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.
Years ago the "L"ibs said that "morals" have no place in Government. Now that they have been fully discredited, they want to tell us they are moral. Lying, sneaky .....
I can boil it down to only 1.
Right vs. wrong.
Yep.
Absolutely. With people all over the place desperate for children to adopt, the idea of killing them rather than give them up for adoption continues to frustrate and mystify me, as I'm sure it does many people.
A lot of these libs are missing a big piece of the puzzle in their post-election rants.
These moral value issues also include the dishonest, hateful tactics the Dems used to try to oust President Bush by hook or crook. I know quite a few Dems who were turned off, and voted for Bush as a result.
As long as the Dems embrace vile candidates like Kerry, and celebrate the likes of Michael Moore, Terry McAuliffe, etc, they will continue to repulse the majority of American voters.
When you take the perspective out of the "facts", you take the relevance out of the argument.
Morality is confusing to the left, not only because they have none, but because today's far-left holds values that measure right and wrong, in high disdain.
You want a paradox? Bill Clinton should be teaching classes in social morality...that would be a just end for him.
It's called 'extremism.' The pro-abortion crowd pushed too far on this issue, demanding legal abortions beyond viability. These extremist also demanded legal abortion for young teens without their parents involvement. He refuses to acknowledge that most people who favor abortion still want limits on it. That's where the dems lost on the moral issues.
The same applies to the homosexuals issue. The extremists pushed too far.
Actually, this red-stater takes the matter of choice one step further back: "if you don't want to STAY pregnant, don't GET pregnant; because you are involving ANOTHER PERSON's LIFE in your whimsy". But this red-stater, having said that, is now willing to compromise (blue-staters love compromise, right?): I am ready to declare "free abortions for all blue-staters, liberals and people of color" (and then listen to them howl, as they realize I'm trying to reduce their numbers, thus highlighting the real reason behind abortion as an ideology).
I have a lot of other answers to this poor soul's lament, but will leave that to others...
Life seems to be his primary issue.
He began puzzled about forcing morality on someone else. He ended up advocating forcing his morality on someone else....even to the point of killing them.
So, if someone has this living, breathing human being attached to herself, and she then has an inconvenience, then her inconvenience outweighs a human life?
Better to err in the direction where both get to live.
What he is saying is that he could stop crying and get on board for a better America, , but he would rather continue to Whine.
You know, I'm for abortion for pragmatic reasons. I just don't think kids should enter peoples' lives without the parents being fully ready to accept the blessings and burden.
But this article makes me feel more for the anti-abortion side. Calling a fetus "this thing" seems demeaning to human life, period.
I'm starting to see how the other side feels on this issue.
Zarquon: Unfortunately, he makes a living as a columnist, so that's not an option unless he wants to try wheat farming or something. And quite honestly I don't think most blue staters - including myself - are particularly keen on that idea.
D
The abortion issue really sticks in my craw. I am so tired of this "my body" mantra. My nephew and his wife just brought their twins home from the hospital. They were born in July at six months gestation and weighed 1.5 lbs each at birth. After a long struggle, they finally got home this month.
Now, this "my body" argument. If I go visit my nephew and hold their twins, I have voluntarily picked them up. If I decide that I am now inconvenienced at having to hold the twins, the pro-abortion argument is that I can put my rights above those of the babies, drop my arms and go about my life. Yet, if I did so, I would be arrested for attempted, if not successful, homicide. The fact is, I have waived my right to control my own body for a period of time. Having voluntarily picked up the babies, I now have a legal obligation to continue holding those babies until I can get them to a place of safety. When they are safe, my "right" to control my own body resuscitates. Until then, I have temporarily forfeited the right to control my arms. I always have the ability to simply drop the babies, but I don't have the moral or legal right to do so.
To my mind, there is little difference between my picking up the babies and a woman who gets pregnant. In both cases, I am temporarily inconvenienced, in most cases voluntarily. Having assumed the responsibility for another's life, I have the obligation to get it to safety before going off on my merry way. Yes, there is a difference between walking over to a bed and laying the babies down and going through a nine-month pregnancy, but where human life is involved, six, seven or eight months is negligible compared to homicide. (And before anyone thinks I am trivializing pregnancy, let me state that I am a woman who has borne three children so I know how "inconvenient" pregnancies can be.)
Pick up (or create) a life and you assume an obligation to get that child to a place of safety before resuming your self-indulgence. That is all the anti-abortion movement is about.
Why bother? His conclusions depend on highly selective premises. We've tried to negotiate with them on the premises, and they'll have none of it, so we'll just settle for winning.
Charges of inconsistency from the likes of this writer have as much impact on me as charges of "dumbhead" from a five-year-old.
Right vs. wrong.
You are right but the author, a typical liberal believes that moral values are a matter of opinion with everybody having their own, with no absolutes, only shades of gray.
From that they leap to abortion is a matter of personal choice. That it's ok for men to marry men and women to marry women. It's better to take all references to God out of public life.
These people are a cancer on our society.
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.