Tonight Lauren and I went have dinner with her aunt and uncle and to see a cousin of hers who is visiting from out of town. As can be expected at one of her family get-togethers the topic turned to politics. Throughout the whole presidential election I have been sitting on the fence waiting to see if anyone would knock me off (yes I realize that I will at some point need search the candidates stances on issues). Tonight Marcus, Lauren's cousin, was talking about some of the key issues and his support for Obama while Laurens aunt Karen was arguing in favor for McCain. There were two things that stood out to me during the conversation. First, Obama would be the better presidential candidate because of what he brings to the table in the form of financial support. Almost the entire world would vote for Obama if given the chance. Considering our current reputation in the world would this be what our country needs? Second, Is a better international reputation worth electing a man who supports such things as gay marriage? Yes, I know he says he believes they are wrong personally and instead believes in allowing the people to have the choice, however, in my opinion this means he supports it. In other words, could a stronger economy and stronger relationship with other nations outweigh the possible repercussions of a degrading moral society? My initial thought is that it cannot. To me it seems that no matter the cost as a nation we must maintain our morals.
Something else that was discussed tonight was abortion. I must say that my mind was opened to understand more about this highly debated subject. As it may, or may not, be widely known the church has a stand point regarding abortion within its handbook of instructions. As far as I can remember (and I am not acting as a spokesman nor an authority of the church) it discusses the only acceptable circumstances regarding an abortion specifically in cases where the mother's life is at risk and where rape and incest have occurred. Someone, and I won’t point out whom, in case he or she would not like it to be known, said that it would be impractical for the churches stance on abortion to be made into a law. The reason behind this is that one would need to prove that they had been a victim of rape or incest before they would be allowed to undergo the procedure. This would require that the suspected perpetrator would have to be brought to court, and as far as I can remember from what was spoken the court could be pushed out so far that the pregnant woman would be too far along or even have come to full term before the court procedures were concluded. And so an interesting idea was brought forward, if abortion were legal would we be able to teach people correct principles so that they could govern themselves, or should we? The other thought was whether or not the church would be able to fulfill its standpoint regarding abortion if it were illegal all together. On the other hand should people be given the choice? Would it be better to legalize abortion and allow people to make their own decision while trying to teach correct principles thus allowing the church to fulfill one of its doctrines regarding abortion? Or should abortion be regulated to try to prevent people from committing sin before given the opportunity (which is not off base as we already see many people commit abortion due to the inconvenience of the pregnancy). If we did ban it all together would we not just find more underground hospitals willing to do perform the illegal procedures and people willing to stick coat hangers into themselves to abort unwanted babies? It is really an interesting topic and one that will continue to be debated for years to come but which I will have to think more about.
For those of you (if anyone actually reads this) who are interested I still have not decided on who I would like to vote for, though for moralities sake I am leaning more toward McCain while my more logical and practical side is leaning toward Obama. I was pointed to a website: factcheck.org for more information regarding the things the candidates have said about each other and their own stand points on the issues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
There are actually six candidates running. You don't necessarily have to vote for "the only ones who could win." I suggest you research all the candidates and see if one of the four less mainstream candidates jives more with your beliefs and values. You really should vote your conscience. If Obama's stances on morality go against your conscience and McCain's stance on foreign policy are against your conscience maybe neither of them are the candidate for you. (BTW, I believe foreign policy is just as much a moral issue as abortion in that those who make decisions on foreign policy are often choosing to put soldiers and civilians in harm's way).
Interesting thoughts on abortion. That's a really tough call. I am all about agency over coercion almost any time, which is why I lean libertarian, but abortion seems to cross the line of not protecting our right to life.
Congrats on starting a blog!! I love the title.
Interesting, I'm a fence sitter too. Or rather I tend to side with what my friends and family say about the matter. Good thoughts about the abortion. I think agency is pivotal to everyones salvation, but I sure wouldn't mind it being a bit more difficult for people to get one! To every action there is a consequence, and I think they ought to realize that they can't just pop over to a hospital if they purposefully had sex and didn't really want the baby. Hmmm. (I like you blog, it makes people think!)
Post a Comment