For hardcore social conservatives like me, I have always been a bit wary of John McCain. To me, while he may be a fiscal conservative, his social conservative stances leave a lot to be desired. And whether you agree with me or not, ask yourself this – would you want to have a leader follow his or her convictions consistently, not waffling on issues or staying on the fence, even if you may not agree with his/her positions. For me, I have great respect for some liberals with whom I vociferously disagree, but admire the fact that they hold to their positions consistently, despite the environment in which they find themselves or the political climate in general. McCain, to me, is not one of those people, although I will grant that he is a very sincere person, but given a choice between him and Obama, it’s a pretty clear choice – Obama is full of empty promises and while this may not be that well reported in the national press (ie. CNN is decidedly biased towards anything Obama), there are lots of discussion forums where disgruntled citizens of Illinois have candidly stated that he has nothing relatively nothing for them, since he has had his eyes on being the presidential nominee rather than focus on the job at hand. That’s why I like guys like Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, who was on McCain’s shortlist to be VP, but expressed that he was elected to be governor of Louisiana and that’s what he’s going to focus on. Saying no to a VP spot may not necessarily be the wisest move long-term, from a political perspective, but I admire Jindal’s dedication to this constituents.
So McCain’s choice of VP would have been very important to alleviate the fears and concerns of social conservatives. For all the Obama-maniacs who seem to let the fanfare and the hype drive their thinking rather than logic and common sense, they would dismiss social conservatives as having any relevance. But let’s face it, groups like Focus on the Family have a lot of sway to American conservative voters. Groups like the NRA have contributed decisively to the success (or lack thereof) of a particular candidate. It is not popular to be a conservative these days, so most people don’t go around confessing their conservative views. Liberals have suggested that McCain's rally later today (introducing his running mate, among other things) will not draw many people. I suspect that there will be much more than the 15,000 that are expected to attend. Conservatives tend to come out when it counts and not the flashy spectacles that liberals are famous for.
So it absolutely delights me that John McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his 2008 Vice-Presidential running mate earlier today. Now, the comments from liberals and democrats have already started to pour in. They think that McCain chose her because she is a woman. They think McCain chose her to appease Hillary supporters. Of course, if you think with her emotions rather than with your brain, you will come to this conclusion. But while I think that having a female on a ticket may show that McCain is sensitive to the fact that women are just as integral to the ballot box as men are, I think that the real reason that he chose her is because she is the truest conservative of all of the potential candidates vetted for the VP spot (with the exception of Mike Huckabee, who would be a great choice, but has been known to put his foot in his mouth at the wrong time). That balances out McCain’s clearly noticeable weakness with socially conservative voters. I think it's pretty insulting to Palin to suggest that she was chosen JUST because she is a woman.
Now, the other argument coming from the democratic camp is the lack of experience card. Sure, McCain railed against Obama for his lack of experience, but I think we're not talking about the same thing here. Obama is running for President. Palin is running for Vice-President. With the exception of Dick Cheney, many of the vice-presidents have had more or less a hands-off approach on a daily basis, working behind the scenes instead. This gives a great opportunity to learn the job behind the scenes. The presidency, however, is no place to learn on the job, since you are constantly in view and mistakes are magnified. Now, I know the other argument that comes from this and it is a valid one - given McCain's age (70-something), what if he croaks or is incapacited - will Palin be able to fill the role of Comamnder-in-Chief? Maybe. Maybe not. But they also said that she was too young to be a mayor at 32, too young and inexperienced to run as a state governor against a multi-term incumbent and yet she still won. Remember, Palin does have political experience in leadership in different capacities for the past 10 years or so - which is more than I can say for community activist - turned senator - Obama. I think that McCain chose wisely due to her staunch and unwavering conservative record and beliefs. She is an evangelical born again Christian, is decisively pro-life, and is a lifetime member of the NRA. Whether you agree with her or not, there's no way in hell you can mistake her as a liberal (unlike Tom Ridge, and Joe Lieberman, some other candidates in the running). Tim Pawlenty would have been a great choice too, but Palin's positions on issues is strongly known.
All that being said, she has a tough road ahead, especially in how she will prepare to debate the veteran Joe Biden (who by the way, I will concede was a decent choice by Obama, much better than Hillary Clinton). Will Biden eat her alive on foreign relations issues? Possibly. She can't come up with 30+ years of experience in a month or two - but in seeing her on interviews and such, she is a very articulate politician and has bucked the odds, so I certainly wouldn't discount that she can hold her own.
Having such a strong conservative on the ticket instantly strengthens McCain's viability. It should be very interesting in the days and months ahead. While you will never hear this on CNN, independent polling nationally in the U.S. actually puts McCain ahead of Obama right now. CNN and other liberal establishments put Obama slightly ahead, but if you look at the actual state-by-state totals and how they are made up, you can see that CNN is finding opportunities to inflate some numbers. Even the CNN number have shown a decreasing trend in support for Obama since the primaries ended, and it's gone down even more since he did not make Hillary his running mate (I think this will come back to haunt Obama, even though I think that Biden was and is the better choice).
While I've already sent McCain's campaign several contributions, I'll scrape up some more cash in the days ahead to show my approval for this most excellent pick.
McCain/Palin '08!!!!!
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Barack Obama Is Like John Lennon - All Words, No Substance
You know, the more I think about it, the more I see parallels between U.S. Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama, and the late Beatles frontman John Lennon.
Obama's whole message is about "change". He seldom, if ever, spends any time in providing specifics in how he will accomplish the changes, specifically in how he will fund the changes. In his speech last night to something like 90,000 faithful, packed into Mile High Stadium, he once again railed at McCain and proposed all sorts of stuff that he (thankfully) admitted that he would have to find a way to pay for, yet did not provide specifics, other than chopping government waste and reviewing the federal budget "line by line". These are fine cliche lines that politicians can use, but unless you actually turn on your brain, you won't realize that what he is proposing he will need to spend money to accomplish, and given the sucky economic times that we are in, there are only two ways for him to fund his proposed programs - reducing current spending, or increasing taxes. Now, as for the former...while I am no economist, I do know that conservatives in general are not spenders, but reducers. I find it hard to believe Obama can find that much more to reduce to pay for his programs. Yet, he doesn't address this, but instead, like Lennon, will simply ask people to imagine, to dream, and to hope.
This is fine if you don't think long-term. I mean, I can sit down with my wife and tell her, you know what, we all work hard, we are stressed, we need a break, we need a change, let's go on a month-long vacation to some tropical resort! Sounds great! We're excited. We would already be packing our bags unless one of us (or both of us) stops, puts a lid on the excitement level and logically thinks,
"As fun as this vacation may be, can we afford to do this?"
"Where's the money going to come from?"
"What effects will this have on our children and will they be coming with us and if not, who will watch them?"
"Is this the right thing to do, given that we still have a mortgage to pay, an uncertain job environment for me, and future college/university bills to address for our kids?"
You'll see in a way that these responses can be viewed as a killjoy of sorts, but it's facing reality. Obama needs to spend some time thinking about the implications of his promises. It's like people in general who have discussions about topics and complain about stuff. Someone will inevitably say, "someone should do something about this!" Of course, nobody does, because people realize that in order for them to follow through on that sentiment, they may actually have to get involved and put themselves at an inconvenience or risk.
Obama spends a lot of time talking in generalities. If you don't believe me, go watch any of his speeches on YouTube or something. You can never really nail down his position on something. So without knowing his true positions on things, but rather hearing the pie-in-the-sky philosophy that he constantly talks about, some people don't really have any concrete reason to vote against him, but that's starting to change now that many folks are starting to see him for who he is - a great orator who can give great speeches but has difficulty in delivering. Look at his voting record as a senator and how many "not present" votes he has. Look at what he has done/not done for his constituents in Illinois. When he became senator in 2003 or 2004, he already had aspirations to become the presidential nominee. Why else would he deliver a keynote address for the 2004 DNC in Boston that hardly mentioned John Kerry, the then-nominee for the Democrats. It was because even then, his ego was so large that he thought that he take the opportunity to showcase himself. Sure, I will grant that it was a well delivered speech, but if you watch it in full, it's really out of context, given the fact that he should have talking about John Kerry more and less about himself.
I find it interesting to see Obama talking about change and such all this time, and yet he picks a seasoned Washington veteran to be his running mate. Don't get me wrong - Joe Biden is a very good choice for him, given the fact that Biden helps to balance his zero experience in foreign matters - to me, that at least shows Obama is thinking logically at least part of the time. But Biden himself said not too long ago during one of the debates that Obama is not suited to be President due to lack of experience. Bill Clinton said the same thing. So did Hillary. I find it interesting now to see all three of them saying he's ready. Guess that's what happens when you get infected with the very contagious diseas Obamamania.
I find it interesting that despite what you may have seen last night, Obama hardly took the nomination in a cakewalk. The 18,000,000 (that's 18 million) voters that voted for Hillary obviously saw something they did not like in Obama, enough to not vote for him. Obama drew similar numbers. It is also interesting that Hillary's voters have not embraced him en masse - lots of them are leaving in droves to vote for John McCain - now, what's this saying to you? They'd rather jump party (and jump to the diametrically polar opposite political philoosphy) rather than vote for Obama. This, to me, is telling. While I have never been a Hillary Clinton fan and pretty much disagree with almost everything she stands for, I can at least enumerate her exact view on certain issues (whether I agree with it is a different story) - I can't say the same for Obama).
I find his "followers" to be very typical liberals. You know, the ones who will ride the bandwagon on any issue that seems to pique the public interest - like, oh, the environment. It's great to be Al Gore when you have the special interests groups proud that he is taking their position and you become some celebrity due to your support of "trendy" issues like the environment and climate change and human rights in China or whatever else that morons like U2's Bono or causes other celebrities attempt to champion.
Obama's premise is one that is not too far removed from the old days when we were all elementary school students - let's follow the outspoken popular kid. Yet if you look at how those quiet, studious nerdy types ended up, you'll see that they all ended up doing quite well in life, since people generally will (eventually) value substance and intelligence over style and oratal pizazz. John McCain is not the most outspoken and "go get 'em" type of person in the election - but he does have experience, knows that hard decisions made may not be popular, and is willing to stick to his guns. I am not saying Obama is a bad guy; just that he is ill-equipped to serve as the leader of the most influential country int he world.
Obama's whole message is about "change". He seldom, if ever, spends any time in providing specifics in how he will accomplish the changes, specifically in how he will fund the changes. In his speech last night to something like 90,000 faithful, packed into Mile High Stadium, he once again railed at McCain and proposed all sorts of stuff that he (thankfully) admitted that he would have to find a way to pay for, yet did not provide specifics, other than chopping government waste and reviewing the federal budget "line by line". These are fine cliche lines that politicians can use, but unless you actually turn on your brain, you won't realize that what he is proposing he will need to spend money to accomplish, and given the sucky economic times that we are in, there are only two ways for him to fund his proposed programs - reducing current spending, or increasing taxes. Now, as for the former...while I am no economist, I do know that conservatives in general are not spenders, but reducers. I find it hard to believe Obama can find that much more to reduce to pay for his programs. Yet, he doesn't address this, but instead, like Lennon, will simply ask people to imagine, to dream, and to hope.
This is fine if you don't think long-term. I mean, I can sit down with my wife and tell her, you know what, we all work hard, we are stressed, we need a break, we need a change, let's go on a month-long vacation to some tropical resort! Sounds great! We're excited. We would already be packing our bags unless one of us (or both of us) stops, puts a lid on the excitement level and logically thinks,
"As fun as this vacation may be, can we afford to do this?"
"Where's the money going to come from?"
"What effects will this have on our children and will they be coming with us and if not, who will watch them?"
"Is this the right thing to do, given that we still have a mortgage to pay, an uncertain job environment for me, and future college/university bills to address for our kids?"
You'll see in a way that these responses can be viewed as a killjoy of sorts, but it's facing reality. Obama needs to spend some time thinking about the implications of his promises. It's like people in general who have discussions about topics and complain about stuff. Someone will inevitably say, "someone should do something about this!" Of course, nobody does, because people realize that in order for them to follow through on that sentiment, they may actually have to get involved and put themselves at an inconvenience or risk.
Obama spends a lot of time talking in generalities. If you don't believe me, go watch any of his speeches on YouTube or something. You can never really nail down his position on something. So without knowing his true positions on things, but rather hearing the pie-in-the-sky philosophy that he constantly talks about, some people don't really have any concrete reason to vote against him, but that's starting to change now that many folks are starting to see him for who he is - a great orator who can give great speeches but has difficulty in delivering. Look at his voting record as a senator and how many "not present" votes he has. Look at what he has done/not done for his constituents in Illinois. When he became senator in 2003 or 2004, he already had aspirations to become the presidential nominee. Why else would he deliver a keynote address for the 2004 DNC in Boston that hardly mentioned John Kerry, the then-nominee for the Democrats. It was because even then, his ego was so large that he thought that he take the opportunity to showcase himself. Sure, I will grant that it was a well delivered speech, but if you watch it in full, it's really out of context, given the fact that he should have talking about John Kerry more and less about himself.
I find it interesting to see Obama talking about change and such all this time, and yet he picks a seasoned Washington veteran to be his running mate. Don't get me wrong - Joe Biden is a very good choice for him, given the fact that Biden helps to balance his zero experience in foreign matters - to me, that at least shows Obama is thinking logically at least part of the time. But Biden himself said not too long ago during one of the debates that Obama is not suited to be President due to lack of experience. Bill Clinton said the same thing. So did Hillary. I find it interesting now to see all three of them saying he's ready. Guess that's what happens when you get infected with the very contagious diseas Obamamania.
I find it interesting that despite what you may have seen last night, Obama hardly took the nomination in a cakewalk. The 18,000,000 (that's 18 million) voters that voted for Hillary obviously saw something they did not like in Obama, enough to not vote for him. Obama drew similar numbers. It is also interesting that Hillary's voters have not embraced him en masse - lots of them are leaving in droves to vote for John McCain - now, what's this saying to you? They'd rather jump party (and jump to the diametrically polar opposite political philoosphy) rather than vote for Obama. This, to me, is telling. While I have never been a Hillary Clinton fan and pretty much disagree with almost everything she stands for, I can at least enumerate her exact view on certain issues (whether I agree with it is a different story) - I can't say the same for Obama).
I find his "followers" to be very typical liberals. You know, the ones who will ride the bandwagon on any issue that seems to pique the public interest - like, oh, the environment. It's great to be Al Gore when you have the special interests groups proud that he is taking their position and you become some celebrity due to your support of "trendy" issues like the environment and climate change and human rights in China or whatever else that morons like U2's Bono or causes other celebrities attempt to champion.
Obama's premise is one that is not too far removed from the old days when we were all elementary school students - let's follow the outspoken popular kid. Yet if you look at how those quiet, studious nerdy types ended up, you'll see that they all ended up doing quite well in life, since people generally will (eventually) value substance and intelligence over style and oratal pizazz. John McCain is not the most outspoken and "go get 'em" type of person in the election - but he does have experience, knows that hard decisions made may not be popular, and is willing to stick to his guns. I am not saying Obama is a bad guy; just that he is ill-equipped to serve as the leader of the most influential country int he world.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
A Woman's Right To Choose...For Whom? A Look At The Abortion Debate
The abortion debate is one of those social ethics type of topics that almost always has the potential to polarize people. Obviously, people have strong opinions either way and while there will never be consensus to this issue, there are some questions that I've always had to which I've never received a satisfactory answer from pro-choice advocates.
First, let's look at the semantics here - pro-choice. The obvious interpretation would be that it is a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, right? Well, I've always thought yes and no to this one. Yes, woman can do whatever they want to themselves...as long as it does not infringe on another person's liberty or life. Now, I know it's a slippery slope argument here that some may be surprised that I am taking. There are some things I actually am happy to let people wallow in, since they made their bed and should sleep in it. Am I sad that so many gays and drug users have AIDS? Nope. Should I feel sorry for the obese person who I almost always see at Marineland or Ontario Place who can barely walk around yet is puffing on a cigarette or stuffing themselves with fries or ice cream? Nope. Do I care if you choose to pierce your scrotum or tattoo your face? Nope. Do I agree with all these practices or lifestyle choices? Nope. Would I advise my children against doing such things - yup. But I recognize we all have free will and what you choose to do, you have to live with the consequences.
Where I draw the line is when what you do has an adverse effect on someone else, and particularly someone who does not have the capability to choose whether the action/decision is done to them. I find not a whole lot of difference in the abortion issue and the issue of euthanasia, particularly of elderly and or disabled people. The Robert Latimer case in Canada here provides a fine example of why our laws need to protect those who cannot speak for themselves - Latimer, a farmer (from Saskatchewan, I believe) murdered his 12-year-old daughter Tracy, who had severe cerebral palsy. He said he was doing her a favour by exposing her to lethal doses of carbon monoxide from his truck, thereby killing her - was he trying to save her, or save him the years of time that would be required to continually care for her, as well as her escalating medical bills? I don't have any sympathy for this guy and am saddened that only after around 12 years or so, he is out of jail. Do I think he is a cold blooded murderer? Maybe not in the classic sense of the word - but I still think he is a murderer nonetheless.
Relate this back to abortion. You know, the one thing I find most distressing about this debate is the amount of feminists who claim that it's a woman's rights issue. It's not - it's a human rights issue. They will say that abortion should be allowed in the event of a rape or incest or when the mother's life is at stake. Even well respected people like Billy Graham are sympathetic to this position, and to a degree, I am as well. However, let's look at the stats here - the majority of abortions performed are for unwanted pregnancies, not out of medical necessity. I suspect if we were to take the abortionists concerns to the letter and institute an abortion law that applies only to exceptional-case scenarios as described above, they still wouldn't be happy - so I think it's a smokescreen for the feminists to be able to have unfettered access to abortions on demand.
Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions? Yeah, it really sucks that some teenager got some other teenager pregnant, but that is why sex should be reserved for marriage when both husband and wife in a committed marriage relationship can and do have the means to provide the support and love for that child in the environment designed for children to be welcomed. Of course, today's liberal educators are not seeing this as an option and instead are making condoms available en masse. They've obviously never had sex with a condom on, since if you have, you'll know that you may as well not have sex at all, rather than with a condom - I won't bother getting into the reasons here. But that's beside the point.
There is an argument that making abortion illegal or making the procedure hard to access will only drive girls and women to attempt dangerous and life-threatening home made abortions. They may die as a result. That seems to be a major driving force in arguments made in favour of the government of Canada giving Henry Morgentaler, the infamous Canadian abortion doctor, an Order of Canada, among other things. The argument goes that he actually helped save the lives of many girls and women who may have otherwise have died on the table of an underground abortion procedure. To this I say...so what? If they die, they die. That's their choice that they are making to engage in risky self-surgery. Plus, I'm not so sure that people can look at it this way, since I would argue that there is a null-gain here, since by supposedly saving the woman's life, you end up terminating the baby's. I'm not sure that that's any better - I know it's not. Now, you may say that's cruel of me to say all this, but again, we need to get people to take responsibility for their actions here, and in general, abortions on demand due to an "oops, unprotected sex" or "oops, condom breaking" are both hardly good reasons to kill an innocent life. I just don't get why the government is expected to be on the hook for terminating a life due to your your bad lifestyle choice. Just like anything else - if you decide to put a loaded gun to your head and pull the trigger, you have no one to blame but yourself for your actions. If you want to kill yourself, go ahead. It'll really suck for the family and friends you will leave behind, but that is ultimately your choice. But if you try to shoot another person before committing suicide, that's when the issue becomes something else and intervention is necessary. You may brand me as a neo-libertarian for such a philosophy, but it is what it is.
The case of the mother's health being threatened or in the case of rape, I don't really have a formulated thought-out response to these scenarios - that's my honest comment - but even with rape, I would be in favour of government assistance in bringing the baby to term, since there's lot of people unable to have babies who are eager to adopt. With the mother's life at risk, that's a trickier situation since there's time sensitivity to it and also there are a lot more complex issues present - but again, I haven't thought that exact scenario through yet, so it would be foolhardy for me to provide any form of feedback on that.
I have a baby daughter, so I've obviously had the opportunity to think through some of these issues with her in mind, so that it's not a matter of, "well, this is what I think that others should do, but I'd do differently myself." Just like with my son, I will impart to her the need to take responsibility to decisions in her life when she grows up. I cannot and will not think for her, but as her Dad, I will impart to her traditional and Biblical moral and ethical values. Can I guarantee that she won't make mistakes - of course I can't - and I guarantee that she will make mistakes. But hopefully through our teaching, if she ever gets into a situation where she gets pregnant before being married, that she will take the responsibility to keep the baby and I will of course support her in any case to do so. This, to me, does not suppress any rights she has as a woman, but imparts on her the value of life and that innocent life needs to be protected.
Now, one can ask me how as a vociferously pro-life person, can I support the death penalty, but be rabidly against abortion. Some have suggested that this is a hard question to answer, but I don't think it is. For one, we are talking about two things here - an innocent person who cannot speak for themselves and has not broken any laws, is compared to a person who is old enough to commit such a serious crime that they have forfeited their right to live, based on the collective societal decision to institute a punishment that will end their life. One is about murdering an innocent life; the other is enacting a societally agreed upon punishment for an action. They are totally different.
First, let's look at the semantics here - pro-choice. The obvious interpretation would be that it is a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, right? Well, I've always thought yes and no to this one. Yes, woman can do whatever they want to themselves...as long as it does not infringe on another person's liberty or life. Now, I know it's a slippery slope argument here that some may be surprised that I am taking. There are some things I actually am happy to let people wallow in, since they made their bed and should sleep in it. Am I sad that so many gays and drug users have AIDS? Nope. Should I feel sorry for the obese person who I almost always see at Marineland or Ontario Place who can barely walk around yet is puffing on a cigarette or stuffing themselves with fries or ice cream? Nope. Do I care if you choose to pierce your scrotum or tattoo your face? Nope. Do I agree with all these practices or lifestyle choices? Nope. Would I advise my children against doing such things - yup. But I recognize we all have free will and what you choose to do, you have to live with the consequences.
Where I draw the line is when what you do has an adverse effect on someone else, and particularly someone who does not have the capability to choose whether the action/decision is done to them. I find not a whole lot of difference in the abortion issue and the issue of euthanasia, particularly of elderly and or disabled people. The Robert Latimer case in Canada here provides a fine example of why our laws need to protect those who cannot speak for themselves - Latimer, a farmer (from Saskatchewan, I believe) murdered his 12-year-old daughter Tracy, who had severe cerebral palsy. He said he was doing her a favour by exposing her to lethal doses of carbon monoxide from his truck, thereby killing her - was he trying to save her, or save him the years of time that would be required to continually care for her, as well as her escalating medical bills? I don't have any sympathy for this guy and am saddened that only after around 12 years or so, he is out of jail. Do I think he is a cold blooded murderer? Maybe not in the classic sense of the word - but I still think he is a murderer nonetheless.
Relate this back to abortion. You know, the one thing I find most distressing about this debate is the amount of feminists who claim that it's a woman's rights issue. It's not - it's a human rights issue. They will say that abortion should be allowed in the event of a rape or incest or when the mother's life is at stake. Even well respected people like Billy Graham are sympathetic to this position, and to a degree, I am as well. However, let's look at the stats here - the majority of abortions performed are for unwanted pregnancies, not out of medical necessity. I suspect if we were to take the abortionists concerns to the letter and institute an abortion law that applies only to exceptional-case scenarios as described above, they still wouldn't be happy - so I think it's a smokescreen for the feminists to be able to have unfettered access to abortions on demand.
Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions? Yeah, it really sucks that some teenager got some other teenager pregnant, but that is why sex should be reserved for marriage when both husband and wife in a committed marriage relationship can and do have the means to provide the support and love for that child in the environment designed for children to be welcomed. Of course, today's liberal educators are not seeing this as an option and instead are making condoms available en masse. They've obviously never had sex with a condom on, since if you have, you'll know that you may as well not have sex at all, rather than with a condom - I won't bother getting into the reasons here. But that's beside the point.
There is an argument that making abortion illegal or making the procedure hard to access will only drive girls and women to attempt dangerous and life-threatening home made abortions. They may die as a result. That seems to be a major driving force in arguments made in favour of the government of Canada giving Henry Morgentaler, the infamous Canadian abortion doctor, an Order of Canada, among other things. The argument goes that he actually helped save the lives of many girls and women who may have otherwise have died on the table of an underground abortion procedure. To this I say...so what? If they die, they die. That's their choice that they are making to engage in risky self-surgery. Plus, I'm not so sure that people can look at it this way, since I would argue that there is a null-gain here, since by supposedly saving the woman's life, you end up terminating the baby's. I'm not sure that that's any better - I know it's not. Now, you may say that's cruel of me to say all this, but again, we need to get people to take responsibility for their actions here, and in general, abortions on demand due to an "oops, unprotected sex" or "oops, condom breaking" are both hardly good reasons to kill an innocent life. I just don't get why the government is expected to be on the hook for terminating a life due to your your bad lifestyle choice. Just like anything else - if you decide to put a loaded gun to your head and pull the trigger, you have no one to blame but yourself for your actions. If you want to kill yourself, go ahead. It'll really suck for the family and friends you will leave behind, but that is ultimately your choice. But if you try to shoot another person before committing suicide, that's when the issue becomes something else and intervention is necessary. You may brand me as a neo-libertarian for such a philosophy, but it is what it is.
The case of the mother's health being threatened or in the case of rape, I don't really have a formulated thought-out response to these scenarios - that's my honest comment - but even with rape, I would be in favour of government assistance in bringing the baby to term, since there's lot of people unable to have babies who are eager to adopt. With the mother's life at risk, that's a trickier situation since there's time sensitivity to it and also there are a lot more complex issues present - but again, I haven't thought that exact scenario through yet, so it would be foolhardy for me to provide any form of feedback on that.
I have a baby daughter, so I've obviously had the opportunity to think through some of these issues with her in mind, so that it's not a matter of, "well, this is what I think that others should do, but I'd do differently myself." Just like with my son, I will impart to her the need to take responsibility to decisions in her life when she grows up. I cannot and will not think for her, but as her Dad, I will impart to her traditional and Biblical moral and ethical values. Can I guarantee that she won't make mistakes - of course I can't - and I guarantee that she will make mistakes. But hopefully through our teaching, if she ever gets into a situation where she gets pregnant before being married, that she will take the responsibility to keep the baby and I will of course support her in any case to do so. This, to me, does not suppress any rights she has as a woman, but imparts on her the value of life and that innocent life needs to be protected.
Now, one can ask me how as a vociferously pro-life person, can I support the death penalty, but be rabidly against abortion. Some have suggested that this is a hard question to answer, but I don't think it is. For one, we are talking about two things here - an innocent person who cannot speak for themselves and has not broken any laws, is compared to a person who is old enough to commit such a serious crime that they have forfeited their right to live, based on the collective societal decision to institute a punishment that will end their life. One is about murdering an innocent life; the other is enacting a societally agreed upon punishment for an action. They are totally different.
Friday, August 1, 2008
My Cousin's Wedding
It's been an exceptionally long time since I have written anything here, but it's just as well - I shouldn't be spending my whole summer in front of the computer, anyway.
I do want to take a moment to share the fact that I attended what had to me (for me) the best wedding I've ever been to last month in Edmonton, when my cousin got married. I'm surprised that it took so long, but he is/was a discriminating type of person and wanted to wait for the just the right person to show up. Needless to say, he met the right person - you know how you get the sense that a particular person is kind and honest and such (call it Spidey senses or gut feeling or whatever). Well, my cousin's new wife is like that. I wish them all the best and know that they will have a strong marriage.
What I liked most about the ceremony is that from start to finish, it was all a testament to God's goodness in their lives. There was no ifs, ands, or buts about it - his wife is the only believer in her family, so what a nice witness it was for them not only during the ceremony but also during the speeches and such, to praise God's goodness. I'm sure there were people in the audience who were thinking why everyone in the wedding party was singing God's praises during speech time and sharing time. This is how it should be - God designed marriage, and this was just a celebration of two believers coming together to follow His will.
I've been to weddings between non-believers, and you really get the sense of the spiritual component's absence. And what do they fill it with? Evidentally, not much, as far as the drunkedness, borderline rude speeches and the overall sense that it was a glorified civil ceremony.
My cousin's wedding was different - not only in how it was conducted (they of course, had a huge say in this) but also in how the believers (and there were a lot on my cousin's side and a number from his wife's side - non family members. It was really a demonstration that you did not have to get wasted to have a good time. I didn't touch any drinks and still managed, on the sheer adrenaline of the moment, to spontaneously combust into a quick breakdancing routine on the dance floor (in my tuxedo - I was a groomsman). Not sure what came over me - must have been 25 years of pent-up breakdancing frustration, as one observer noted.
Things were just amazing from start to finish. We had great weather and the church was only a stone's throw from my cousin's house. We all got our tuxedos on at my cousin's place, and walked over to the church via the sidewalk.
The one area which I had some slight concern about before we flew in, was how my son would adjust to the whole thing. He was asked to be the ring bearer, and glady accepted. I wasn't sure whether he would get along with the flower girl, whether he could sit through the wedding, or whether he could adjust to the time changes. Well, I am so pleased that he proved that I had nothing to worry about. He not only got along with the flower girl, I think they fell in love. She was chasing him the whole time and they were holding hands and dancing and such. I told him not to fight it, it's not everyday that females will swoon over you, so enjoy the moment. He also adjusted to the time zone change without issue, even though we went to bed every night at around midnight mountain-time (2AM Eastern time, which was what he was used to). He sat through the wedding without problems though I think if it went 15 minutes longer, it would have been tough.
So my cousin is off to a well deserved honeymoon. I wish him all the best and want to thank him and his wife for putting on a fantastic wedding and reception. And may God bless them both as they go through this new stage of their lives together.
I do want to take a moment to share the fact that I attended what had to me (for me) the best wedding I've ever been to last month in Edmonton, when my cousin got married. I'm surprised that it took so long, but he is/was a discriminating type of person and wanted to wait for the just the right person to show up. Needless to say, he met the right person - you know how you get the sense that a particular person is kind and honest and such (call it Spidey senses or gut feeling or whatever). Well, my cousin's new wife is like that. I wish them all the best and know that they will have a strong marriage.
What I liked most about the ceremony is that from start to finish, it was all a testament to God's goodness in their lives. There was no ifs, ands, or buts about it - his wife is the only believer in her family, so what a nice witness it was for them not only during the ceremony but also during the speeches and such, to praise God's goodness. I'm sure there were people in the audience who were thinking why everyone in the wedding party was singing God's praises during speech time and sharing time. This is how it should be - God designed marriage, and this was just a celebration of two believers coming together to follow His will.
I've been to weddings between non-believers, and you really get the sense of the spiritual component's absence. And what do they fill it with? Evidentally, not much, as far as the drunkedness, borderline rude speeches and the overall sense that it was a glorified civil ceremony.
My cousin's wedding was different - not only in how it was conducted (they of course, had a huge say in this) but also in how the believers (and there were a lot on my cousin's side and a number from his wife's side - non family members. It was really a demonstration that you did not have to get wasted to have a good time. I didn't touch any drinks and still managed, on the sheer adrenaline of the moment, to spontaneously combust into a quick breakdancing routine on the dance floor (in my tuxedo - I was a groomsman). Not sure what came over me - must have been 25 years of pent-up breakdancing frustration, as one observer noted.
Things were just amazing from start to finish. We had great weather and the church was only a stone's throw from my cousin's house. We all got our tuxedos on at my cousin's place, and walked over to the church via the sidewalk.
The one area which I had some slight concern about before we flew in, was how my son would adjust to the whole thing. He was asked to be the ring bearer, and glady accepted. I wasn't sure whether he would get along with the flower girl, whether he could sit through the wedding, or whether he could adjust to the time changes. Well, I am so pleased that he proved that I had nothing to worry about. He not only got along with the flower girl, I think they fell in love. She was chasing him the whole time and they were holding hands and dancing and such. I told him not to fight it, it's not everyday that females will swoon over you, so enjoy the moment. He also adjusted to the time zone change without issue, even though we went to bed every night at around midnight mountain-time (2AM Eastern time, which was what he was used to). He sat through the wedding without problems though I think if it went 15 minutes longer, it would have been tough.
So my cousin is off to a well deserved honeymoon. I wish him all the best and want to thank him and his wife for putting on a fantastic wedding and reception. And may God bless them both as they go through this new stage of their lives together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)