Originally posted by acludem
I believe it is immoral for a government to make medical and moral decisions for individuals. The Republican party would have the federal government make ALL moral and medical decisions for people. I am morally opposed to abortion, but is neither my right nor my place to make that deep moral decision for someone else. I do have a problem with the idea that life begins at conception - if this is true than every woman who's ever had sex and more than one period is a serial killer. Only a microscopic percentage of fertilized eggs ever survive pregnancy. Most don't even survive the first few hours. This is a biological fact. As for the gay rights issue, this is another example of the religious right seeking to use the power of the federal government to force their personal moral codes on the rest of us.
I vote Democratic because I believe in freedom. The religious right wing, which controls the Republican party, opposes individual liberty and freedom.
Then you need to ask yourself, "What are morals and moral decisions?" You need to realize that the whole idea of government and a set of laws exists to keep people within those moral boundaries. And in case you haven't noticed, all our laws as well as the constitution are based on those very morals.
You see, there will always be people of different "morals" in any society. If it suddenly became legal to steal cars in the United States, can you imagine how many cars would be stolen? And yet, I, for one, would not steal anything. Why? Because that is my own moral choice. Fortunately, my own "moral decision" coincides with the that of the government. Go ahead, put the moral issues in the hands of the "people" and see what happens.
We might as well make drug use legal. I mean, technically, not every drug addict out there commits crime. But then again, what is crime, but a violation of moral standards. Maybe my next-door neighbor really doesn't respect the law (or moral) of no indecent public exposure. I mean, he's not hurting anyone by walking the streets nude, is he? So why should it be a crime?
What we find here is not a question about the rights of women to have abortions. We find a question about whether or not we can bend or change the ground rules to our own convenience. Those who try to justify abortion rights, are trying to justify a change in the definition of the word "murder." I mean, all
my moral values are, in fact, based upon my own religious convictions. But then, I guess people of a different moral standard suddenly have a free ticket to do what they want because they don't believe in my morals? I don't think so.
Here I can allude back to the post I made in the thread about God and the Pledge of Allegiance. Basically, this is a country of religious freedom - you can believe or disbelieve all you want. However, it is a nation created in piety to God, and the government was created with the
allowance for those who don't believe. Notice the word
allowance. What I mean here is that although the nation affords religious freedom, it was never meant to be an atheist nation that respects religion. Quite the opposite. So you want to live in the United States of America, but you don't believe in God? That's perfectly fine - just don't break the pious morals upon which the nation was formed.
The fact of the matter is that the conservatives do not wish to control the lives of anyone through its moral system. The conservatives wish to conserve (hence the name) that which is tried and true throughout the years, so as to promote peace and safety. The moment you start changing the rules and the moral standard, you never know where you will end up.
-Douglas
