Comments on: Is it Time to Abandon Social Issues?

By: Boonton

Boonton — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:51:59 +0000

Ray

It seems like many people on this site oppose divorce – particularly no-fault divorce laws – but it would be very hard to fight now… so they were focusing on same-sex marriage. See, e.g., the comment thread here.

Is this yet another strategic retreat?

Or is a better term ‘strategic substitution’? Divorce is supposedly a huge threat to marriage, yet ‘defend traditional marriage’ almost always means in the political setting attacking gay marriage which is something like 3% of all marriages at most. IVF is attacked here, yet the political movement has been to oppose research on discarded IVF cells concentrating on the ethics of such research while almost totally ignoring the discarding part…(in other words, it’s ok if an IVF clinic flushes 50 fertilized eggs down the drain each month, but if 3 out of those 50 are used in any type of research that’s a big deal). Even abortion tends to buzz around side issues like partial birth abortions or late term abortions which have great emotional aand propaganda impact but in reality are a minimial portion of all abortions….which is incoherent if you take pro-life rhetoric seriously…an abortion at 9 months should be treated no differently than one at 1 month…in fact making a big deal of late term abortions actually makes a pro-choice argument for Roe which leaves early term abortions untouched (which is the vaste majority of abortions) leaving only late term ones subject to regulation.

The pattern seems to be here that ‘social conservatives’ generally means people who pick on issues that are ‘hot button’ but have little to do with the actual morals of ethics of society.

By: John Howard

John Howard — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:49:10 +0000

It’s strategic, but not a retreat. It’s the same as how gay rights activists took what they could get with DP’s and CU’s back in the 90′s, rather than demanding marriage back then. It’s called an incremental approach, and it works.

By: Ray Ingles

Ray Ingles — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:16:53 +0000

John Howard –

Well, I do oppose IVF. But that would be a very difficult place to start, since so many people have used it and been born from it, and there is perhaps a right to use it within the penumbras of medical privacy and marriage rights.

Is this yet another strategic retreat?

By: Bubba

Bubba — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 06:54:31 +0000

Good article, you’re one of the few people that really get it regarding the social pressures to support gay marriage when you’re young, especially in college. Having graduated from college 5 years ago, it has been a relief to be out of that environment where that issue seems to be unavoidable, popping up in conversations often. The pressure is tremendous to support it and it’s extremely difficult to take a stand against it, or else people will look at you like you’re worse than Hitler. It’s especially difficult with all the young single beautiful people at college and you think “if they think I’m like a racist bigot, I’ll never get their phone number.”

By: John Howard

John Howard — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 01:32:20 +0000

I agree Chuck, trying to ban IVF would be very unpopular and unreasonable. I’m not sure why David Nikol raised the issue. It’s one thing to believe, like the Pope does, that IVF hurts human dignity and leads to commodification, and quite another thing to say we should prohibit it. I don’t think we should prohibit IVF, even though I oppose it. Same with sperm donation and surrogacy. But I DO think we should call for prohibiting genetic engineering of children and attempting same-sex procreation using stem cells or some other method, and transgendered reproduction. Those things would just be too expensive and unethical and are totally unnecessary, and there is no right to do it, unlike having a baby with your spouse using a medical procedure like IVF. One is medicine to enable people to do what healthy people have a right to do, and the other would be manufacture. One makes progeny, the other would make products, children of a lab sequence, not of a mother and father.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 23:32:07 +0000

I don’t know where they come up with those stats about young folks being pro life but if you look at the election data they must have been surveying people on the moon.

And any politician damned fool enough to oppose IVF for any reason had better look for an honest living. You saw what happened to poor Mourdock. What happened to him would nothing compared to anyone espousing that position. No one opposes it who has any influence and to oppose it is to lose all influence.

By: John Howard

John Howard — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 22:49:58 +0000

“The party should also consider embracing immigration reform and shedding its extreme libertarian elements, both of which would strengthen its appeal with Catholics.”

Absolutely, the party should kick out the Libertarian state’s rights atheist materialist elements, and return to it’s abolitionist roots of protecting human dignity and equality.

Stop worrying about abortion and birth control for a while and fight to preserve natural reproduction rights and equality.

By: John Howard

John Howard — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 21:30:04 +0000

Well, I do oppose IVF. But that would be a very difficult place to start, since so many people have used it and been born from it, and there is perhaps a right to use it within the penumbras of medical privacy and marriage rights. But there is no right to reproduce with someone of the same sex, or to change sex and reproduce as the new sex. We should start with banning that, because no one uses it yet, and everyone agrees it would be ridiculous and unethical and dangerous, so it would be easy to ban. Then, maybe it will be easier to ban some other unethical practices like gamete donation and surrogacy and maybe IVF too.

The incremental approach is proven, trying to ban everything all at once is a non-starter.

By: ctd

ctd — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 21:12:46 +0000

The problem with discussions like these is that there is a difference between what should be done because it is right and what makes sense politically. For true social conservatives, dropping opposition to same-sex “marriage” is not an option. For Republicans, however, there is a winning strategy in dropping opposition on the marriage question and some other “social issues” and strengthening its pro-life position. That alone, however, may not be enough. The party should also consider embracing immigration reform and shedding its extreme libertarian elements, both of which would strengthen its appeal with Catholics.

By: David Nickol

David Nickol — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:34:17 +0000

John Howard,

Why don’t you start by opposing in vitro fertilization?