Getting Political
I don't really get into political stuff on my blog. Then I realized, it's my blog, I can write what I want. Not all of it has to be psycho women and fart jokes. Anyway, to get a little more political than usual, I am not republican. I'm not democrat. I take planks from each political platform and make up my own mind. But, one thing I do care strongly for is the pro-life issue.
I vote based on the abortion issue. This is an issue that is close to my heart. I was born in 1979. This was after that momentous Roe v Wade decision. Which means that several desks in my classrooms were empty because of it. Would we have this issue with social security that President Bush has been talking about if this decision was made with a moral conscious? Probably not. My generation would be putting into the system what was necessary to support the baby boomers’ social security. But, that’s not the reason why I am pro-life. It stems from something deeper. The ability to realize a moral obligation to the human race. As I stated in my previous post, it is obvious to any medical professional that life begins at conception. Not at the implantation of the human embryo, but at conception. So, any degree of termination of life after this constitutes abortion and thus, the elimination of a life.
This is also why I’m against the development of stem cell research. Not the development of stem cell research in general, but in embryonic stem cell research. The pro murder, I mean, pro abortionists are pro-embryonic stem cell research to further their cause. Let’s take a deeper look into their purpose. They feel that it is a woman’s right to an abortion and to advance this cause further they feel that by performing an abortion on a woman could also provide material for scientific study that might put an end to Alzheimer’s or other genetic ailments. However, this “material” has been determined time and time again by the respected medical community as a human life. And NEVER has embryonic stem cell research provided any advancement within the medical community. Instead adult stem cell research has done so. Both you and I have stem cells within us that have given science the ability to come up with new cures and at the very least, scenarios of potential cures for the current ailments of society. Even the placenta of a child contains a great deal of stem cells for this research. But, the cosmetic industry would rather have this to provide the basis for their “wrinkle defying creams” and such. So, to provide abortions for the development of cures for mankind is unfounded.
Therefore, should anyone argue the advocating of child murder for the benefit of stem cell research, ask them for documentation of embryonic stem cell research that has provided the medical community ANY medical benefit. They will be unable to. It does not exist. However, stem cell research has provided GREAT advancements in treatment and cures to the greater ailments of society such as Alzheimer’s and cancer. What a beautiful and remarkable thing the adult stem cell is. It is provided from the liver and other organs from an adult and can be examined for cures and treatments. How awesome is modern technology?!
Also there is a fringe demand for human cloning. I say fringe, because it is WAY out there. But, should the popular left gain hold of this issue; they would surely be for the continuation of human cloning. Other countries are already experimenting with this idea. This provides such a great moral and religious issue that it is nearly implacable that someone would even consider this. However, there are fringe groups that believe that should we clone ourselves, there would be a greater availability of organs and blood in case of emergencies. We would also be able to provide organs to children who might suffer without this new availability of body parts. We, as a people, need to put a stop to this. President Bush has already expressed his discontent for human cloning. In his State of the Union address heard recently he even expressed dissatisfaction to human/animal cloning. This means that some scientist might eventually think it is a good idea to merge human DNA with lion DNA or something. This may be in the future, but might also be feasible today. How disgusting is that?!
Human life is sacred. This is a belief of many religions. However, the popular belief of society does not comprehend that. Instead the use of human life for medical progression or experimentation is A-OK. We need to let our representatives and congressmen know that each human life is to be appreciated and not used for science. Each human life is a gift from God. Nothing less. I realize in a world of different beliefs and even an agnostic belief or an atheist belief that this might not be a popular opinion in the mainstream media. However, when 86% of America believes in God, surely they also believe that those who were made in His image are also of a certain degree of sanctity.
This is why I believe what I believe. Through a merger of science and religion I have come to the belief that abortion is the most disgusting attribute of modern man and I aim to put a stop to it. This is why I vote republican.
Now, it would be purely idealistic to believe there would be a day where abortion would be eliminated. Instead, I believe that through the gradual reversal of the pro-death agenda, I mean pro-abortion agenda, we will one day live in a world where the unborn would be given the opportunity to enjoy the life that we all do. This means the law of parental consent of those under the age of 18 to have an abortion. The girls who are under 18 have to have their parent’s signature to receive an aspirin from their school nurse, but not an abortion from their local abortion doctor. Where are our values? Then progress from there.
I would even be happy with a law that gave abortions to only those who were victims of rape and incest. This accounts for only 1/6th of one percent of all abortions within the United States. Even less in some cases. What is disgusting is that the abortion issue has been wrapped up in the woman’s right movement. And it is NOT a woman’s right issue. I am 100% for equal wages in the workplace for women. Heck that statement also lets you know that I’m also for a woman’s right to choose to be in the workplace in the first place! I feel that women should have all the benefits of men, for they are just as valued in today’s society on the status of human as man is. It would be disgusting if they were seen as less than men. Should this be the case, we would be on the same level as Iraq before we liberated it. (This is for a different post!)
However, abortion IS NOT a woman’s issue. Granted, it is women who carry the child to term, but that is where the issue ends. Genetics teaches us that the child that she carries is 1/2 the father’s child. However, while the child is within the womb, the father has no legal right to its well being. Should the mother decide to abort the child, the father has NO say. None. However, when the child is born, the father is expected to, at the very least, financially support his child. This seems fair? Of course it isn’t.
The child is not a part of the mother. There has never been an argument proving that the child is, in fact, a part of the mother. Instead the child is a separate living being. Both the child and the mother have a different genetic make-up. This making them different. The argument that the child is unable to survive without the support of the mother has also been tossed out. It has been proven with today’s technology that we are able to give a child the means necessary to survive a great deal before birth. Plus if this argument is used, when is the mother not necessary for the child’s survival? Are we able to put the child out in the woods once it is born to fend for itself? Most of us depend on our parents (especially financially - let’s be honest) well into our 20’s!
The other argument comes from those mothers who it would be inconvenient for them to have a child. They are in school or working a full-time job and are unable to become mothers. The waiting list for adoption in this country is outrageous. You might as well get on it as a teenager just in case your spouse has reproductive issues. The amount of time, paperwork and money necessary to adopt a child is outrageous. Start filling it out now! It is due to abortion that the waiting list is so long. Should the mother have the confidence and societal acceptance to carry the child to term, the waiting list would be a great deal less and, of course, less children would be murdered.
It is all there. I have yet to receive an argument for abortion that would justify me changing my opinion. I challenge you to find one for me. This is the primary reason why I vote the way that I do. I realize that this is an issue that won’t go away within a day or two, but will instead take several years to deteriorate. But, with an abortion taking place in America (and America alone!) every 20 seconds, this should become our primary objective. Read my other post for examples why.
Please respond if you think that I’m wrong. I would like to find a reason to justify the deaths of millions of children.
I vote based on the abortion issue. This is an issue that is close to my heart. I was born in 1979. This was after that momentous Roe v Wade decision. Which means that several desks in my classrooms were empty because of it. Would we have this issue with social security that President Bush has been talking about if this decision was made with a moral conscious? Probably not. My generation would be putting into the system what was necessary to support the baby boomers’ social security. But, that’s not the reason why I am pro-life. It stems from something deeper. The ability to realize a moral obligation to the human race. As I stated in my previous post, it is obvious to any medical professional that life begins at conception. Not at the implantation of the human embryo, but at conception. So, any degree of termination of life after this constitutes abortion and thus, the elimination of a life.
This is also why I’m against the development of stem cell research. Not the development of stem cell research in general, but in embryonic stem cell research. The pro murder, I mean, pro abortionists are pro-embryonic stem cell research to further their cause. Let’s take a deeper look into their purpose. They feel that it is a woman’s right to an abortion and to advance this cause further they feel that by performing an abortion on a woman could also provide material for scientific study that might put an end to Alzheimer’s or other genetic ailments. However, this “material” has been determined time and time again by the respected medical community as a human life. And NEVER has embryonic stem cell research provided any advancement within the medical community. Instead adult stem cell research has done so. Both you and I have stem cells within us that have given science the ability to come up with new cures and at the very least, scenarios of potential cures for the current ailments of society. Even the placenta of a child contains a great deal of stem cells for this research. But, the cosmetic industry would rather have this to provide the basis for their “wrinkle defying creams” and such. So, to provide abortions for the development of cures for mankind is unfounded.
Therefore, should anyone argue the advocating of child murder for the benefit of stem cell research, ask them for documentation of embryonic stem cell research that has provided the medical community ANY medical benefit. They will be unable to. It does not exist. However, stem cell research has provided GREAT advancements in treatment and cures to the greater ailments of society such as Alzheimer’s and cancer. What a beautiful and remarkable thing the adult stem cell is. It is provided from the liver and other organs from an adult and can be examined for cures and treatments. How awesome is modern technology?!
Also there is a fringe demand for human cloning. I say fringe, because it is WAY out there. But, should the popular left gain hold of this issue; they would surely be for the continuation of human cloning. Other countries are already experimenting with this idea. This provides such a great moral and religious issue that it is nearly implacable that someone would even consider this. However, there are fringe groups that believe that should we clone ourselves, there would be a greater availability of organs and blood in case of emergencies. We would also be able to provide organs to children who might suffer without this new availability of body parts. We, as a people, need to put a stop to this. President Bush has already expressed his discontent for human cloning. In his State of the Union address heard recently he even expressed dissatisfaction to human/animal cloning. This means that some scientist might eventually think it is a good idea to merge human DNA with lion DNA or something. This may be in the future, but might also be feasible today. How disgusting is that?!
Human life is sacred. This is a belief of many religions. However, the popular belief of society does not comprehend that. Instead the use of human life for medical progression or experimentation is A-OK. We need to let our representatives and congressmen know that each human life is to be appreciated and not used for science. Each human life is a gift from God. Nothing less. I realize in a world of different beliefs and even an agnostic belief or an atheist belief that this might not be a popular opinion in the mainstream media. However, when 86% of America believes in God, surely they also believe that those who were made in His image are also of a certain degree of sanctity.
This is why I believe what I believe. Through a merger of science and religion I have come to the belief that abortion is the most disgusting attribute of modern man and I aim to put a stop to it. This is why I vote republican.
Now, it would be purely idealistic to believe there would be a day where abortion would be eliminated. Instead, I believe that through the gradual reversal of the pro-death agenda, I mean pro-abortion agenda, we will one day live in a world where the unborn would be given the opportunity to enjoy the life that we all do. This means the law of parental consent of those under the age of 18 to have an abortion. The girls who are under 18 have to have their parent’s signature to receive an aspirin from their school nurse, but not an abortion from their local abortion doctor. Where are our values? Then progress from there.
I would even be happy with a law that gave abortions to only those who were victims of rape and incest. This accounts for only 1/6th of one percent of all abortions within the United States. Even less in some cases. What is disgusting is that the abortion issue has been wrapped up in the woman’s right movement. And it is NOT a woman’s right issue. I am 100% for equal wages in the workplace for women. Heck that statement also lets you know that I’m also for a woman’s right to choose to be in the workplace in the first place! I feel that women should have all the benefits of men, for they are just as valued in today’s society on the status of human as man is. It would be disgusting if they were seen as less than men. Should this be the case, we would be on the same level as Iraq before we liberated it. (This is for a different post!)
However, abortion IS NOT a woman’s issue. Granted, it is women who carry the child to term, but that is where the issue ends. Genetics teaches us that the child that she carries is 1/2 the father’s child. However, while the child is within the womb, the father has no legal right to its well being. Should the mother decide to abort the child, the father has NO say. None. However, when the child is born, the father is expected to, at the very least, financially support his child. This seems fair? Of course it isn’t.
The child is not a part of the mother. There has never been an argument proving that the child is, in fact, a part of the mother. Instead the child is a separate living being. Both the child and the mother have a different genetic make-up. This making them different. The argument that the child is unable to survive without the support of the mother has also been tossed out. It has been proven with today’s technology that we are able to give a child the means necessary to survive a great deal before birth. Plus if this argument is used, when is the mother not necessary for the child’s survival? Are we able to put the child out in the woods once it is born to fend for itself? Most of us depend on our parents (especially financially - let’s be honest) well into our 20’s!
The other argument comes from those mothers who it would be inconvenient for them to have a child. They are in school or working a full-time job and are unable to become mothers. The waiting list for adoption in this country is outrageous. You might as well get on it as a teenager just in case your spouse has reproductive issues. The amount of time, paperwork and money necessary to adopt a child is outrageous. Start filling it out now! It is due to abortion that the waiting list is so long. Should the mother have the confidence and societal acceptance to carry the child to term, the waiting list would be a great deal less and, of course, less children would be murdered.
It is all there. I have yet to receive an argument for abortion that would justify me changing my opinion. I challenge you to find one for me. This is the primary reason why I vote the way that I do. I realize that this is an issue that won’t go away within a day or two, but will instead take several years to deteriorate. But, with an abortion taking place in America (and America alone!) every 20 seconds, this should become our primary objective. Read my other post for examples why.
Please respond if you think that I’m wrong. I would like to find a reason to justify the deaths of millions of children.
posted by John Mc. @ 3/01/2006 06:03:00 PM
6 Comments:
At 5:50 AM,
John Mc. said…
Can always count on Billy D!
At 11:21 AM,
Looney73 said…
I will third that "Amen" and say that I wish I had enough time in the day to respond to this blog with my overwhelming support of what was in the original post. I think every person that supports abortion should watch an abortion being performed and not just watch it from the outside, but from the inside. I think a small camera should be placed inside a woman and the Pro-Abortion/Pro-Choice people should see what actually happens to a fetus when the doctor takes a hammer and breaks the skull of the fetus or when a vacuum tears the fetus apart or during a partial-birth abortion when the back of the skull of the child is cut and the brain is sucked out. I think people might start reconsidering their position, but then again, I am a hopeful, naive dreamer who's dreams of no more abortions are coming more and more true everyday (thanks SD and Miss).
At 12:59 AM,
Anonymous said…
John, how do you feel about "in vitro fertilisation"? Im assuming that you are against it, but you did not mention that. I find it strange that the argument is always made about stem cells but not about the more direct issue of "in vitro fertilisation". In that process, many embryos are discarded. Doctors are creating these embryos - human lives - and then destroying them. This would seem to be your original problem, yet it is rarely discussed. Using the stem cells from these discarded embryos is like transplanting an organ or donating your body to science after you die. The death has already occurred.
Also, how does one justify an exception for rape/incest/"health or life of the mother" when you consider the unborn to be a separate human life? If you believe what you say you do, allowing those exceptions seems like a cop-out to me.
Perhaps lastly for now, I understand the argument that making it illegal should lead to a decrease in the number of abortions. But there are other ways as well, and I feel that these are not discussed. Shouldnt we do our best to prevent any kind of economic concerns from leading women to choose abortion, be it all the health care costs surrounding a pregnancy, issues about a woman's ability to work while pregnant or afterwards, costs of raising a child?
And as a final statement for now, as a man in March 2006, I do NOT feel that women and men share equally the responsibility and additional burdens once conception has occurred. This may change someday due to science or law or whatever, but women currently bear a greater burden and responsibility due to conception than does the man, even obviously considering the financial obligations you mentioned.
When abortion is outlawed, how do you propose we deal with women who have them illegally? How about if they go to another country to do it? She killed an American citizen, right? Or more generally, when life begins at conception, what does that legally mean the woman is liable for? After conception, the kid is kinda like a prisoner and should have some rights if the mom does anything unreasonably stupid.
Damnit, one more. As a supporter of abortion rights, I kinda resent your labeling me as pro-abortion. Just cause I think something should be legal doesnt mean I advocate it, and this is true for me with abortion. I just dont think it should be illegal.
(going back thru your piece I realized that there is a lot more I want to take issue with, but also that you seem to have learned well from some of your fellow radio personalities. this is because you have very effectively distracted me, made me angry, given me less faith in the American people to think about complex issues from others' points of view, and possibly wasted my time if you or someone else does not give my comment the thought and consideration I gave yours.)
Well, goodnight and I hope to talk to you soon.
William Maggos
At 11:17 AM,
Looney73 said…
William - You stated "this is because you have very effectively distracted me, made me angry, given me less faith in the American people to think about complex issues from others' points of view, and possibly wasted my time if you or someone else does not give my comment the thought and consideration I gave yours."
I know John personally and know I speak for him and myself when I say that HE did not distract you or do any of these other things to you: you did it to yourself or ALLOW it to happen to yourself.
Your statement only further backs my argument against abortion...you blame John for your feelings and do not take responsibility for your actions. The same holds true for most abortions. People create a child together and then don't take the responsibility for their actions. They feel that an abortion is being responsible when it only puts a band-aid on a bigger problem AND it shows that people want to have sex, but don't want to liver with the consequences of their behavior.
To address your being pro-abortion: if it walks like a duck, talks, like a duct, and acts like a duck...it's a duck. You can not be on both sides of the abortion debate. Either you are pro-abortion or aren't. There is no gray area when you said that it should be legal, but you don't advocate it because if your not pro-abortion, then you are Pro-Life. Take a stand for yourself and pick a side to be on since you so have no problem expressing your feelings, as you should. I glady say that I am Pro-Life and am not afraid of the things that labels me as.
I am sure you will argue that not all things are black and white and I would agree with you on that premise, but abortion is not one of them
At 12:36 PM,
Anonymous said…
Mark,
I agree that abortion is not the most responsible decision once conception has occurred, and I think you might be shocked at the number of pro-choice people who would agree with both of us. Please know that there are misconceptions out there, that generally liberals do not believe in personal responsibility and conservatives are cold-hearted, are obviously two of them. Yes, often people want to have sex and not have a child. Id say that thought is nearly universal at some time in everyone's life. Options like NFP and contraception allow us that, without abortion. (I just feel that that needed to be said)
But again, I disagree with your argument that wanting to keep something legal means you are pro-(that). I know John personally as well, and he knows that I do not drink alcohol. I do not advocate for or against it for my friends, and I do not think the law needs to be changed either. This doesnt make me pro-alcohol, does it?
A friend of mine calls himself pro-life. Whenever abortion is brought up, he says he is pro-life. After a little discussion, folks discover that he does NOT support overturning Roe v Wade or any legal change at all. He basically holds the same position I tried to articulate in the earlier post, that it should be legal but we should do our best to lessen the number without making it illegal, economics and health care and education and govt assistance. But the term has come to mean making abortion illegal or at least moving control back to the states.
Dont you see the problem with some of the language we use? I dont much like the term pro-choice. Its not like Coke or Pepsi. The term lessens the seriousness of the issue. And folks like my friend cant use the term pro-life without being misconstrued. And pro-life folks can support capital punishment. But the terms we use serve a political device, and that is sadly unavoidable.
I did ALLOW myself to become angry and distracted, but my comment about that was in reference to a thought that some of talk radio is intended to do this to the listener. Push the buttons of those who listen but disagree, as I remember Stern commenting that many folks who listened to him disagreed with him. When you see or hear something that gets huge ratings and everybody tells you is great and you think it sucks, do you not sometimes wonder if something is wrong with popular culture? That is all I meant.
William Maggos
At 11:24 AM,
Looney73 said…
William - I think we will just have to agree to disagree on a few matters. I do not believe forums like this are places for debate as their are too many misunderstandings that occurred. Things like voice influction and emphasis on cetain words are left out when we type what we are saying versus saying it in person.
One of the true beautiful aspects of living in America is that we can express ourselves freely (for the most part) without fearing imprisonment, torture, or even death. So while I may disagree, I do respect your comments and opinions.
Post a Comment
<< Home