Abortion Questions

In total, China aborted 160 million girls because boys are valued more than girls. Where are the feminists in this country protesting this number?

If in the near future mankind discovers a homosexual gene and China (or anyone or any other country)  decides to abort gays and lesbians will the gay community protest that action?

Or a white woman aborts a fetus of another race if she is raped for instance. Is this okay for the pr0-choice person who happens to be that race? I mean that is her choice right? Or it could be she dated a black man, they had intercourse, and later on they broke up. In the meantime she got pregnant with the man’s baby. Since, her parents are racists they objected to her dating any black guys. Now, they want her to abort the baby. For all you pro-choice advocates is this situation okay?

How about any anti-life person protesting any of those scenarios? Or is the so-called pro-choice stance sacrosanct? Just curious.

The Left’s Vision vs. America’s Founding Principles

1. In the early 20th century a group of intellectuals known as progressives rejected the founding principles [of America].
2. In response to the challenges of industrialization and urbanization, progressives sought to transform society.
3. Progressivism denies the possibility of self-evident eternal truths.
4. Progressivism also denies the limits on government and sees separation of powers as an obstacle to reform.
5. Because of their rejection of the declaration, progressives understand a right as something government grants to a citizen, rather than something a citizen has by nature, which government protects.
6. In order to increase their power to remake society, progressives have tried to undermine private associations in which morality is shaped, and used schools for this end.
7. Progressives have promoted the idea of a “living” Constitution, a doctrine that strips the document of any original meaning and allows it to be interpreted in any way a judge sees fit.

Source: We Still Hold These Truth. A Leader’s Guide. (2010) by The Heritage Foundation.

The Heart of Ronald Reagan’s “Three-legged Stool”

President Reagan talked about the “three-legged stool”of conservatism: Strong free-market system, strong traditional/family values, and a strong military. He said if one leg was missing the stool could not stand on its own. His three-legged stool analogy is a good analogy for America too.  If one of those attributes are missing America won’t survive for long.
At the heart of all those factors is freedom. The free-market system (capitalism if you prefer) is a by product of freedom. Traditional/family values teaches that mankind is the only creature with free will and morals*. Traditionalists cherishes freedom but freedom without morality is just anarchy. That’s why the Founding Fathers always talked about liberty instead of just freedom.
A strong military protects freedom from tyrannical powers. Which keeps the free-market system alive. The free-market system make all our lives better and easier. Traditional values keeps society from going into chaos. Otherwise it would just be a jungle.  That’s why we need all three legs.

*Actually, the two are linked together. Without free will there would be no morals, because you couldn’t choose between right and wrong like the non-human animals. They operate completely on instinct.

An Example of Price Fixation by a Union

From Capitalism and Freedom (1982) by Milton Friedman:

To some extent, labor unions have served as a means of enforcing monopoly in the sale of a product. The clearest example is in coal. The Guffey Coal Act was an attempt to provide legal support for a price-fixing cartel of coal-mine operators. When, in the mid-thirties, this Act was declared unconstitutional, John L. Lewis and the United Mine Workers stepped into the breach. By calling strikes or work stoppages whenever the amount of coal above the ground got so large as to threaten to force down prices, Lewis controlled output and thereby prices with the unspoken co- operation of the industry. The gains from this cartel management were divided between the coal mine operators and the miners. The gain to the miners was in the form of higher wage rates, which of course meant fewer miners employed. Hence only those miners who retained employment shared the cartel gains and even they took a large part of the gain in the form of greater leisure. The possibility of the unions playing this role derives from their exemption from the Sherman Antitrust Act.

This price fixation was great for the union members and especially great for the union leaders (they could continue to exact the same level of union dues) but not so for the coal-mine customers. Then again unions only care about their members not the customers or anyone else outside the union. That’s where union bosses drive their income from---the members.

The Coal Act was FDR’s attempt to nationalize the coal industry. That’s probably why the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional. Then in 1937 the act got a face lift and was passed in Congress. It was basically the same as the 1935 act but had some minor changes. Later on in 1943 it was allowed to expire.