On A Scale Of Life

 Texas state senator, Republican, Bryan Hughes is "pro-life" and in explanation of that stance, he says that in support of "pro-life" the Texas legislature hasus allocated $100 million to the support of all pregnant mothers (all?) and subsequent care of the resulting children.  The most efficient way to implement this would be to have no means-test.  In other words, the more children a woman has, the more support she can get from the state.  Thus leading an entrepreneurial woman to herself have as many babies as she can, or perhaps (what's the diffefrence) take under her care additional children -- perhaps from refugees?

Let's do some back-of-the-envalope calculations:

Some assumptions:

Assumption 01: The "cost" or the amount of benefit and support given to a child will not vary by child.  Each child will get the same.  [We love your all equally, but in different ways.]  [To each according to their need, from each according to their ability.]  [If you felt exploited, as a child, maybe you were; or maybe you were being trained to be the person you now are.]

The Republican said that people are leaving California to go to Texas in order that they might have the privilege of being free from a California or Liberal culture that in which, quoting Yeats:  "The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

 The other side of that being that these same people were wanting to migrate to Texas so that their status of being pregnant would be determined by a small group, whose members had a particular or ideosyncratic interpretation of their guiding religion, and that this interpretation of behavior was to be the law of the state.  In other words, a behavior that was 3

When one group commands the behavior of another group based on that group's charaistic is not freedom.  They are proclaiming that women have a different status than men because of physical charactarstics that define them as women; and therefore that men or "society" controls their pregnancy behavior.  The law does not control their mind -- they can say or think what they want -- it controls, or puts consequences on, their behavior:  They can write as many letters to the editor they want, but it they get an abortion or even help someone to get an abortion, they will be fined or imprisoned.

In California, however, if you need an abortion, you can get one, and the best medical and support services you can afford (this is America, after all).  But there is also help.  If you do not need or want an abortion, then you can do others things, without pressure to get an abortion (except from your personal life).

Basically, it's down to their wanting to control everything.

Which -- big leap -- is why the climate is spiraling out of control... the more we progress, the more our resources are depleted.  Malthusian relation between number of people, their economic condition, and the amount of heat and pollution is generated, which factors in global warming; possibly diminished by technological developments that provide more value per joule than previous, and the spread of those advances.

Are we doomed?

 

Liberals are weaker because  they have something to lose if conservatives win; whereas conservatives are stronger because they have nothing to lose if liberals win.  If conservatives win, liberals lose their freedom.  Abortions are only allowed with state approval.  People of certain genders are enjoined from using certain public restrooms.  Two people are allowed to marry only if they are of opposite sexes and of the same race.  With conservatives, it is not their issues that they have their beliefs, they believe that all others share in beliefs also, and that failure to share in these beliefs should be punished.  Would liberals go so far as to allow family members the privilege to torture and kill one of their own members ... let's be serious  .Is this inconsistent?  Yes it is, but everyone is inconsistent.  The point is to have a serious discussion. In most cases, once the sound and fury is removed, the differences are not wide.