Aug 14
When it comes to civil liberties, liberals are often distrustful of government power. But, for reasons that baffle me, they are quite comfortable with Uncle Sam getting into the business of deciding, or providing “guidance” on, which lives are more valuable than others. A government charged with extending life expectancy must meddle not just with our health care, but with what we eat, how we drive, how we live. A government determined to cut costs must meddle not just with how we live, but how we die.
August 16th, 2009 at 8:59 am
So, you have joined the movement to keep government out of life decisions: which means you have turned pro-choice! You cannot have it both ways and claim intellectual consistency. When it comes to moral consistency, though, I suppose you can join the legions of others who twist and define morality to suit their policy preferences.
August 16th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Dont’ try your fancy thinking here… And don’t get me started on your intellectual consistency, I’d like to keep things friendly!
You, obviously, know that a government deciding to kill us is different than a person acting with malice (murder) or economic interest (abortion). Government permitting certain types of individual perpetrated killing may be abhorrent to many, but government doing the deciding/killing should be abhorrent to all.
August 16th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Except, of course, in the death penalty for heinous crimes. If you are to maintain that being born with Downs Syndrome or becoming old and sick are heinous crimes, then I’m sure some of Obama’s advisors and tzars have blogs you can join in that conversation.
August 16th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I’ve got a couple posts brewing about Obama, his supporters and intellectual consistency. BTW.