Posted on 11/27/2004 7:35:06 AM PST by Marauder
My conservative readers and friends tell me that my options now are to get on board the George W. Bush bandwagon, consign myself to ideological irrelevancy, or hold my tongue for four years while I contemplate how to ''repackage'' my politics to be more acceptable to the American people.
Alas, none of those options appeals to me. My ideology is shaped by my analyses of issues, not by parties or candidates -- I opposed Bush because I opposed the invasion of Iraq, not the other way around. So it takes more than the outcome of an election to make me doubt my stances on issues; all Nov. 2 showed me is that more people disagreed with me than agreed with me, not that they are right and I am wrong.
But that's not insignificant. As a liberal ''blue state'' guy (living in a blue area of a red state), the election showed there is an America I truly don't comprehend. It's clear ''red state'' folks see things I don't see.
So the outcome of the election presents me with the opportunity, if not the obligation, to take a much closer look at the rhetoric of Red America. Maybe I'm missing something. Or maybe they are. I've got four long years to sort it out.
I'm most puzzled by this business about morality, which many analysts say tipped the election to Bush. I've always figured morality had to do with the individual choices each of us has a right to make. Other people might not like your choices, but this is a free country, isn't it?
And in a free country, not only do I have the right to make my own moral decisions, others have the freedom to try to persuade me to make different choices. In fact, I've always regarded persuasion as the moralist's only proper tool; I'm not really making a moral choice -- and you're not really promoting morality -- if you're forcing me to do what you believe I should do.
Red-state moralists, for example, apparently believe adults shouldn't be able to choose their desired spouses. Most approve of using tax money to promote Christianity in schools, courtrooms and other government facilities.
And most red-staters apparently believe government should be able to force a woman to remain pregnant whether she wants to or not.
I'd think red-staters would have confidence in their faith and the strength of their convictions to persuade people to make the right moral choices -- and do everything in their power to keep government emphatically secular and out of the morality business. Yet it seems to be just the opposite.
Now I understand pro-lifers believe life begins at fertilization, and that a fetus has full rights as a human being. But a fetus can only survive while attached to another human being -- who most certainly has rights. Whose rights should take precedence?
I see this as a moral issue which can only be guided by the conscience of the individual involved. The pro-choice stance doesn't compel any woman to have an abortion -- but the pro-life stance compels all pregnant women to carry to term. This position spares red-state moralists the need to persuade women to decide as they would -- why waste time encouraging a woman to do the right thing when you can just use the government to force her to do it?
Some pro-lifers argue that murder is immoral, too, and government most certainly punishes those who commit it. I agree murder is immoral, but that's not why it's a criminal act. It's outlawed because we have collectively agreed that a proper society shouldn't allow harm to befall someone at the hands of another -- the same reason robbery, fraud and rape are illegal. We don't allow people to choose to impinge upon the rights of another -- so ''moral choice'' isn't the issue.
So isn't abortion murder? Does a mother commit "murder" by detaching this thing from her body? Abortion is the ultimate moral issue: Either the fetus or the mother must be denied rights in the end.
Which is precisely why I don't feel government is wise enough to decide. We complain about government levying taxes, restricting hunting and fishing rights, making crazy zoning decisions -- and instigating foolish wars. But we're supposed to trust politicians to resolve the exquisitely moral issue of abortion?
Not me -- I'd rather trust women to decide for themselves, with the help of their doctors. But Nov. 2 said Red America thinks otherwise. I'll be interested to learn why.
I like the idea of calling it abortion when the perpetrators of child abortion are brought to justice. Not very Christian of me, ahhh so what!
Now I understand pro-lifers believe life begins at fertilization, and that a fetus has full rights as a human being. But a fetus can only survive while attached to another human being -- who most certainly has rights. Whose rights should take precedence?
It is funny because you cannot trump someone else's rights. Shows how the left thinks.
The right to life overrides any other "right" of the "mother."
Well I'm a Christian also so I guess we're both in trouble.
Then again I was taught that child sacrifice is wrong, especially for the sake of convenience.
I just figured we could better justify a case for aborting the mother and father who made a baby they didn't want than killing an innocent baby who had no choice.
I think if applied this way it would certainly cut down on unwanted pregnancies and reduce abortions.
Rights? Abortion weighs two options
1. A human will be killed.
2. A human will be greatly inconvenienced for 18 years.
and decides that killing a human you created because he will be inconvenient for you is the higher 'right'. There's not much of a moral leg to stand on there.
But a fetus can only survive while attached to another human being -- who most certainly has rights.
By this logic, killing infants and toddlers should also be permitted. They certainly won't survive on their own, any more than a fetus would. They're infringing upon the rights of the parents - who most certainly have rights.
A liberal in that situation would soon subordinate any civilized standards to his immediate needs and personal survival.
Without a moral basis for social interaction, any group of people is only a half step away from a Lord of the Flies existence.
Duh, that collective agreement is itself a moral judgment. This guy ain't too bright.
Here is where my wife says I go off the seep end. Well so be it. In NAZI Germany, it was politically correct to kill certain human beings. That was and is wrong. However, we in America have extended abortion to everyone, so that makes it all right? What barbarism.
So black conservatives are worth aborting?
I like that analogy.
If you're talking about whether or not to cheat on your girlfriend, you're right. If you're talking about whether or not to kill her because she's irritating, you're wrong. Some moral decisions are discretionary, and will speak only to your own character. Others are mandatory, and are not subject to individual interpretation.
I'm not really making a moral choice -- and you're not really promoting morality -- if you're forcing me to do what you believe I should do.
Honor, loyalty and respect are all moral concepts. They might work for you just fine. But if you only believe they extend only so far as the members of your own street gang, that's not enough.
If you're unwilling to accept that people outside your gang are anything other than prey, your level of morality, which may be high in a certain sense, and totally adequate for your personal and social needs, is totally insufficient for living in a civilized society.
You will either accept the yoke of a higher morality, or you will be dealt with.
As a free people, we must decide together how heavy to make this yoke. A moral people must be ready to resist slavery or chaos. Someone with no sense greater than 'I want my way' is a danger to both freedom and peace.
A free, stable society requires personal sacrifice, collective sacrifice, mutual trust, and a moral guideline. Without those things, that society will remain neither free nor stable.
The cowards don't even like to use the "A" word anymore. It's "what a woman does with her body" or "reproductive choice."
The new term is even vaguer -- "women's health care."
Apparently pap smears and breast exams are equivalent to partial-birth abortion now.
I think that about sums it up.
Conservatives aren't interested in forcing morality on people, but in protecting people from the dangers of others' lack of morality.
Now I understand pro-lifers believe life begins at fertilization, and that a fetus has full rights as a human being. But a fetus can only survive while attached to another human being -- who most certainly has rights. Whose rights should take precedence?
Are you actually trying to equate a few month's discomfort with someone's life? Have you no sense of proportion? This is comparable to forcing a child out of your liferaft into the open ocean because she is taking up your private space.
... why waste time encouraging a woman to do the right thing when you can just use the government to force her to do it?
We are saving an innocent person's life! That is a proper and fitting role of government.
So isn't abortion murder? Does a mother commit "murder" by detaching this thing from her body? Abortion is the ultimate moral issue: Either the fetus or the mother must be denied rights in the end.
Again, this is a matter of proportions. The right of life trumps convenience. I have a right to drive my SUV across my field, but not when there is someone standing there. Their right not to be killed trumps my right to drive on my field.
Red-state moralists, for example, apparently believe adults shouldn't be able to choose their desired spouses. Most approve of using tax money to promote Christianity in schools, courtrooms and other government facilities.
Personally, I don't thing federal or state governments should be in the marrying business to begin with. But what got conservatives on the defensive was the attempts by the blues to do an end-run around the legal process and to illegally force homosexual marriage on this nation. Hence the marriage protection act and the drive for a Constitutional Amendment. We are determined to end these legal end-runs from the left and to force everyone to use the legislative process to change laws.
You Cant explain morality to someone who has no grasp of reality
Reality is : There are 40,000 children murdered by the hand of abortion in the US every day where is the morality in the beleif of that ?
Reality is : The wrong doing of Saddam to his own countrymen and to others across the world was immoral to say the least leaving such a man in power WMD or not was immoral and yet to the Liberal it was immoral to stop him !
Morality not only dictates individual choices but also choices made by communities across the United States and the world If you dont like certain values held by the community you are most certainly free to move to one that hold values of morality closer to yours if indeed you have any if none you feel in the USA exist for you there again you are free to move to a country of your choice provided that country will have you !
So isn't abortion murder? Does a mother commit "murder" by detaching this thing from her body?
Yes its Murder why ? Because the child has not the chance to be free to make its choices but is trapped in anothers existance until people realize that because a child in the womb is helpless does not mean it unimportant killing life before it has a chance to be free for its own decisions is MURDER.
Abortion is the ultimate moral issue: Either the fetus or the mother must be denied rights in the end.
As a woman has no right to kill as a grown up except in cases of self defence neither should she have the right to kill as a grown up against the defenceless ! the child within her body is defenseless against anything that would harm it including its own host that in part is why it must be protected by all costs from harm from any enemy host or not !
I love that analogy.
Forgive me for giving a wrong impression. That is not what I meant at all. I AM NOT THE ONE opting for abortion. Free abortions would be available only to those who ask for them. Then they can exterminate their own if they want to. It's called choice. Do you think black conservatives are going to opt for self-extermination? I don't. That's why they are called conservatives.
I started to reply, but why bother? Debating liberals is like tap dancing on a greased bowling ball. I'll settle for beating them at the ballot box.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.