The RIGHT Policy - Part 2 - Social Issues

The next bit of policy I'd like to consider in this series is social issues.  This includes areas such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, etc.  I'll touch on my personal thoughts on these issues then talk about how the next president can influence them.

I'll start with abortion.  I've made no secret about my pro-life position in this regard.  I find no reason to kill a baby.  In the very, very few cases of pregnancies from rape or incest, adoption is a great option.  There are plenty of people out there that can provide a good home for a baby.  In cases where the health of the mother is in jeopardy, the doctor and mother\family should make this decision.  If the baby has to be removed to save the mother, that does not mean the baby has to be killed also.  There are all kinds of stories of babies surviving after being delivered very early in term.

As far as government involvement in this issue is concerned, I have two somewhat competing thoughts.  I'd love to see a federal ban on abortion, with some protection for doctors should they decide the mother's life is in jeopardy.  Again, not protecting doctors so they can kill the baby, but protecting them should the baby die after all attempts are made to keep both mother and child alive.  Our constitution guarantees the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Protecting the life of the unborn is paramount to that.

If a federal ban cannot be done, I'd be fine with the federal government staying out of the issue entirely.  Leave it up to the states.  Fact is, most states would ban abortions, which is definitely an acceptable compromise.  But under no circumstances should their be federal support or provisions for abortions.

Next, embryonic stem cell research.  I'm against the harvesting of embryonic stem cells strictly for the purpose of scientific research.  However, if an already collected stem cell (such as one being saved for in-vitro fertilization) is going to be destroyed, I'm fine with using it for research instead.  I read that embryos used for in-vitro can be kept for 5-10 years.  After that, they can be destroyed.  It makes no sense to me to destroy them if they can be used for some good.

Should the federal government fund stem cell research?  Nope.  The government doesn't have to be involved in this research for it to be successful.  So if the federal government can figure out a way to allow embryonic stem cell research in a morally acceptable way, I'm fine with it.  Also, there is plenty of good research that shows that adult stem cells could have as much promise and embryos.  We should put as much effort into that as possible.  But again, if an embryo is already going to be destroyed, I think it's acceptable to study it in a lab first.

And I must say this - I don't believe any embryo should be destroyed.  Period.  So yes, from my perspective in-vitro fertilization should not be done at all if it at some point requires the destruction of an embryo.  That's the logical conclusion.  I readily admit that in-vitro has helped a lot of people, but I cannot support its use and be consistent in my views.  Innocent human life cannot be destroyed for any reason.

The last specific issue I'll address is homosexual marriage.  First, homosexual behavior is dangerous, abnormal, and wrong.  And if our government can pass laws made to protect us from dangerous behavior (ie: making us wear seat belts), then there is no reason that they can't do the same related to our sexual preferences.  But this is unrealistic.  If they stopped homosexual behavior, they'd have to stop some heterosexual behavior also.  So this is not really whether or or not we can stop people from being gay.  We can't.  As Christians, the only thing we can do is reach out to homosexuals as we reach out to all sinners and try to help them turn away from their sin.  We all sin.  We all need a Savior.

So we are left with whether or not they should be allowed to get married.  To answer that, we should look at why they want to get married in the first place.  From a government\policy standpoint, it's because married people receive certain tax and insurance benefits.  Well the tax benefit is easy.  Get rid of it.  Get rid of most taxes and then it won't matter.  More on that when I deal with economic policy.  I'm not sure if the government makes the rules on how insurance companies treat single and married couples.  If so, they shouldn't.  At which point anyone can put anyone else on their plan.  Insurance companies could then handle this however they wanted.  That's RIGHT, private enterprise could actually handle something without the government being involved!  Go figure.  :) 

So yeah, from a government\policy perspective, there's not really any reason to have a law one way or the other related to homosexual marriage.  There may be some policies related to who gets what when a spouse dies.  This can be handled simply with a will.  Not much else to say there.  After that, if an organization wants to give a couple a piece of paper that says they are married, we can't do nothing about it.  The government does not have to be involved in marriage at all.

Wow, this is getting pretty long.  I do need to spend a little bit of time talking about where the candidates stand on these issues though.

Starting with abortion.  Let's get a couple of recent quotes from Barack Obama and Sarah Palin.

OBAMA: 

Look, I've got two daughters, nine years old and six years old.  I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.  I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.  Now, so -- it doesn't make sense to not give them information.

PALIN:

(on the birth of her son, who has Down's Syndrome)

"We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives.

"We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed."

(on her 17 year old daughter's pregnancy)

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us.  Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.  Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."

 

I have to say I find Senator Obama's comments ridiculous, deplorable, sad, etc, etc.  To even see him use the term "punished with a baby" made me lose what respect I might have had for him up to the point that I read that.  I can say with certainty that I WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA.  I pretty much already felt that way but that quote solidified it.  I will not vote to put a man in office who has that perspective about a human life.

So what about McCain's record on abortion?  Well, he picked Palin as his VP, which shows he definitely respects the pro-life view.  He says he's pro-life and his voting record reflects that.  He does want exceptions made in cases of rape, incest,  and when the mother's life is in jeopardy.  And he has voted yes on a few bills that had provisions that would fund abortions under certain circumstances.  I haven't really studied those though, so it could be that they were thrown in as part of a larger bill that he voted yes on.  Not using that as an excuse, but it would make sense.  Overall, he definitely has a pro-life history.

Real quick on the others - McCain and Obama are both for funding embryonic stem cell research.  Neither is very conservative there.  And I've seen nothing that says either McCain or Obama want to allow gay marriage, but they do not favor a ban on it either.

 

Ok, I know I said this is getting pretty long and I just kept going, so now I'll try to wrap things up a bit.  One of the main areas where the president can influence social policy is in his judicial nominations.  And to be honest, I'm not sure what either candidate will do here. 

McCain voted for President Bush's Supreme court appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.  Good.  But he was also a part of the horribly unconstitutional Gang of 14.  Bad.  I'm unconvinced he will place strict constitutionalists on the bench.  It's 50-50.

Obama?  Well, I'm pretty convinced he will not put a conservative on the bench.  And I've already said he won't get my vote because of the abortion issue.  Not really much more to say there.

In fact, I'm going to go as far as saying that one of the main reasons I'd vote for McCain would be to keep Obama out of the office.  McCain is a fairly safe bet as far as holding to socially conservative viewpoints.  Even if he's not fully on board, he wouldn't go against them because of the damage that would be caused to himself and the Republican party if he did.  He won't be as conservative as President Bush, but he'd be infinitely better than Barack Obama.  And a McCain presidency means that Sarah Palin gains more notoriety, along with her pro-life views.  I've pretty much said this in previous posts, but truly the best thing to like about John McCain is his choice of Sarah Palin as VP.

So now we are starting to get somewhere.  In summary, I don't think there is a conservative case to be made for voting for Barack Obama.  And John McCain has actually shows that he can be conservative in a very important area.  Abortion has been THE ISSUE for me in past elections.  I'm really struggling with whether or not that will be the case this year.

Next up will be economic issues.  Stay tuned...