Election: Morals and Values?

Wish I could help you, rosborne. While I voted for Bush, my reasons were other. We might go into them when feelings are not so tender, but morals/values were not up there, for me.

0 Replies

I know most people on here will not like what I am about to suggest, but please keep in mind it is my opinion, which is not likely to change so let's not start throwing things at me.

I think a majority of people in this country are absolutely opposed to gay marriage. Whether it is on religious grounds or for other grounds. Plus there is a real sense that the gay community is out to circumvent the laws, rather than attempting to change people's attitudes and thus getting the laws changed. For many religious people, gay marriage is akin to accepting as normal and proper the gay lifestyle. It would be no different if you asked us to accept adultery and orgies as being ordained by God as an acceptable lifestyle.

Secondly, I think a majority of Americans are anti-abortion. At the very least most wish to see partial birth abortions banned. From a moral standpoint, we absolutely believe abortion is murder. I personally can respect the other side's opinion, but I cannot respect someone trying to have it both ways. It is not a both ways issue. Kerry tried to have it both ways by saying he was against abortion but would never take away a woman's right to choose. Right. I would have respected him more had he just said he agreed with abortion, but he tried to play the electorate, and that isn't going to work with people who are passionate about stopping abortion.

These are probably the two hot button issues concerning morality that, like it or not, are important to a majority of Americans. If you need proof, look at the wide margin of victory the marriage definition amendments got in every state in which it was on the ballot. Even states that went for Kerry.

0 Replies

CoastalRat - I disagree with you on the subject of Kerry wanting it both ways on the abortion issue. I feel the same way that Kerry does. I do not believe in abortion for myself for moral reasons, however, since it is a moral reason, I do not believe I have the right to take that option away from some one else that has different morals. To me this is simply the separation of church and government. I do not want the government to dictate to me what I should believe in, so I would expect the same respect for some one else's values.

The odd thing I think about this moral basis of who to vote for is if I were to use this same philosophy on hiring some one to work for me, I would be sued. I look at voting for President almost like hiring an employee. We are basically hiring our President. Doesn't it make more sense to "hire" some one you feel is qualified best for the job rather than some one who shares your same moral values? When I interview some one for a job, I do not (and legally could not) ask what their religious beliefs are, their sexual orientation, their martial status, etc. However, when it comes to running for office, we know all this stuff and ask and question all this. Seems strange considering these same individuals are responsible for passing legislation that makes such questions illegal for hiring in all other jobs.

0 Replies

I am not disagreeing with your comments Linkat. I was commenting Rosborn's post asking what moral values people were basing their votes on. While I honestly do think it is good to consider a person's values when voting, I do not think it can be the over-riding consideration. Let's face it, more often than not neither candidate will be perfect just as we as humans are not perfect.

Did my morals come into play in deciding who to vote for in this election? To some degree, of course. (As in my example that you disagreed with on Kerry and abortion) I am sorry, but we are electing someone to run the country and execute laws. When someone says they believe one thing but would not vote their conscience in regard to that matter, to me they a pandering to what they perceive to be their politcal base. You may disagree with me on this and that is fine. It is just my opinion, for what it is worth. Smile

0 Replies

Here's an idea.

The Dems would have a chance at winning an election IF they stop insulting the beliefs of the majority of voters and craft a campaign advocating what the majority believe.

0 Replies

Well said Larry.

It is quite apparent that the Democratic platform "insults" virtually all of middle America. Liberal activism, such as the Mass. State SUpreme Court, finally energized the Republican "bench" to get out and vote.

0 Replies

I think you misunderstand about Kerry voting his conscience - if he truly does believe that you should not legislate some one else's values, then he is voting his conscience. Some one who truly believes in separation of church and state would be voting their conscience by supporting abortion no matter what their religious beliefs are. The bigger question to me is - does Kerry really believe this or is he using this as a way to get voters on both sides.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Well said Larry.

It is quite apparent that the Democratic platform "insults" virtually all of middle America. Liberal activism, such as the Mass. State SUpreme Court, finally energized the Republican "bench" to get out and vote.

Did anyone see Hannity's electoral map by county. Only small dots of blue in a sea of red.

0 Replies

Larry434 wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Well said Larry.

It is quite apparent that the Democratic platform "insults" virtually all of middle America. Liberal activism, such as the Mass. State SUpreme Court, finally energized the Republican "bench" to get out and vote.

Did anyone see Hannity's electoral map by county. Only small dots of blue in a sea of red.

It's deceiving when you don't know the demographics of those small dots of blue -- they are usually the more densely populated areas.

0 Replies

It's deceiving when you don't know the demographics of those small dots of blue -- they are usually the more densely populated areas.

That they are.

0 Replies

Linkat wrote:

I think you misunderstand about Kerry voting his conscience - if he truly does believe that you should not legislate some one else's values, then he is voting his conscience. Some one who truly believes in separation of church and state would be voting their conscience by supporting abortion no matter what their religious beliefs are. The bigger question to me is - does Kerry really believe this or is he using this as a way to get voters on both sides.

Again, we may just have to disagree on this. But the way I look at it, there is really only one reason to believe that abortion is wrong. It is only wrong if it is indeed killing (murdering) an unborn child. In effect, Kerry was saying he believes abortion wrong (killing a child) but he won't support legislation to stop someone from choosing to do it. Where is the sense in that stance?

0 Replies

"Kerry was saying he believes abortion wrong (killing a child) but he won't support legislation to stop someone from choosing to do it. Where is the sense in that stance? "

I am a pro-choice conservative, and I believe that. But I also believe the rights of a woman, already born, trumps the rights of the unborn fetus still attached to the woman's body and totally dependent on it to sustain its life.

Conflicted, yes. But I have made my value judgment between the conflicting values.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Linkat wrote:
I think you misunderstand about Kerry voting his conscience - if he truly does believe that you should not legislate some one else's values, then he is voting his conscience. Some one who truly believes in separation of church and state would be voting their conscience by supporting abortion no matter what their religious beliefs are. The bigger question to me is - does Kerry really believe this or is he using this as a way to get voters on both sides.

Again, we may just have to disagree on this. But the way I look at it, there is really only one reason to believe that abortion is wrong. It is only wrong if it is indeed killing (murdering) an unborn child. In effect, Kerry was saying he believes abortion wrong (killing a child) but he won't support legislation to stop someone from choosing to do it. Where is the sense in that stance?

But killing and murder aren't the same thing. Although murder is always about one being killed, you can be killed in a number of ways which aren't murder.

Kerry was voting his conscience, which recognises he should not inflict his personal opinions upon others... rather like telling others who they can and can't marry... Abortion is not illegal, so then it follows that it should not be illegal no matter when it happens, even in those unsettling rare cases when it happens minutes before birth. That's logical, no matter how callous it may seem. I would rather see such cases delivered by c-section- if it's a life-or-death situation, that is a medical procedure recognised to quickly rid the body of a fetus, and also saves the fetus 99.99% of the time... But it's surgery and carries some risks. More than a partial birth abortion? Slightly more to the mother, but significantly less to the fetus...

0 Replies

First, I think you will admit that just because something is legal does not make it right. Adultery is legal, but if your spouse is caught cheating I doubt you will think it is ok for him to do. Abortion may be legal, but in the minds of many in this country it is not right.

Second, you are right, killing and murder can be two different things. Murder, as defined by law, is the intentional taking of another life. Thus, if you believe life begins at conception, then abortion fits the definition of murder, the willful taking of another life.

You can have one position on abortion or the other, either it is ok or it is not. If abortions are wrong, the only reason they are wrong is because you are taking a life. Willfully taking a life is murder. Thus Kerry's position on the fence does not make sense. If abortion is not murder, but rather the disposal of unwanted tissue, why would he need to claim to be against it? He should support it wholeheartedly.