Maximillian Amadeus Banzai (banzai) wrote,
Maximillian Amadeus Banzai

  • Mood:

Domestic policy

Politics aren't something I write about much, but yesterday I received my absentee ballot and had a political conversation with a friend. We're close, although we disagree wildly in worldview and thus in politics. Our ballots will cancel each other out.

I'm a platform voter, and a single-issue voter at that. The world would have me believe this is foolish, but the same world has completely screwed-up values and no sense of moral absolutes. As long the United States' domestic policy allows for the wholesale slaughter of unborn children via legalized abortion, I'm unlikely to find another issue or set of issues that will override this concern. God tells His people to be concerned with the poor, the orphans, and the oppressed. No one is so poor as the unborn child who has nothing. No one is so orphaned as the one who is unwanted sight unseen. No one is so oppressed as the one whose life is wholly subject to the choice of others.

My friend's perspective is not uncommon: "I'm not in favor of abortions, either, but since they're going to happen, let's keep them safe." Oh, come on. That's conceding the point in a way that attempts to dodge guilt. If it's not human life that's being extinguished, why not be in favor of abortions? If we're just dealing with a zygote, let's make it like a blood drive, complete with juice, cookies, and "I aborted today!" stickers at the end of the line. Ludicrous? Of course it is. Honestly, most of us know better.

One of his driving issues, like many Americans, is the Iraq conflict. I can blame no one for being similarly concerned. It's a big deal. He was fairly speechless, however, when I told him that his concern pales in comparison to what I feel as a citizen every day, believing as I do. Have as many lives been sacrificed to our international policy as to our domestic policy? From where I sit, it's not even close. Right or wrong, and invariably flawed, our international policy is shaped by (perceptions of) national security and interest. Our domestic policy? Choice and convenience, sprinkled with some economics. Who's being killed? Largely the poor and underprivileged, under the auspices of "a better quality of life." Such a policy rivals or exceeds even the most draconian analysis of our actions in Iraq. And the numbers are overwhelmingly greater.

Cold as it sounds, Iraq is a blip in comparison. The numbers are lower, the motivations and choices of the casualties more varied. It doesn't mean it's right (or wrong) to be there. But even if I believed the worst about that conflict, could it honestly be a surprise based on our nation's domestic policy toward the unborn?

Could I honestly believe we will care about the rights of others at home and abroad when unborn infants have none?

Could I be shocked at loss of life in conflict when we cavalierly end the lives of those whom we have never met and never been in conflict with?

Could I be incensed at preemptive military strikes abroad while I condone preemptive civilian strikes against their own children in doctor's offices here at home?

The logic collapses like a house of cards.
Tags: abortion, politics
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.