There is no rational reason to allow the convenience killing of any human at any stage. Abortion-on-demand and without oversight or regulation, focused on genetic populations such as blacks is a hideous cancer on the ethical structure of American society.
I have long opposed abortion; women's health care is not provided in killing factories, women's healthcare is provided in gynecological physicians' offices and regulated hospitals.
I support this effort by Rand Paul to use the legislative power of Congress to overturn the judicial legislative misconduct that produced Roe v Wade and killed 56,000,000 Americans who are at the most innocent and helpless phase of life.
If you agree, please sign the petition.
8 comments:
I understand not supporting Abortion, but here's what I have a problem with(and Stan, this isn't aimed at you, or anyone else here): When the Right Wingers doesn't want you to abort the baby, but they will label you a socialist if you take Welfare to support it.
If the woman doesn't abort the baby, celebrate that, and keep your mouth shut. Don't label anyone that decides to raise their child instead of killing it.
That's why I am a centrist. I believe that it isn't about Right and Left, but Right and Wrong. The further you get away from the middle, the more irrational a person becomes.
JBsptfn,
There is, in this small community, a Christian run Pregnancy Center, which helps (those who used to be called...) unwed mothers. There is no stigma attached, and the mothers are given the assistance they need in order to independently parent a child. They are re-introduced into society as valued, contributing members, with children, or without, due to adoption.
What the Right does deplore is the repeat welfare mother who has many children by as many fathers as she has children, where the mother continuously breeds in order to collect $$ which she does not earn and will not repay. She is a captive on the Leftist poverty reservation; she will vote Democrat, because she doesn't share the culture of personal responsibility on which this nation was built. She is a perpetual dependent. So are the many irresponsible fathers.
As for the political center, that, to me, seems to be the place where absolutely no principles are found at all, neither the principles of personal responsibility of the Right, nor the principles of class war with largesse for the elites of the Left. The centroid doesn't know which way to flip, and actually believes that there is value in the televised political debates and will decide which side "won" the debates, as they did in '08 and '12. And that's how we got Obama for 8 disastrous years.
That's how I see it, and of course ymmv.
I agree with you about repeat welfare mothers. That is not a good thing.
I just don't agree with taking sides between right and left. I believe in taking the right side between right and wrong. That's more important. Neither side is always right.
This is a very interesting topic to me. How do you determine Right and Wrong? By that I mean, what set of ethics or morals do you use as a guide?
For example, the Left supports abortion using the following moral principles: Privacy; Women's health; Woman's body is sacrosanct; Choice.
The Right uses the following moral principles: Life begins at conception; Right to Life; killing is not a Right.
Which moral principle is real and valid enough to supercede the others, and how is that determined?
I'm seriously asking, because I'm curious how a centrist determines these things.
Stan - for my own personal perspective, I sometimes describe myself as a centrist not because I'm in the middle on many specific issues, but because I don't think the American political spectrum is a good fit for defining morality. Not everything the Right stands for is good, nor is every principle the Left espouses necessarily evil.
Though I am staunchly pro-life, pro-traditional marriage and pro-personal responsibility, that does not mean I'm morally comfortable with every American conservative position. To give but two examples - because I want to avoid political debates on specific issues - my take on "pro-life" includes opposition to capital punishment (google the Catholic "seamless garment of life" for something akin to my thinking here). In addition, despite being pro-life, I think too little attention has been paid by the pro-life side to the question of whether opposition to abortion necessarily entails a political solution. Opposition to dishonesty, for example, doesn't necessarily entail support for laws against lying. Can one be anti-abortion without believing it must necessarily be illegal? And is the political arena necessarily the best place to be taking the fight? I don't have answers to these questions. I just think pro-lifers haven't asked them seriously enough.
In short, I think neither end of the American political spectrum is immune from moral criticism, which is why I am not comfortable fully identifying with either major political party. Not because I am centrist on many specific issues.
Also, as a Christian, I intuitively feel Christ Himself would be neither Democrat nor Republican, but would have words for both.
@Stefani
"Not everything the Right stands for is good, nor is every principle the Left espouses necessarily evil."
Of course not. Are both parties filled with humans? Of course! And humans are fallen creatures with a spark of the Divine in them.
That's not the problem. The problem is one side is at least paying lip service to the Constitution with an occasional blind squirrel finding a nut, and the other side wants the State to unfettered control over every aspect of your life.
"Opposition to dishonesty, for example, doesn't necessarily entail support for laws against lying. Can one be anti-abortion without believing it must necessarily be illegal? And is the political arena necessarily the best place to be taking the fight?"
Yes. Because we have laws that constrict human action that would deprive another man his God-given rights. Lying can be devastating, but not to the tune of 56 million dead children.
Yes. Because the left recognizes no other authority, and usually only when it's doing what they want. Otherwise we can step this up from the ballot box to the cartridge box, and I really don't want that. Nor, do I think, do many others who would rather end abortion in a peaceful manner.
"Also, as a Christian, I intuitively feel Christ Himself would be neither Democrat nor Republican, but would have words for both."
As a White, Male, Christian that's clinging to guns and my Bible, bitterly I might add, I have no doubt He'd verbally thrash both parties. But that's neither here nor there, because this is more basic than that, for He would simply ask what we are doing to protect the most innocent and defenceless of all, the unborn.
I rather have millstone around my neck and cast into the sea than have to give account to the Lord of Lords of how I assisted in their deaths.
@Russell - As I said, I'm not really interested in having a political debate. I was answering Stan's question as to how it might be possible to assume a "centrist" position from a place of moral principle, and gave a couple of examples of my own positions. I do flatter myself in assuming some level of consistency in my moral positions, even if they don't always easily correspond with either end of the political spectrum.
However, as I indicated, I'm not sure I really qualify as a "centrist", unless by "centrist" one simply means "the preponderance of one's positions", as if political positions can be quantified and averaged.
I appreciate this conversation. I also have developed a certain amount of contempt for both parties, which I see as both being corrupted by power, the power of an excessive government with cash support from hugely wealthy patrons. I have rejected my previous party affiliation and consider myself an independent, but not a centrist. To me a centrist exists in the center between two corruptions, and I have removed myself off to the historical side of the US Constitution, which is removed from both parties at the moment.
In modern parlance this makes me an ultra-conservative, but only in comparison to the run-away Leftism of both parties. When support for the principles of the constitution is so reviled, then the government is far, far out of control.
Politicians and judges pledge to protect and obey the US Constitution; then most of them immediately choose politics and ideology over their pledge. That makes them criminals for the most part. In the end, protection of the US Constitution is in the hands of we the people, who are pitted against the two party government of criminals in a David/Goliath situation.
Post a Comment