Welcome to the Kitopedia. All entries are © 2001-2007 Christopher Sunami, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. These entries are NOT publicly licensed. No entries may be reproduced without permission and attribution.
NOTE: Most essays on this site represent original theoretical work. If you find these articles interesting, inspiring or helpful, please let me know. If you refer to them, please give me and this website credit. In addition, links back to this page in blogs or from other sites are always appreciated!


Search



Forums


New Articles

Updates
•Websites 7/12/08
•Mandelbrot Set 6/24/08





Hero For Christ

Pro Life



I have what I consider a consistent "pro-life" stance:
  • Anti-abortion
  • Anti-war
  • Anti-Death-Penalty
  • Anti-Euthanasia
    Choose Life?
    (c)2006 Christopher Sunami

    It is hard to vote your conscience when neither major party represents your values and beliefs. For example, if I want to vote "pro-life" at the polls, where do I turn? It is true that the Republicans have closely associated themselves with that stance --at least as it relates to abortion. They also, however, support the death penalty. I have never understood the logic of placing "pro-life" and "pro-death" on the same platform.

    It is not that I question the sincerity of their opposition to abortion. But clearly, the sanctity of human life is not the value that guides them. Perhaps a term that would fit better would be "pro-justice." In that case, the primary motivation for protecting the fetuses becomes their presumed innocence, as opposed to the presumed guilt of the death-row convicts.

    The waters become muddier with reference to the current war, which again is largely supported by Republicans. While that may have seemed like the "pro-justice" stance back when most people believed the war to have been justified, the collapse of the pro-war argument has changed the situation. For the sake of consistency, one would expect "pro-life" and “pro-justice” activists to have eagerly taken on the leadership of the anti-war movement. As yet, that has not occurred.

    Another complication is that many of those who oppose abortion also oppose preventative birth-control and birth-control education. If the goal is really to reduce the number of abortions, then why ignore the evidence that preventative birth control is one of the most effective ways to do so?

    Here the underlying motivation is clear. The real agenda, as many people will openly admit, is to eliminate recreational sex --to stop all sexual activity except that aimed directly at producing children within heterosexual marriages. Even for those who support that goal, however, would pursuing it be worth the likely result: an increase in both clandestine abortions and unwanted children?

    Speaking of unwanted children, one might think we could all at least agree on the value of adoption, the provision of loving surrogate families to children who might otherwise spend miserable childhoods in institutions and group homes. Yet here again some of the same voices speaking out against abortion are also raised against adoption, at least when the potential parents are homosexual. I fully realize some people believe homosexuality to be a moral evil. But what about the moral evil of denying a parentless child a home?

    In conclusion, I would enthusiastically support a political party that was anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-death-penalty, anti-euthanasia, pro-birth-control, pro-adoption and pro-child. Where can I find it?

    Apparently nowhere.
    • Comment on this Page or Read Guestbook