The Arrowood Dispatch

I have been asked several times recently about different political stances that I have. When I discuss these, people ask me if I am a Libertarian. I answer with a quick no. I am not a Libertarian. When asked what I am, I usually respond that I am a small-government conservatice. When pressed on political party, I will answer that I am a Republican.

The difference, for me, between being a Libertarian and a small-government conservative is that Libertarians, as a party, tend to be pro-choice among other stances. Not all Libertarians believe this way, but the Libertarian Party does. I believe that being a small-government conservative is more traditional, while Libertianism blends too much progressive values within. My small-government conservatism could also be considered a blend of libertarian Republicanism.

I have tried to develop a political philosophy that remains consistent. One may ask how I can defend pro-life ideals and my stance against gay marriage with my small-government conservatism. I even talked to someone earlier yesterday who told me that her son is a Libertarian who is pro-choice. I feel that this is not completely compatible with what Libertarians have as a philosophy.

When it comes to the issue of abortion, I am against it not on the grounds that I should be able tell someone else how to treat their bodies.  If someone wants to make medical decisions that effect them, so be it.  My problem is that I don’t personally believe that abortion is effecting just the woman, but I believe that abortion is murdering another human life.  I know that you can’t force everyone to do what you think, but that is exactly what government does by allowing abortion.  My real problem is with government deciding who is not a living human.  It didn’t work out really well when our government did not recognize Africans as humans.  People used ‘rights’ to trod down living humans and place them into slavery.  History judged that to be wrong.  History may just do the same with abortion. 

Some talked of ‘Death Panels’ with the healthcare bill.  Democrats claimed that this was a scare tactic used by Republicans to kill the bill.  They stated it was not even in there.  Let’s not discuss that at this point, but by the whole premise of the argument, it seems to work out as a type of a proof that if the government did set up a panel to decide whether or not one would live based on their quality and quantity of life, that would be wrong.  Is that not what government does on the issue of abortion?  We have Congress, the SCOTUS, and the POTUS deciding that life at the earliest stages is not life at all.  When government is the decider that someone is less than a person, we have problems.  What else will we trust government with?