"There are Americans who want the exact thing. So no that doesn't seem to be at odds with western culture."
and there are people in the middle east who want absolute freedom for women? does that mean both cultures are the same? are you really trying to make broad statements about culture based on observations of outliers?
I'm not talking about outliers.
I also never said that both cultures are the same.
Cultures are complicated structures. They are driven by the people who are part of it, and the people that are a part of it are affected by it.
If you're worried about the former, you shouldn't be. It takes a huge number of people to affect the culture like that. 3 million people from an "incompatible" culture aren't going to radically change the culture of 300 million.
The latter is good, because people from "incompatible" cultures tend to get absorbed in the new culture.
"My commentary there has no regard to "big" or "small" government."
it absolutely does, the size of government determines to what degree intrusion in the affairs of other countries(including aid) is possible
In a sense. But you can have smaller governments that intrude more in the affairs of other countries, and you can have larger countries that don't.
"big" or "small" government is a somewhat meaningless phrase because size of the government doesn't have to correlate with actions.
Republicans push for big protectionist government, Democrats push for big "welfare" government.
""It is inevitable" is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because there's a path from A to B, doesn't mean that it has to be taken. "
its not a fallacy if every time something has occurred in the past it has lead to the same result
at that point its fair to say that you move beyond something being possible and maybe even past it being probable
It is a fallacy.
"its not a fallacy if every time something has occurred in the past it has lead to the same result"
This kind of logic, doesn't work in science, and it certainly doesn't work in math.
In math, something can be true an infinite number of times, and you only need one counter example to have the statement be false.
With that in mind, I have a higher bar for something not being a fallacy. Just because something usually happens, doesn't mean it's inevitable or guaranteed to happen.
And no, it hasn't happened every time.
Most governments today have far larger reach and do more than they ever have before. And yet this is also the freest we've ever been.
""security apparatus" is moreso something that "small government" people push forward."
this is nonsense, libertarians want the military to be reduced and its funding to be reduced
you are not referring to small government people but people who want government to be restructured and there is a difference between the two
"Most "small government" people here want a big government because they want it to keep them safe. A militarized border, a large military, strong police force are things being pushed by "small government" advocates. "
wrong, wrong, wrong
I'm talking about Republicans. They make up most of the conservative voting population. And they talk hard about being small government advocates.
Libertarians are definitely the exception. Notice the usage of "most".
Abortion is imoral though. These bills are a bit extreme but the intentions are good.
The problem though is that illegalizing abortion is not the way to lower the rate.
There's a reason that terms like "coat hanger" abortion exist. If a woman is desparate enough, they are going to take things into their own hands.
Even if you think that abortion should be legalized, it's not an easy thing to legislate.
For example, some women purposely fall down stairs to miscarry. How do you legislate that?
"People who fall down stairs should go to jail" -> That's obvious nonsense.
"Pregnant people who fall down stairs should go to jail" ->Still nonsense. Some people legitimately fall by accident.
"Pregnant people who are trying to miscarry by falling down the stairs should go to jail" -> how do you prove that someone was intentionally trying to miscarry? Sure in some cases, you can figure it out, because they try another method.
Or like the recent law that was trying to get passed. That doctors could be charged if something happens to a baby that surivived an abortion.
How do you prove it was the doctor's fault? Or how do you prove that the doctor could have done more to save the baby's life?
That was the concern that Democrats had, that doctors could be charged with murder for a natural death.
Some of these women are endangering their lives to miscarry. Illegalizing abortion isn't the 100% pro-life view it is cracked up to be.
Some states are giving away free contraception, and they've had great success with reducing the abortion rate.
And furthermore putting "Abortion is imoral though. These bills are a bit extreme but the intentions are good." in my post is just insulting.
I don't think that was intentional. A lot of people accidentally put their post in the nearly invisible square (on mobile) they are quoting.
Well we have laws that stop people from killing each other and killing animals so it makes sense that there are bills being made to stop abortions. Life is sacred and if someone does not want a child they don't have to keep the kid or they can just take proper precautions to make sure that they don't have a kid while having sex.
But we also have laws to allow killing animals, and in some cases people (mostly the death penalty, but you could argue that Euthanasia is also in that category.)