Johnathan, my view of abortion is that the current law we operate under permits it, and it is unlikely we will ever see any significant change to limit it because the moral relativism of the left has achieved critical mass.
Once it became politically incorrect to stigmatize promiscuous, out of wedlock sex, it was inevitable that those who promote and then defend those mores have to de-stigmatize the resulting inconvenient pregnancy and thus provide the "alternative" of abortion.
It is precisely why our government does not allow the imposition of religion that the left staked out the anti-religious ground in the abortion battle - it places anyone against their view as a religious nut and therefore shields them from the imposition of any law that appears to have a religiously-based source.
We have lost the abortion battle. What this means to individuals personally it is not my position to dictate - as I have said before, the woman and the facilitators will have to deal with the consequences that we, as a slowly degenerating society, are no longer equipped to mete out. I can condemn all I want, but it will only solidify the opposition. Therefore, I have done, and will continue to do, what I can and recommend to others - get involved with young people and when necessary, provide the resources that allow young women who have made bad decisions to make a better one in bringing the baby to term and putting it up for adoption.
Saying that voting for a pro-choice Republican is a sell-out simply fails to deal with the reality. The left has successfully stigmatized religiously-founded conservatism, and in the freedom from guilt, freedom from responsibility, freedom of choosing anything, they have effectively mastered the art of creating a majority.
Our problem in voting is interesting - in order to achieve success in some areas, we are forced by lack of choice to subject ourselves to supporting people that don't share our views on all issues. This year, I actively supported a candidate (who won handily) that I have a running dialog of disagreement with on one issue. What I garner from the dialog is that the representative knows that I am a supporter, but that he does not have a mandate on all issues among his constituents. That is the basis for our system and despite the flaws that those of us who are politically active see close up, it works. Not always as quickly as we'd like, and we take backward steps almost as many times as we take forward steps.
I think voter apathy is a function of being misguided - the thought, IMO, is that some people feel they are already among the majority and that the majority will win. It is a product of polls.
If the constitution would allow it, I would ban ALL politically-oriented polls. Think of it, congresspeople having to actually talk to their constituents; the newsmedia ostracized from manipulative reporting on what we all supposedly think; the public having to look into issues for themselves instead of relying on what the media tells them the "majority" believe.
The possibility of that happening is probably as great as outlawing abortion. Given the current trends of thought in this country, the powerbase simply won't allow it.
Mr. K. |
