[NightSpirit]

Originally Posted by Barcs

To me, abortion has no place in politics, and it is silly to make it the number one thing to choose a candidate for. It completely polarizes people, and makes them focus on something that has little to do with our country and it's development.

Any legal issue is a political issue, especially one like abortion, in which constitutional and Supreme Court issues are pending. I think you are missing my point, that for me, casting a vote in support of abortion on demand without restrictions, which is what the Democratic stance is, I think would morally make me an accomplice to the abortions that are performed.

Originally Posted by Barcs

Basically you focus on abortion much more so than actual issues. It seems as if somebody like that might be perfectly fine choosing a president who destroys this nation, as long as he/she doesn't support abortion.

What I said that created these responses was that it has always been my main reason for voting at all. I know there are other recent issues like the nearly 5000 Americans and the 1.2 million Iraqis that have been killed in a war that started from a lie. And I don't want to help elect someone who is "ready" from either side that wants to show the world our "power" and get us all killed.

Even if they stand where I do on the issues, I don't know the heart of either of them or what future challenges may come so I guess I should ask God, who knows all that, to direct me. I do know I won't be voting for the one that I think can make me richer or from a fear of poverty.

Originally Posted by Barcs

That is the main problem I have with this issue in politics and voting. I agree that it should be something that the state and local governments decide, because if you look at New York City or New Jersey and compare it with Texas or Georgia, you will find very different political views and religious views. Why should both have to conform to the same ideology?

This might sidetrack into another debate of state's rights to govern but this thread is about voting in this national election. Even if I agreed with you that abortion should remain a state issue, it doesn't help me decide how it should be handled now that the issue has reached the national level in court cases and appeals.

Throughout our history, state autonomy works but, in some cases, has led to the constitutional rights of people being violated, like the Jim Crow laws that held blacks down in the South and blue laws to control people that didn't think Sunday was any more special than any other day even if they were Christians.

That a person has certain in inalienable rights that are nationally guaranteed, such as to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is what has caused this issue to rise to the national level. People, on both sides of the issue, feel that some state laws on abortion are restricting individual liberty and constitutional rights and have asked the federal government to override those laws.

The issue will boil down to one decision on whether a baby has any rights before it breathes and how do we balance those rights against the mother's rights. We can't restrict a woman's right to have an abortion in late term just because we think it's nasty or a bad idea.

It has to be accepted by the Supreme Court that a baby begins to be a person before that baby can be protected by the Constitution. Pro-choice people might even agree that the baby has rights at some point but once that point of person hood is set, they think pro-life people will argue to slide that point on back as more science and medical advances come. And they probably will and the argument will go on.

Originally Posted by Barcs

One other point I'd like to make about this, is that this country was founded on religious freedom. Why should that be restricted to force everyone to conform to the Judeo-Christian standard? By not allowing abortion, you do exactly that.

I addressed this briefly in the last post but maybe you missed it because it was so long, sorry. I agree that by not allowing abortions at all we would be imposing a moral judgment and that would be wrong. I just believe the baby has interests in that decision that are being ignored.

But when the right to do something is considered legal, then interfering or impeding their right to do so becomes against the law and participation of citizens in that activity becomes required by law. To refuse to give a woman an abortion or to assist in the procedure or to throw out the remains, etc. etc. can get a person fired or cause them to be sued for infringing on a woman's legal rights. There has to be a counter law passed that protects our rights to follow our conscience, which is in the works. New Bush Rule: Doctors Can Refuse To Give Women Abortions

That's what all the hubbub is about on abstinence education. Unless it is supported as legal to be mentioned as an option, then those that mention it can be legally accused of pushing religion on kids. I think anyone would agree, except some fringe people, that delaying sex for kids might
result in them making better choices and have fewer problems.

But because abstinence is also what religions teach, to even say that might be considered a violation of church and state and is why it has become necessary to seek a law to protect that right to say it.

The contraceptive argument is coming mostly from the Catholics but also some Muslims, Jews and Christians. Because some believe contraception is a sin, a school teaching contraceptive options is in effect teaching their kids how to practice the sin of contraception.

As a conservative Christian, if you have protected your kids from R rated movies and nasty video games and explicit songs and taught them to be modest, then you don't want them to get their information about sex in a group, especially a mixed-gender group and from a person of whom you have no knowledge of their values.

Parents want the right to opt out and give their kids that information themselves. Assuming that the parents can't do a good job of that in the privacy of their own home and needs the help of the "state" is usurping parents authority and making a judgment on their values.

Notice I didn't take a stance on the right and wrong of these issues. It is just too easy, especially in this culture, to assume that because a person believes in God that their concerns on sex and contraception are shallow and religious. They are judged and dismissed as having bad judgment without first trying to understand.

In education, there is a fine line between being neutral about God and teaching ideas that assume an absence of a god.

Originally Posted by Barcs

Now, personally I wouldn't want to have an abortion done, besides in rape, incest and health problems, but I think people should still have the choice. I also believe that you need to make the decision right away. None of this 2nd and 3rd trimester stuff besides with health issues. You need to decide when the baby is first conceived, not wait a few months and change your mind.

Great. So if I think that and you think that, why haven't any of the political parties proposed this to draw us in?