I've been shocking myself lately when I think about how my views have changed over the past 10 years. I try to think about 20 year old Sarah and about what she thought was important and valuable, and it was such nonsense.
As I come to my own conclusions about politics and such, I've come to a few conclusions:
1. I hate when politics and (conservative) religion are mistaken for each other. It makes it really hard to discuss or debate political thought when one's faith are all tied up in it. So you think abortion is wrong and you refuse to vote for a candidate who has a pro-choice vote? What's to talk about? Since when does being a Christian = conservative republican. Thanks, in part, to my friend Annie Lamott (I wish we were friends) I can see that being a Christian doesn't mean you have to talk and look a certain way. The end is the same, but the means are up for the taking. I'm just afraid that people are missing out on so many other things that are important and that will impact generations for a lifetime and then some.
2. This whole abortion thing has me the most befuddled. I have to say that I've been moving farther and farther away from an alignment with a pro-life movement. (I've never been super into any of it anyway...) I don't know, though. I guess I think two important things....a. The government has a responsibility to uphold the ability for citizens to choose for themselves. b. abortion is just not a black and white issue. it's so much more than just some irresponsible lady walking into a clinic to get rid of an inconvenience. fact of the matter is that before roe v. wade, the leading cause of death among women were botched abortions - they had friends do it or they tried doing it themselves on the bathroom floor. I guess it's just more of a symptom of other social problems, and getting rid of it won't solve them. Tell me why the majority of Pro-Lifers offer abstinence as the only reasonable birth control? Anyway - I hate abortions - I've seen it and it's awful but truth be told, neither side is blameless - I guess I've just decided that the issue is more complicated than I wanted to admit and I think that the freedom to make an informed decision yourself is something I don't want to lose.
I guess this election has me thinking a lot, and I think it's kind of sad that so many are willing to settle for the norm. The same old thing. It would be amazing if there was finally something to look forward to - a positive change just in the way people think when they walk into a polling booth.
And that is all I have to say, for now, about the election. I'm sure you have some thoughts of your own, and I'm sure you'll love to post them. Can't wait :)
11 comments:
i hate commenting on your blog, well, just because of the obvious. but i couldn't help myself...
it's really a shame that the majority of any decent, public dialogue that touches on the things you have mentioned here are often smeared every four years. that's the larger problem i have entering into any political dialogue these days. it's like - who really is at the center of the argument? unborn fetuses? mothers? women? i'm not so sure that is what is at the heart of it all. it seems more contrived than that.
i mean, it's like then entire dialogue is on some political pundit's terms and lexicon. how do we discuss these things in ways that exceed the political language/power?
and i'd also just like to say that i think your point about the freedom to choose is what i value most in anything democratic. and i think there is a lot to be said in the fact that you look back on your younger-self and her perspectives with humility and honesty. that is something i think that reflects someone that is open-minded, thoughtful and still growing - good qualities to be admired.
just couldn't resist - sorry.
I have to agree with the last comment that the acutal issues seem lost anymore, so very, very sad and even more confusing than it already is!
but...
when you are using your "freedom to make an informed decision" to kill someone else, that is not a freedom that should be granted. Before RvW we had women killing themselves because they didn't want the babies, now they are killing their babies. I don't see that as progress, or something I would support.
Yes, a law isn't going to change the heart issues of women who want to abort their babies, but then why do we have laws against murder? That is a heart issue too.
I can't support a candidate who says it is OK to rip a fetus limb by limb from his mother. Or one who says that if a baby happens to survive the abortion, it is Ok to deny him treatment, and let him die. That is not OK.
I hear you D, but the thing is, there's a lot of debate about what constitutes life.
When we found about Sullivan's heart, after the first bout of extremely bleak news, I actually considered whether or not we should continue...of course we quickly heard the real story and knew that he would survive, but I'm just saying, until you're sitting in the doctor's office and they're telling you that even if your baby could survive, they don't know for how long...well...
I agree wholeheartedly that abortions are terrible - however I don't think the shock value of them is appropriately used to educate people. (or, shall I say, images and ideas are used out of context.)
I wish it was as black and white but it's not for me. I do think that as long as the idea of when life begins is up for debate and as long as people have the ability to make that decision for themselves, it's important to protect that right. I'm just not sure it's something I feel comfortable with - the government making moral decisions like that for people.
Again the biggest problem I have is that it's all just part of bigger social issues which seem to be ignored in large part by the very people who fight to ban abortions.
Oh yeah - and I don't agree with equating abortion to someone who has committed murder.
really? you don't see abortion as murder? I guess if we can't agree on that, you're right that we wouldn't agree on the rest.
My faith is tied up in everything. It's who I am. I am in Christ; I'm going to look at everything in this world through His eyes (or at least pray that I can). And the Bible does define what being a Christian looks like to a degree, and part of that means fighting for and defending life from the sanctity of the unborn life to the life of the pregnant woman. Abortion causes death to a human baby created in the image of God, and it has devestating effects on the life of the mother who remains! A friend of mine who is very liberal and very pro-choice described the depression "her body" went through after her abortion. She saw nothing wrong with what she had done, but she recognized in hind-sight that her body was depressed because it had been violated; that depression didn't end until she got pregnant again. My own mother...I'm sorry, I just don't see this as a right or a choice that the govt. should be protecting. Abortion is an important issue that impacts generations for a lifetime and then some! I can say that with absolute certainty!
Besides that, you are wrong about the number of deaths by botched abortions. That's a propaganda lie! Be careful about what you present as fact!
The govt. restricts the rights of people to choose every day. There are laws against stealing, murder, rape, child abuse, etc. etc. All of these are moral laws. The govt. makes moral decisions every day. It has been doing so for more than 200 years.
I can't say that I'm thrilled about any of the candidates in this election and I truly haven't made up my mind who I'm going to vote for; I'm wrestling over it, researching, doing my homework, praying, reading articles & blog posts written by people who share different views...But infanticide, universal healthcare, and policies bordering on Marxism is NOT the kind of change that I want to see in this country! I certainly don't call it "positive." Oh and "the agent of change" is against all informed consent legislation as well; so much for the right to an "informed" decision you think the govt. should support.
And since I care about the other issues too, I'll say that I'm not ignoring the other social issues while I fight for the lives of the unborn, but I'd rather have less of my husband's paycheck taken away in taxes so that I have more money to give! I'd rather give my own money to organizations that will use it wisely to fight for solutions to social causes while spreading the Gospel, than have it wasted by govt. beauraucrats (be they Republican or Democrat)! I value my right to choose where my money goes. I'd rather support my local homeless shelter which is equipping moms to become self-sufficient and break the cycle of poverty and sharing the love of Christ with them in a very tangible way, than see the governmental welfare state increase! I think it's time for the church to step up and for the govt to back off, but the more pervasive the idea that "the govt. will take care of it" whether it's healthcare or welfare, the less individual responsibility citizens feel, and the bigger a chunk of their paycheck citizens lose to the govt., the less they desire to give. Something definitely needs to change, but bigger govt. is NOT a step in the right direction.
Alright, I'm done now. I hope I haven't been offensive. It's been a while since I got so fired up.
eeemommy:
I know Sarah will probably scold me for chiming in here, but i have some thoughts:
Unfortunately, though, the government is ultimately responsible for the lives of its people. Dare I say, not "the church" (can I ask what Church it is we are discussing here?) If we are talking about the average church in this country, I think few and far between would know what to do with complicated social ills outside its doors. And I would be the first to admit my skepticism to entrust it! Feudalism doesn't work.
It is a product of government that a citizen living in a country would have the ability to give independently to organizations and individuals out of a charitable spirit. The two things are not opposed or mutually exclusive. In order for anyone or a group of people to have the capability to donate there would have to be a system set up in place that would allow for such an exchange.
Historically speaking in this country, the affect of pay or rate of pay in difficult economic times does not have a major impact on what the charity of individual giving. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The federal government that "backs off" from higher taxes is typically backing off from higher taxes for the rich (who, interestingly enough, make up less than a quarter of all charitable giving in this country). People with less give more, proportionately speaking.
I have a difficult time believing that if we were taxed less we would give more. On the contrary, I think it is the opposite and would be interested in seeing this data. If I am not inclined to give when I have little, I will likely give less when I have "enough."
I have plenty more to speak on, but don't want to hijack this. If you want to go at it more, I'd be happy to do so.
Oh, right, and how is universal healthcare a product of Marxism?
oh and i might as well comment on eeemommy's blog since she has decided to expand on her thoughts there.
Because I am not sure I agree with the hijacking of this debate to another blog - I will need to post my response here:
"How can any individual who is filled with the Holy Spirit of God support it? How?!?!"
Is this a question you really want any answer to? Do you truly believe that another answer exists other than the one you present? My conscience is bound differently, from a different perspective - I do not see it as you have presented. I do not agree with the picture you have painted regarding the role of government and abortion.
Do you seriously call me out to question the presence of the Holy Spirit in my heart and life - my faith itself - because I disagree? I agree that the gospel is the solution. I think that driving the battle through political angles is forcing pro-choice supporters to be increasingly defensive of their position. Maybe you would say, "Who cares? They are wrong! Let them be defensive!" I think then, we err, and let the theoretical take over the go out and love - feet on the gospel approach.
You state this complex issue with a hand and tone of final judgment on the that I think is at odds with your earlier claim to be thoroughly evaluating all vantage points. It is this somewhat condescending tone that contradicts the passionate talk about the love of Christ, for me.
On another note, the federal government has never been larger, more expensive, or more involved in the lives of Americans than it is has become in these last 8 years.
Post a Comment