Obama-rama and lifting bans on abortion

Probably my most straightforward opinion on this is that I hope he’s thinking practically for the short-term only, and not for any other reasons. A president who focuses on giving people hope should not be encouraging abortions as a permanent solution for welfare. Other than the obvious pitfall of a government deciding what human beings are actually human beings, saying that abortion, 95% of which in the US is NOT a result of incest or rape, is part of the solution to bettering the lives of citizens, is giving up hope on the reformation of institutions such as adoption, foster care, and orphanages, many of which could give the promise of a good life to abandoned children. Sure, birth control should be heavily emphasized in various parts of the world. Sure, abortion may be a short-term solution for third-world countries where a family is too poor to have 10 children anyway, and half of them die before reaching age 7. But if the whole world should converge to the living conditions of a first world country, well, I would hope that the practice of abortion (though not necessary the legal aspect of it) would diminish significantly. The future unborns of this country need better options.

Another reason why I would hope for more future restrictions on abortion is that: many people who are normally against abortion, upon facing the humiliation brought before them when their daughter is about to have a baby, will immediately go to the doctor and have that child aborted. Faced with a terrible conundrum and an option for escape, an option that is becoming more and more socially acceptable, the notion of responsibility on the part of each citizen is diminished. We’re allowed to do whatever we want without any real repercussions. We no longer need to live within the confines of morality. In the extreme case, we are playing God.

Which leads me to a theory about 90% of the crap that happens in our country, and 90% of the unfortunate or misdirected policies made in response to this crap: it all comes from human greed. We thirst for money. We want lower taxes. We want better benefits. We want to be spoiled. We want freedom to do whatever we like. We want popularity. We want power. So what is the real ailment behind our quality of life? Is it Republicans cutting taxes, starting wars, and overextending our sphere of influence? Is it Democrats spending too much money on unnecessary programs and promising too much to the American people? Is it whatever extravagant promises each party will give to appease their respective half of the US population? And that turned us into a culture of borrowers, heavily in debt, on the verge of an economic crisis.

Practically speaking, the problem is too hard to manage at a macroeconomic scale, but it’s never too late to start changing as individuals. To start giving to your local charity or church. To start volunteering time and money whereever there is need. I myself am guilty of not doing much, if anything at all, but I would like to start. If anything, the Bible tells that us that people do not need riches. They need love. They need to know that they are God’s children, and have inherent dignity. What better way to mitigate the practice of abortion than to provide other ways out of it? Although most of us are not in the position to influence these matters directly, I believe any impact we have on the general well-being of others will also have an impact on people far and wide. We just have to get off of our lazy, self-absorbed asses, and start moving.

Clarification on my neutrality towards prop 8

Most of you might think that I would be a “yes” on prop 8 due to my Christian beliefs, but actually I am neither for nor against. As I see it, extending the *legal* definition of marriage to include couples of the same sex is very much a cultural issue that depends very much on how people view marriage. And as far as I see, on this issue, people do not vote based on pure reason, but based on their desires for equality of rights, for recognition, for protecting their children, free speech, whatever. Here’s how I see the so-called “justifications” for and against prop 8.

1) Yes on prop 8: This can include a wide range of people, from conservative parents to various religious groups. I will use Christianity as I am most familiar with what the bible says about marriage.

Many claim that gay marriage should not be tolerated because it goes against God’s institution for marriage, which should be between one man and one woman. This might be true for “Christian marriages,” but aside from the argument of separation of church and state (which I actually find a weak argument for various reasons, more on that later maybe), there is another reason why I find this argument weak. If one argues that biblically, God ordained marriage to be between one man and one woman, then he must also be willing to accept all other laws regarding marriage that God has ordained. For example, divorce should be outlawed except in the case of (reported) abuse or extramarital affair. Jesus himself said that a divorce is a sin unless the spouse has cheated or abandoned you. But people get divorces just because they “don’t love each other” anymore, or they don’t think it’s “working out”. The question then is, if you are fighting so hard to make gay marriage unconstitutional in order to “protect” marriage, why aren’t you working half as hard to change other marriage and divorce laws?

2) No on prop 8: (Marriage is a right, not a “right thing to do”.) Most arguments stem from the fact that marriage in America seems to mean nothing more than a lifetime commitment between two individuals. In this case, gay marriage is a simple extension of straight marriage, by allowing a minority the same rights as the majority. It is no different from interracial marriage extending from same race marriage. But according to this logic, it also means that incest between a brother and sister is an extension of straight marriage, and hence should be tolerated. And taking it a step further, you have to consider polygamous cultures, such as Muslims and Mormons. Why can’t a wedding involve 3 or 4 people? Is there anything wrong with that? Arguably no, granted that the meaning of this word “marriage” can be amended to include lifetime commitment between a *group* of individuals.

3) Why I am neutral: This has nothing to do with being indifferent, but rather the fact that I see marriage as a purely cultural ideal. I don’t believe laws are made based on logic so much as they are based on a mix of beliefs, power to enact these beliefs, comfort with these beliefs, and personal desires. In America, where we are inspired by a mix of Christian monogamy, separation of church-and-state, and Disney romances, we believe in marriage primarily as a binding commitment of love between two (and not more) individuals, traditionally between man and woman, though less so today. In Muslim countries, as in many ancient cultures, men are accustomed to have multiple wives. In remote regions of China, some women have multiple husbands.

Given different meanings attached to the word marriage, which may stem from numerous religious, philosophical, or cultural ideals around the world, America will eventually choose its meaning. (It will probably coincide with that of the ancient Romans.) Regardless of what is chosen in legislature, there is no difference in the great calling for Christians to live holy lives within, or in pursuit of, God’s definition of matrimony. The question is how far should we go to change restrictive laws regarding marriage, divorce, abstinence vs protection, restricting pornography, etc. Or how far should we go to grant everyone equal opportunity to pursue their desires for “marriage”, whatever it means. I have no real answer for that, so I will just leave it up to you to ponder the slippery slopes of conservatism and liberalism. In the end, however, I speculate that most of us voted based on our own desires more than based on pure logic. It’s human nature.

The moderate independent,

Foo