freelance
11-13-2007, 04:23 AM
I wanted to learn more about the NRLC endorsing Fred Thompson and what it means to people who support other candidates, so I went to another candidate's forum (a legitimate one) to see what I could learn.
Something I found just a tad disturbing was, "As a Christian, this..., As a Christian that..." The only thing is, I didn't find was any other "Christian" principles outside of protecting the unborn. Why is it that the protection seems to stop at the petri dish? There doesn't seem to be any concern about the QUALITY of life for the born individual.
The only concern I could find seems to be farming recruits for more war, with enough surveillance and indoctrination in place to ensure the proper warrior soldier attitude, and enough taxation in place to ensure that soon the only jobs open to the newly born would be soldier/mercenary/security guard/surveillance drone.
What am I missing?
I should preface this by saying I'm pro-choice and a non-Christian. :P
I think it's because so many times the Democrats have insisted that the only way to improve someone's quality of life is through the government. It sounds like an absurd notion to us, of course, but the media has refinforced this idea for years...so much so that the average person who doesn't even follow politics automatically agrees with this. Why isn't education better? We must not be appropriating enough funds for it through the gov't! Why are people poor? Our taxes are too low for the rich! Why is our adoption system broken beyond repair? Not enough gov't control! And so on.
Conservatives by and large avoid answering the "What about life after birth?" question because it appears weak or impractical to answer that voluntary charity is the only way for us to truly help one another and improve everyone's quality of life.
So if you see what I mean, the question is rigged from the start, because people don't want to do something, they want someone ELSE to do something and that someone else is the government. And no true conservative would get on board with that. It's like that billionaire who's complaining that poor people are having a such a hard time making ends meet, and he used his personal secretary as an example -- why, he only pays her $10 an hour! Someone should really do something about that...never has it entered his mind that it should be his responsibility and not the government's. Or like with the Rosa Parks medal. No one could understand why Ron Paul wouldn't want to give that poor old lady a medal and when he approached the other Senators about paying for it themselves -- keeping in mind it'd only be $100 each and they're all millionaires -- they turned him down flat. Why not use the gov't, when in the state it's in now it might as well be a credit card with an infinite limit?
I think it's also an unfair question because you simply can't compare life and death from a philosophical standpoint. A life of despair, poverty and pain still rivals that of having been murdered. We would never try a homicide case and say, "I ask you, members of the jury, if you had MS would YOU want to live? Isn't death better than living with that kind of chronic, debilitating pain? We should be thanking the murderer..." With as many abortions as take place, you can hardly fault religious pro-lifers for putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. And Christians do give a lot of money to charity, no doubt, whether it's local food and clothing drives to helping impoverished children overseas. Interestingly enough, if you look at the statistics, it's people in the Bible Belt that give the most to charity even though they are poorer than other places in the U.S. I think many times people not involved with their local churches may not realize the amount of good they do, honestly. Just my two cents.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.