Why I am not a Republican, part 2 – 315.5

Weighing in on the moral issues aspect, it may be harder for me to stay coherent. These are the areas where I get angriest, because I find myself getting more and more frustrated with people on issues where technically we agree. I’ll try though.

Let’s take abortion. I believe it is wrong. That’s pretty straightforward. At the same time, I can’t support making it illegal. If it never had been legal I probably would not want that to change, but we’re here, and it’s been around, and I think there is some value to that.

When we were studying the Civil War, I remember Mr. Pitzer saying that the only issue that seemed to have the potential for a similar conflict was abortion, because of how emotional is. However, since the two sides were not split into separate geographic areas it was not likely that it would ever come to that. So, one reason that I could not favor anti-abortion legislation was the turmoil it would cause, with really ugly feelings coming out, and hatred brewing between neighbors. Also, it seemed like a silly area to focus on because I did not believe that we would ever even come close to overturning Roe versus Wade, so why stir up all of that anger for nothing? I guess now that the idea has come closer to reality, I have to take it a little more seriously.

I guess where I generally get most frustrated with “Christians” (including “Mormons”), is that they get so caught up in the judging that they forget the compassion. My scripture reading has given me the idea that the most important thing is charity, and that judging should actually be avoided. I do have charity for the unborn children, but they are sinless and I know God will take care of them. Perhaps we should focus loving the sinner.

That I know of, I know two women who have had abortions. Realistically, the number is probably a lot higher. For those two, I know that neither of them wanted an abortion. They hated getting that, but they did not feel like they could go through with the pregnancy. There was fear and shame and yes, they should not have gotten pregnant, and it both cases it should have been avoidable, but I still do not feel like I have a right to judge.
Again, in terms of things I found interesting about the third debate, I found a couple of things very interesting. One was McCain’s response to Obama saying that there are surely areas that we can all agree on, like supporting adoption and education, and the look I saw on McCain told me that he strongly disagreed with that (and I am going to write more about education later). The other thing that surprised me was that on the topic of the health of the mother (an exception clause was missing from one bill that Obama did not support), McCain said that people twist that to mean anything.

The only person I have ever heard twist the definition of the health of the mother was Senator Bill Napoli of South Dakota trying to justify new stricter laws that did not have an exception for rape. (The idea was that if the rape was brutal enough maybe an abortion could be allowed so that the mental stress wouldn’t kill her. I’m paraphrasing but I am not making it more twisted than it was because I don’t think I could.)

That’s actually another thing that concerns me. It used to be that any proposed abortion legislation would automatically include exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother, but lately it seems to be trending away from that. Granted, those things make up a small percentage of all abortions (the last I knew, that number was about 7% and also included cases where it was related to the health of the fetus), but the trend away from consideration of the woman is what disturbs me.

I believe that if I were raped, and got pregnant from it, I would carry the pregnancy to term and either give up the child for adoption or maybe even keep it, because I believe abortion is wrong, and that it is taking a life. At the same time, my saying that assumes that it is my choice to make, and if I did have to deal with that kind of trauma I don’t think any lawmaker or voter should have a say in it. I know people who have had high-risk pregnancies, and you ponder and pray and counsel with your Bishop, but again, you can do all of those things because you have a choice.

My sisters recently shocked another friend with their support for Obama, and one thing the girl asked was that if they knew that the First Presidency was voting for McCain, then would they? But the marvelous thing about that is that they are very careful to not give us an idea of their political preference, or how they are voting, because they don’t want to exercise undue influence. (Besides which, how many candidates would really deserve endorsement by a prophet in this typically lesser-of-two-evils world?)

Now, they do speak out sometimes on moral issues, which is perfectly acceptable, and to which I would pay attention. Many people are angry with the support of California proposition 8, but a church should be able to speak on moral issues. Regardless, I think it may be instructive to look back at some of the areas that they have spoken on.

Since I have been voting, they have spoken on two Oregon state ballot measures. They encouraged us to vote against assisted suicide and for strengthening child pornography laws. (I believe they have also spoken out against legalizing gambling and starting lotteries, but when the Oregon state one started I was twelve, and I have no memories of it.) Every time they do come out with something, they still say to study the issues and vote your conscience.

Here are some of the things that they have not spoken on. I remember at least two bills that would make abortion less accessible. One was parental notification for teenagers, and I can’t remember, but the other one might have been too. There was nothing from the church on that. (Furthermore, when we had someone from LDS Social Services come speak to us, she told us that they will go over all of the options, including abortion. They may not encourage it, but to really be helpful to their clients they do leave everything on the table.)

I also remember two bills by the Oregon Citizens Alliance to stop special rights for homosexuals. There was nothing on that. And why should there be? They didn’t actually have any special rights on the books, so there was nothing for the measure to really do except stir up antagonism between the supporters and opponents. And it doesn’t mean abortions or homosexuality are good things, but some things are not good laws.

Think about it. The War in Heaven was fought over choice, and that means the freedom to make bad choices too. Satan’s plan was to take away choice and so no one would ever sin but no one would ever really be good either. God wants people’s hearts, and they have to give those of their own free will, not because there are things that will get them arrested or that can’t be done without them heading down to Mexico.

Yes, leave immoral things legal, and bad things do happen, but again, that was what we wanted coming down here. We would all have the freedom to choose, and sometimes we would hurt our selves, and sometimes we would hurt others, and sometimes others would hurt us, but our choices actually have meaning, and there is the Atonement to heal the wrongs that get done.

I’m not an anarchist or a Libertarian, so there are lots of laws I support, and sometimes knowing where to draw the line can be really complicated. Right now I know that there are people angry at the Church for supporting Prop 8, but I also know that there are other people (even members) who cannot fathom the simultaneous support for other rights for same-sex couples. I am at peace with it.

I do have one final note, as less recently there was controversy about posting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, or other monuments. Again, I believe in the Ten Commandments, and try to follow them. I don’t think they belong in a courtroom. The first half are all about our relationship with God, and the courts should not be any judge of that. The last one, against coveting, is about one’s heart, and too intangible to enforce. Killing, stealing, and bearing false witness are reasonably covered by law, and there have been laws on the books about adultery, but it is hard to imagine many modern politicians wanting those enforced. (I guess honoring one’s father and mother can be partially covered by laws against elder abuse.).

They are good commandments, and it would be a better world if everyone believed in them and followed them, but not appropriate for enforcement. Placards with the preamble to the Constitution, or the Declaration of Independence, would be more appropriate, and I believe there was inspiration in those documents too, and it shouldn't be a difficult concept for any follower of Christ to understand that they should be better people than the law requires.