Ok, this is my last political blog. I've gotten called out on the carpet for this multiple times in the last week so I thought I would try to clarify one of my political stances. For your amusement and entertainment, I am going to do this with an allegory.
There once lived a man named Dan who lived in a world of wonder and whimsy. Also living in that same land were two lovely maidens. Ok, they weren't both lovely but they weren't the most horrendous things ever created either. Both of these ladies wanted Dan, they wanted him bad. So, like any good person, Dan decided to causally date each one of them and judge them based on their individual merits. The first lady was rather ugly. Dan wished that it were a blind date so that he didn't have to look at her face. After talking to her however, he realized that they did have a few things in common but that didn't exactly improve her ghastly appearance. She was 72 years old and ugly as sin. The second women was a bit better looking. In fact, you might even say that she was attractive. Her skin was soft, her body hard, she had a great smile, and she was popular. So, Dan talked to her. She was quite pleasant to listen to. Her words were like a crisp breeze through a flowing meadow. She spoke for hours before saying "and I have one more thing to tell you,". Dans ears perked up, "Go ahead he said," eagerly anticipating her reply. "I used to be a man." Shocked Dan stood up and left the room in a hurry. His friends tried to encourage him to go back in and give her a second change. "She's nice, good looking, pleasant to listen to and what a great smile." they quipped. "I understand that," Dan replied "But she used to be a man! That my friends is what you call a deal breaker."
Some things in life are deal breakers. For me that issue is abortion. I will not vote for someone who is for the killing of innocent children. I understand all the if ands and buts a deal breaker is a deal breaker. I won't date a girl who used to be a man and I won't vote for someone who is pro-abortion.
This is what is referred to as single-issue voting, and is pretty much a terrible concept as there is so much more than one issue on the table.
ReplyDeleteLet's take abortion as an example, since it's your main topic here. There are two candidates (the views of these fictional candidates are just that: fictional, and do not represent any actual specific candidates), candidate A is "for abortion" and candidate B is "against abortion". So your vote is for candidate B? What about if candidate B's stance on foreign aide is going prevent millions of people overseas from receiving food they need, thereby resulting in the death of millions of people? Or what if his stance on military targetting takes in no consideration for civilians? Which of those are murder? Are either of them? What if candidate B is going to take us to war against Russia? I mean, that could be a nuclear war ending in the eradication of the entire earth! Jeezle, that's crazy!
Regarding the abortion issue specifically: I am simultaneously against abortion and PRO choice, and it boils down to individual rights and freedoms protected by the constitution. Not just my freedom to privacy or my right to do what I want with my body (or a woman to do what she wants with hers) but also my right to my faith, which is more important and I will explain.
I firmly believe that at the time of conception, a new human exists and a soul is present with that human. This is what I believe. I can't prove it to anyone, and certainly there are other people who would disagree with me. This is where it becomes an issue of my right and the rights of others to freedom of religion.
Since I can't prove that the soul exists, how can I (constitutionally, not personally) be against contraceptives or early abortions? Scientifically and experiminally provable are the facts that a fertilized egg is just another cell, and shortly thereafter just another set of cells, and so on and so forth. At what point do the cells become "human" enough for it to change from abortion to murder? I kill more cells a day scratching my head and moving around than some abortions do.
Scientifically we can prove when a baby has nerve cells, when those nerve cells function and when they communicate with a brain. The basic fundamentals for "feeling" are in place at that point, and if the baby can feel it, I'd like to call it murder.
Keep in mind, this is my constitutional view of the situation. My personal view is that it is wrong from day 1, and that is what I will teach my kids, to value a life at this stage is something I will encourage others to do -- but not force. Just like I won't force anyone to love Jesus, and no one can force me to bow before Allah or Buddah, etc, I won't force anyone to take my philosophical and spiritual values without appropriate evidence.
a)It's never had to come down to a single issue for me. That is the bottom line issue though, a deal breaker.
ReplyDeleteb) Run the numbers and you will find on every account that you will never have a candidate whose foreign policy kills more people than abortion. Plus a candidate with such crazy views such as the ones you expressed would never be endorsed by a major party.
c) If you kill a pregnant women you are charged with double homicide. Where does the law draw the line on where life begins? They don't even know. In cases where human life is involved wouldn't you agree that it is always better to error on the safe side?
d) In this particular case, Obama has shown that he votes almost 100% in favor of abortion including, late term and partial birth. At these stages you would have to be blind not to see that you are killing a child.
You make me sad. You have no idea what goes into this kind of decision. YOU.HAVE.NO.IDEA!!!
ReplyDeleteI believe that within the next 10 years or so, we're likely to have two (or more) Presidential candidates that are PRO CHOICE. I heard yesterday that the Republican party has made the statement that they don't want any more conservatives - they want the party to move more toward the middle of the road. I believe they were specifically targeting Sarah Palin - they don't want her to run in four years. Anyway, that means they are looking for candidates with more lax pro life beliefs as well. So, what happens if all the candidates in an election are PRO CHOICE? Will you just not vote?
ReplyDeleteSee here, I am by no means saying that getting an abortion is an easy decision nor that the women who make that decision are deliberately killing their baby. I have no animosity towards those women and would certainly not condemn them for their decision. Regardless of the difficulty of the decision I am still against abortion.
ReplyDeleteI believe in the protection of children so that's what I try to do. Can you fault me in that?
To answer the question of what would I do if both candidates were pro-choice. That is unlikely to happen.
Statistical data shows that only 38% of Americans take a hard stance on being pro-choice.
17% of those surveyed said they oppose abortions and want them illegal for any reason.
12% said abortions should only be allowed to save the life of the mother
27% said abortions should only be allowed in the very rare cases to save the life of the mother or when the woman is a victim of rape or incest.
30% of voters say that the issue of abortion will affect their vote
20% percent of self-identified pro-life voters saying so and only 9% of pro-abortion voters saying so.
To be fair, both McCain and Palin have not said they would seek to completely overturn Roe vs. Wade.
ReplyDeletePalin said "Abortion should be states' issue, not federal mandate."
McCain said he thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned and said he would support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger.
Note to Pam: You're absolutely right, no man can ever know the emotions involved in that decision
"Abortion" is a word used to mask the reality of ending life, much like the terms "capital punishment," "war," and "colateral damage."
ReplyDeleteOne of this government's, ...our people's, ... founding principles is to the protect the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
When the definition of "life" is debated by people in such a way that allows for ending it and destroying it, ... by calling it "choice," ... we become a people standing on sand.
Redefining "liberty" and "happiness" will soon follow.
I believe in choices that promote, not destroy, life, ... and so I must walk in that direction, even when it is unpopular.
No offense intended here. Just speaking freely.
I always vote pro-life. You can call me a single issue-voter but for me the right to life is fundamental to all other rights.
ReplyDelete@puddleboy, as far as your example on candidate A and B, if the pro-life candidate B's platform (or his/her party's platform) was to prevent millions from receiving food, to indiscriminately bomb civilians, take our country to war with Russia destroying the world in nuclear holocaust, to be sure, I would not vote for that candidate. In the same way, I can't vote for a candidate whose platform or whose party's platform is one which endorses the legalized killing of 4000 unborn babies a day in this country. I can't vote for someone who thinks it is OK to partially deliver a baby, keeping its head in the birth canal, only to stab it in the base of its skull with scissors killing it before it is "born." That is our American holocaust. I could sit around debating philosophically about the point at which cells become human or about an individuals right to do what they want with their body. But I have to vote with what is in my heart, which is simple: things begin at the beginning and they end at the end. Life begins at conception and ends at natural death. And if doing what you want with your body involves harming another persons body, then you have no right to do it.
@Pam -- not all decisions are OK regardless of how difficult they are to make. I have empathy for and I don't judge any woman who has had an abortion because I feel she has been wounded as well. We need to create a culture in this society where woman do not feel that abortion is the best solution to their problem.
Okay, I know this was meant to be serious and all, but I thought it was hilarious!
ReplyDeleteAll funny aside; I agree with you on the abortion stance. People will always try to justify their decisions so nothing you say will change their minds. Abortion is what it is -- murder.
By the way; I came by your sight from Pastor Ryan's. I had to check out the dude wearing the many hats. :O)
Take care and have a blessed weekend!
lisa - Don't worry it was meant to be humorous. I was attempting to make a point and take a little bit of the edge off of it. So much for that idea.
ReplyDelete