Election Retrospective

I only had any sort of mental investment in two races: Presidential and Indiana Governor. From what I’ve seen, the incumbent Governor has been doing a good job, so I voted for him. He kept his seat. I’m not a fan of McCain, but I did feel like he was the less dangerous candidate. In other words, in spite of most of his policies, I thought he would be safer in office opposing a Democratic congress (in hopes of very little getting accomplished).

I don’t have any doubts that Obama can make a good president in some respects. He’s in favor of killing babies though, and his fiscal policy is scary. Similar tax cuts for lower brackets and increases for higher brackets have led to economic disaster in countries like Germany. I would be far more comfortable with spending reduction in order to accomodate the federal government within the income that they currently have.

I’m interested to see how his ideas play out in Iraq, but I’m worried about how much Iran and Syria like him (the friend of my enemy is my enemy?). Finally, with the Democrats controlling congress (they do, don’t they? I have heard final results on that.), I’m worried that change (both good and bad change) may start happening too quickly. Overall, I’m not scared really. Things will play out how they play out. God is still in ultimate control. We’ll have to see how things play out over the next year.

  1. No one is “in favor of killing babies”.

  2. According to http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues – in the section labeled “Reproductive Choice” (sorry, can’t link to it, no markers in the page), Obama’s position is stated as supporting abortion.

    It is the position of this writer that abortion is the process of forcefully ending a human life for the convenience of those to whom that life was entrusted. Such egregious disregard for the life of one completely incapable of defending itself is a sickening display of how fallen humanity really is.

  3. I have to disagree with your interpretation of his stance according to the site that you linked to. His stance is that he supports a woman’s right to choose. That’s it. It says nothing about him being in favor of “killing babies.”

    As for the word “convenience” I take exception to that. You’re generalizing a decision that has different reasons for every single woman in that position. I would not consider ending a pregnancy caused by rape or incest “convenience.”

    I don’t think anyone is truly “pro-abortion.” Pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. Pro-choice is a belief that a woman should be able to make decisions about her own body herself.

  4. The phrase “woman’s right to choose” is a euphemism, unfortunately. It’s a way for a person to spin the abortion topic away from the taking of life and focus on the mother’s situation. It’s designed to distract from the central issue, that being that when a person chooses an abortion, a child dies.

    While nearly everyone (not absolutely everyone or it wouldn’t happen) agrees that rape and incest are terrible crimes, if the victim of that crime becomes pregnant, should the child conceived of that crime suffer death? There are no winners when things like rape occur. It’s insane to think that killing a child will somehow lessen the impact of the horrific crime perpetrated on the woman.

    This argument is very divisive, especially when it’s discussed at the levels we’re discussing it. Let me state my core belief[0] as we’ll discuss that: I know of no evidence that human babies are fundamentally different[1] prior to birth than they are after birth. As such, unborn babies are entitled to the same fundamental human rights as every other human. I am interested in hearing evidence showing otherwise.

    0 – Since all our other disagreements flow from our disagreement on this one central idea, it makes more sense to attack the fundamental disagreement.

    1 – Aside from the child being able to live outside the uterus after birth. Many adults require constant material aid from either machines or other people for their entire lives and they are considered no less human by our society.

  5. Bear with me – it’s a long one.

    First of all, I don’t agree that the phrase “woman’s right to choose” was developed as a way for people to advance their agenda. I believe that IS the agenda, and calling it a ‘spin’ is doing nothing but advancing YOUR agenda. But I do wholeheartedly agree with you in that this is an extremely divisive subject, and possibly more so when discussed between genders.

    I also agree that there are no winners when it comes to the crimes of incest or rape. However, I do not agree that it’s beyond comprehension (insanity even) to abort the result of the crime. It is my feeling, were something like that to happen to me, that carrying the resulting pregnancy to full term would be a daily reminder of the crime itself, and that the child would be even worse. It could be argued that this is an example of an abortion for convenience sake as you put it earlier – i.e., aborting it would save the mother that agony – however, I have a strong feeling that were you to mention their decision in terms of convenience, those same women would feel very different about the subject. This goes back to my original point that a woman’s right to choose is not merely a ploy, but truly is a piece of the central issue.

    But as you mention in your response, arguing semantics will never address the core issue, which I believe you almost fully stated. I say almost because I believe you missed an important piece, which is a question of theological differences. Whereas I would consider myself a Christian, I would not extend that belief to the question of abortion. Take for example the semantics of the last paragraph, or in other words, the question of WHEN an abortion could be considered okay. I’ve already stated what my stance would be, but what if, God forbid, your own family had to make a decision like that? I believe that your faith is different from my own in that you would not alter your decision because you believe it to be part of God’s plan, whereas I consider the product of an evil event evil. To expand on that, you would believe that all pregnancies are part of God’s plan, and therefore an unnatural termination of it would not only be destroying the fetus but also part of God’s plan.

    So the core issue of abortion (between us), I believe, is that you 1) consider everything to be part of God’s plan and 2) believe that aborting a fetus is the same as killing a person. I’ve already addressed #1 in the above paragraph with regard to my own beliefs. For #2, I’d say we’ve got two parts: A) is a fetus entitled to all human rights and B) If it is, when is it okay to kill a human being? I don’t see any way we can come to an agreement on 2a when the scientific community as a whole cannot. With regard to opinion, you see a plethora both for and against that the fetus is just a ‘thing’ until it can live outside the womb. With regard to scientific evidence, I have seen nothing that conclusively determines either side of the argument. So that brings us to…

    2b) Already I imagine outrage at my suggestion that there could be, in fact, a proper time for killing a human being, and not undeservedly. I myself am pro-capital punishment, but no matter your stance on that topic, a convicted evil doer has little in common with an unborn child. Along those same lines, I have great respect for our veterans as opposed to referring to them as baby killers despite the fact that their job was to kill other human beings. But this is also not a question of pride in one’s armed services because soldiers (no matter which side of the weapon they’re on) also have little in common with a fetus. However, it’s not just soldiers that die in war – ask the former residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As you’ll recall, John McCain was for continuing the war in Iraq and on terror in general in no uncertain terms, yet I did not read your outrage at this. I am left to assume, then, that killing humans in this regard was not as important to you. The point that I’m (slowly) getting around to is that there are already various forms of killing in our society, and most people I know accept some form of it. So: When is it okay to kill a human being?

    Let’s assume for a moment that this is the reasoning of an individual other than myself. What that person would have arrived at by now is that they don’t know if the fetus is a human being or not, and they don’t like the idea of killing either way, even if they’re comfortable with some forms of it. But they do believe that, human being or not, some pregnancies are deserving of termination. Perhaps they themselves might never decide on an abortion, but they can understand the reasoning of folks that might. And with that in mind, they can’t in good conscious be anti-abortion. Instead, they must be pro-choice.

    In conclusion (a round of applause from the remaining audience members), I questioned the value in me typing all this out and subsequently ‘using’ your time by causing you to read it. I questioned it because I don’t believe that we’ll ever come to an agreement, and if that’s so, then isn’t this kind of pointless? Perhaps. But even though I don’t believe that I’ll sway you with my reasoning above, I typed it out because that’s what’s great about having friends whose opinions you respect: you can respectfully disagree with them! And when friends respectfully disagree, even if neither think any differently afterwards, perhaps they’ve at least had a bit of light shined upon the heathens with which they disagree 🙂

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>