Conservativism, Personal Freedom, and Babies

I am a conservative woman. In dress and politics, I think that the less given away is best. Allow me to explain: I believe that you should keep what you make. I believe that the less you give to the government, the more you have to work for the good of not only your family, but for the rest of society. A man forcing a woman to show more skin is wrong and the government forcing you to give them more of your money is wrong. Not for the same reason, but the metaphor stands.

Based on my self-identification as a conservative, one might assume I am a Republican. That assumption is false. I may usually vote Republican, but that's because most Democrats are anti-life/anti-baby/pro-choice. I am more likely to call myself a Libertarian than anything.

Why does Libertarianism call me? I believe in personal freedoms. I believe that the government should not legislate what I eat, drink, or do. I believe that I have the right to govern my own behaviour and that I am responsible for that behaviour and the consequences thereof. Personally, I disagree with gay marriage because of my religious beliefs. I am Roman Catholic and will stand up for my beliefs as such. I have the right to do that, as granted to me by this country. Others are under no such compunction, though I do wish that the entire world shared my religious orientation because it has done so much good for my life. That is another post, though.

I do not think the federal government has the right to legislate who marries whom. Rights not granted by the states shall be covered under the federal government. States have their own marriage laws and it is not the responsibility of the federal government to say that two men cannot get married, two women cannot get married, or a man and a woman cannot get married. While I disagree with the lifestyle and the use of the word "marriage" (because marriage is a sacrament in the Catholic Church), I will not stand in the way of states passing marriage laws.

I also believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life. I believe this because I believe that individuals have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe that a woman or man who seeks to rob their unborn child of life is wrong, no matter what their intent or motivation. How can we allow the most precious and vulnerable amoung us to die horrible deaths before they're allowed to speak for themselves? How can we even attempt to legislate when a child is or is not alive? How dare we as a society think to excuse those who would condone the taking of a child's life, no matter how small or weak?

Ethicists in Australia recently wrote on the concept of "post-birth abortions", a concept that turns my stomach and leaves a taste in my mouth akin to ash. These individuals stated that, should a mother or family feel inconvenienced by the presence of a child under the age of two, they would be within their rights to have "post-birth abortions" -- that is, the brutal murder of an innocent child.

I think of my cats as babies. Because they're helpless without a human, being domesticated animals without claws (well, two of them don't have claws) or real "outside" experience. I wouldn't hurt my cats. I wouldn't hurt your cats. I would stop you from hurting or killing your cats because they're helpless. So why is it that the abortion apologists would kill a baby, but not a cat? I know it's a flawed argument because I'm not a vegetarian or vegan, but my point stands: there are those who stand for the right of the kittycat, but not for the right of the baby. I think that is a flawed argument.