Act Justly, Love Mercy, Walk Humbly
“He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Micah 6:8
I’ve been pondering this verse for a while. What does it mean to act justly, love mercy and walk humbly in an election year? I think it means that we need to be careful and discerning when making the important choice of how to vote.
ABORTION
Some would say that abortion is the single issue that determines a person’s vote this year. I think abortion is wrong and I could not and would not ever abort a child, should that even become an option. Personally I would not even abort my child to save my own life. I would just have to trust that God knows what He is doing when He chooses who lives and dies. But those are my personal beliefs and values. I would not and could not impose them on a nation!
I have five main issues with the abortion debate. I believe the Democratic party is too beholden to the portion of the party that wants to keep abortion legal for any woman, for any reason, at any point in her pregnancy. Each party could stand to shake its more radical elements in this debate.
I find it disingenuous that the Republican Party speaks strongly against abortion and yet did nothing about it at the point when they controlled both houses and the white house for six years. I am also surprised that the party that wants less government intervention really wants to intrude on the sex lives of Americans. These are incongruous thoughts in my opinion.
It is never enough to be against something if you ignore the reasons the problem exists. The abortion rate fell under the Clinton Administration because of a proactive approach to the reasons women wind up in crisis pregnancies. And I’m impressed by Hillary Clinton’s suggestion that the right number of abortions in this country is ZERO. I respect her plan to cut the abortion rate through sex education, money for family planning and requiring health insurers to cover contraceptives. (http://www.slate.com/id/2112712/)
Finally, the debate on abortion should not go without a conversation on adoption. Adoption in this country is difficult, over-legislated and obscenely expensive. John McCain is the only candidate I’ve heard speak compellingly on the issue of making adoption easier and less expensive.
If I were voting on this sensitive issue alone, my vote would go to Hillary Clinton. Too bad that's not an option.
Comments
As far as who we listen to in my party. Well, we listen to doctors, not radical pro-choicers such as myself....we have made it clear that yes, the right to an abortion should be held for the first two trimesters because we do not have the right to say that one woman can have it because she was raped while another who is very poor and wouldn't be able to care for the child cannot. And giving up for adoption isn't that easy for a lot of folks - I don't know if I could do it, even with incentives offered to me. And we believe that any procedure done after that point should be done only to save the life of the mother or to give her the option of preventing a birth to a severely disfigured baby that will suffer once born and likely traumatize the parents. In fact, with one exception of a 12 year old girl years ago, these are the only times doctors have EVER performed that procedure. I actually knew of a woman who had one, she was the wife of a guy that use to work in my office. They had no choice but to go through with it. The birth would have been horrendously painful physically and emotionally. The radical pro-lifers would have you thinking differently. Their position is truly radical because it isn't based on medical facts or common sense. They seem to think that women will just waltz on in to a doctor late in their pregancy with a perfectly healthy fetus and say "I don't want this anymore, kill it." WHO would do that? And what doctor would abide that? it doesn't make sense. Sometimes I think I have more faith in humanity than people with a lot of religion in their lives - but not you ;)
I don't mean any offense because I respect your position. I just think that restricting any abortions, especially medically necessary abortions (ie late terms) would lead to a negative impact on our society and that the number would certainly NEVER be "0" then.
O wholeheartedly agree that the number will never BE "0" but the idea that a Democrat said that was a goal was enough to make some in the party gasp and shout "hairy tick!" And if it was a cheap trick to get the Republicans to smile and shake her hand, well... it's Hillary and the Republicans... that seems... uh... unlikely!
I think that the best pro-life stance is one that takes into consideration the life of the unborn AND THE MOTHER. Losing one to save the other doesn't seem like much of an option to me.
I don't think that Hill was pandering to republicans or democrats but to people who are fundamentally pro-life but believe in preventing these things from happening by supporting sex education, birth control, etc. But no one is more powerful than mother nature or God, however you choose to see it, and it is a fact that most women miscarriage because there is something genetically wrong with the baby early on and in the instances where the pregnancy is effected by genetic mutations later in development and start to cause infections, modern humans figured out gazillions of years ago that we can have a clean slate by terminating the pregnancy and allowing the woman to have another chance to get pregnant. If I believed in God, I would think that this was his/her idea because its a brilliant way to preserve life - not destroy it.
I am pro-life, but the above is why I don't pick a candidate passed on if he is pro-life or not.