The Republican Argument for Abortion

First of all many "pro-choice" people say that they are not pro-abortion, that they've never met anyone who is, and that the number of abortions performed should be greatly reduced. Well as a matter of personal opinion I find that a disgusting position to take, essentially they are saying to women everywhere "you are baby murderers but we have no right to tell you what to do with the contents of your body", well if in fact abortion was murder the premise of my position would be eliminated. And I suppose maybe that these people do not believe a fetus is a live they are simply concerned at the number of potential lives being terminated. That, however, is illogical. Every time a male masturbates onto a rag a potential life is terminated so don't shove that garbage argument around. As a matter of fact I see abortion as no different than using a condom, I only want them to be rare because they cost young couples a good deal more than condoms. Abortion is a legitimate (sorry for using that word) form of birth control and family planning, no woman should be made to feel like a murderer because they've had one (or more). Now to the central issue here, abortions are a medical procedure. So I ask you why is the government pretending to be a doctor? Big brother has no reason to play doctor and give out medical advice or make care decisions, bureaucrats meddling into affairs which are out of their expertise have caused far too much damage to this country lets be sure not to let them do any more harm. That was essentially my argument the rest was just a little ranting and raving about falsely compassionate Democrats.

The Capitalist and Republican Case against the Keystone Pipeline

Socialism is the use of force to benefit corporations, that may come as a shock to many young idealists but it is true. Eminent Domain has become, thanks to the Kelo Case, a process in which corporations can ask the government to forcefully remove people from their homes and property in the interest of "economic development". And of course the common aim of Socialism is for state control of the economy. Now for a pipeline to cut across the United States homes must be razed, farms and ranches divided, and people thrown off of their land, to be honest that is all I need to hear to be against it. Of course another reason would be government subsidies, if an enterprise can't succeed on its own with only private investment then it should not succeed.

The Republican Case for Drugs

The fruit loop marijuana legalization people are always chanting about how you can't outlaw nature, well unfortunately I agree with those dreadlocked paint huffing ideologues. As a conservative I support the American farmer, and I support said farmers efforts to grow whatever they want free of socialist "subsidies" and what essentially amounts to state-ownership of private property through laws against what they can and can not do with their property, like say laws prohibiting the planting and cultivation of cannabis, opium, and coca, I suppose the government can regulate what goes into the markets if the product is enough of a danger, I don't support that but plenty of people do, so we'll operate under that scenario. Now this land owner has grown opium or coca, and of course any fool with a chemistry kit can then easily make heroin or cocaine depending on which they grew, well I'd argue that the governments power to regulate a persons behavior and/or consumption ends at their property line and if they take one step over that it would be in my mind at least typical socialist aggression towards an individual with the intent of trying to mold them out of an individualist state (that makes me sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist I know and I'm sorry).      

The Republican Case for Gay Marriage

There are two main forces driving my support of Gay Marriage, the first is my believe in Laissez-faire, Free Market, Capitalism and the second is my strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights. As to the first issue I ask what is marriage? Is it two people sharing a sacred oath of love? Dear god no! Marriage is a nice tax shelter, second stream of income, and a partnership that benefits the deceased's spouse, so that equates to being a contract, and individuals should be allowed the freedom to sign contracts, without that free enterprise would be doomed. Does this mean seven consenting adults (lets say 3 lesbians, 2 gays, and 2 "metrosexuals") should be allowed to get married, unfortunately it does in my book. Secondly and more persuasively is the little of matter of Amendment #1, which says the government can't screw around with religious practices, so a few homosexual types form a new branch of oh I don't know, Lutheranism, and they decide to marry other homosexual types in their church, well by golly there ain't no government that can put the kibosh on that business (of course I know there are plenty of governments that can put the kibosh on a lot of things). The feds have no say in your religion and don't you forget it. Again this leaves the door open for polygamy, but I ask you what makes your set up so much god damned holier? And shouldn't government be allowed to limit harmful religious practices in extreme cases, there are a lot of guys walking around with half a dick because some sick bastard got trigger happy at the circumcision.