe the government has the duty to establish a rule of law.

Also, you can argue Roe v. Wade is actually big government since it was 9 unelected judges who overturned the will of the people, the people that voted in state representatives that criminalized arbotion. Thus the federal government trampled on the rights of the voting citizens.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
If one believes that abortion is murder what does that have to do with small government? Even the smallest of government would outlaw murder.
 

Merc

Problematic Shitlord
V.I.P.
I believe the government should only be large enough to establish a rule of law, protect us from attacks and guard our unalienable Rights, such as Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So, yes. You can be both
Yes, the right to life, not the right to dictate life. What exactly are people advocating then when they fight against big government? All these people blab about is getting government off their backs yet this sort of thing is okay? You're okay with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your body and life . . . but taxes is where you draw the line?

The logic doesn't exist.

I agree with MIT, you can be for a limited government yet still believe the government has the duty to establish a rule of law.
Yes, you can, if you don't believe in the inherent rights of being a human being. That is, being allowed to do what you want with your body so long as you aren't harming others. The biggest form of government intrusion is personal, so how are these sorts of things (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) not big government intrusion? It seems a lot of this ends up dealing with money and call me rude but isn't that a bit . . . disgusting? Money trumping life?

If one believes that abortion is murder what does that have to do with small government? Even the smallest of government would outlaw murder.
Yes but despite what it may seem, we're not a theocracy. Just because someone doesn't believe something doesn't change it. You want to believe it's murder, fine, but you can't force that belief on others. We have science to help us create boundaries and limits for such a risky act like abortion. The government has no place inside a woman's uterus and has no right to tell her what she can and can't do with it.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
Yes, the right to life, not the right to dictate life. What exactly are people advocating then when they fight against big government? All these people blab about is getting government off their backs yet this sort of thing is okay? You're okay with the government telling you what you can and can't do with your body and life . . . but taxes is where you draw the line?

The logic doesn't exist.
Actually the logic does exist. We as a society don't condone murder, that has no bearing on whether or not someone wants a big or small government. That's the logic that doesn't exist.

It's a much bigger issue to many than just telling you what you can or cannot do with your body. The abortion argument reminds me of the Dred Scott argument. They aren't people, they are property, and thus don't have any rights. Seems a little over 150 years later some are still making the same arguments.


Yes, you can, if you don't believe in the inherent rights of being a human being. That is, being allowed to do what you want with your body so long as you aren't harming others. The biggest form of government intrusion is personal, so how are these sorts of things (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) not big government intrusion? It seems a lot of this ends up dealing with money and call me rude but isn't that a bit . . . disgusting? Money trumping life?
Money trumping life? Inherent rights of a human being? You're excusing abortion and lecturing people about money trumping life and inherent rights? Really?


Yes but despite what it may seem, we're not a theocracy. Just because someone doesn't believe something doesn't change it. You want to believe it's murder, fine, but you can't force that belief on others. We have science to help us create boundaries and limits for such a risky act like abortion. The government has no place inside a woman's uterus and has no right to tell her what she can and can't do with it.
You can't force beliefs on others? Doesn't EVERY law do that? Don't we have laws that prohibit stealing, killing, speeding, etc...force beliefs on others in one way or another? Or is it just beliefs YOU don't agree with that you don't think should be forced on others?

EDIT: I also wanted to add there is no logic in the premise set out in the OP. I don't know of many who call for NO government. It's like attacking the Tea Party for using tax-payer paid streets. An objection to high taxes is not an objection to all taxes. To conclude as such is faulty logic.
 
Last edited:
Top