I’m not exactly pro-choice and I’m not exactly pro-life. I’m one of the vast “middle grounders” out there in America, who are just kind of sick about the whole thing because it’s an un-resolvable issue. I believe:
1. Women have to carry babies and often they bear the greatest burden raising children, so who am I to force a woman to have a baby she does not want or cannot afford?
2. Adoption is a great thing, and I would certainly encourage anyone I knew who was pregnant but did not want the baby to consider it. There are a lot of good people who want children and can’t have them.
3. I think abortion is killing. But there’s all kinds of *justified* killing in our world: war, self-defense, accidents.
Just because it’s taking a life and *I* think it’s morally wrong doesn’t mean that I should hold everyone else to my moral standard. I think war is wrong. I think capital punishment is wrong. Obviously, I’m not doing to well on the fight to end those either.
I bring this all up because I often hear self-proclaimed “pro-life activists” say that they are voting for Bush, based on that one position alone. But tonight Rain Man posed a very interesting essay by a Christian ethicist, entitled Pro-life? Look at the Fruits which quotes some interesting statistics that show that under the Bush administration, in spite of “faith based initiatives” abortions have actually increased. Why? The economy. It’s certainly worth considering. If you really want to make abortion your issue, as the article claims, it is not just a moral issue separate from the candidates other policies.
W hopes xian voters will latch onto the phrase “trying to promote a culture of life” without remembering that he executed more people as governor of TX than any other governor.
Frontline ran on Tuesday this week instead of Thursday with a 2-hour special called The Choice 2004. I now dislike Bush more than ever. And for the first time, I’ve gone from being lukewarm on Kerry to actually liking him.