Uniquely American

Three of the most compelling political issues that stir the American public sometimes will become the topic of many arguments in the class room and around the dinner table.  The topics of abortion, gun control and gay marriage can be both a political and moral subject.  The examples can be whether or not abortion is murder, if a gay couple should be legally married within the United States or if a gun owner has the right to own any type of firearm he or she wishes to own and does the nation need more firearm regulation.  The following piece will explore how extreme to the left or right each of these issues can become on the political spectrum.

            The Second Amendment becomes the national conversation especially when publicized by the media sadly through mass shootings involving children.  Although, the ability to own a firearm is protected by the United States Constitution the question has been recognized if a gun ban should not be in place.  Also, if a universal background check or a national registry should not be in place to help protect those who cannot protect themselves.   The conservative side of the argument states that there are enough gun control laws in place and more laws are not needed because criminals do not follow laws.  In her article, “Gun Control Isn’t the Answer Here’s Why” Dana Loesch points out that many of the mass shooters that the nation unfortunately know by name would not have followed gun control laws because they were determined to take the lives of innocent people.

What did recent shooters like Adam Lanza, Jared Lee Loughner, and James Holmes have in common? They were disturbed young men that no law could deter from their intended destruction. Why were the warning signs ignored? All of these men were clearly troubled, all three were on medication. Loughner's warning signs went ignored. We don't yet know if Lanza's family knew he was experiencing problems or if they witnessed warning signs. Holmes was severely medicated and apparently abused his regimen. Lanza could not have legally obtained the firearms he used because it is illegal in Connecticut to purchase or possess a firearm under the age of twenty-one. Lanza was twenty.

Dana Loesch also makes a valid point that Adam Lanza had stolen his mother’s gun hence once again breaking another law.  These men were criminals.  Those who are intent to kill by any means are going to do so and there is no law or firearm ban that is going to stop a person’s intent in harming another.  It is an unfortunate side effect of living with free will and those who are willing to come into harm’s way to protect others need the freedom in order to do what is needed.  While the gun debate has certainly brought the responsible gun owner to action and has brought more women into the fold of owning a gun the blame game especially after Sand Hook continues to be played.  Joshua Holland explains the progressive left’s narrative in his article from Salon, “The reason we can’t have a sane, adult discussion of how to cut down on random gun violence is simple: the NRA has hoodwinked a lot of reasonable gun owners into believing that there’s a debate in this country over banning firearms altogether” (Holland).  .  The NRA is blamed every time there is a mass shooting.  It seems to the progressive left’s narrative to blame the NRA.  While there continues to be a push for restrictive gun legislation, even though the only time the topic is brought up when a tragedy has taken place it is organizations like the NRA teaching about responsible gun ownership.  The NRA has many programs that deal with responsible gun ownership and safety around firearms such as, Eddie the Eagle to educate children and the many workshops and training available when attending a NRA convention.  The simple fact is that the United States Constitution states that as Americans we have the right to “keep and bear arms”.

            Faith is often the reason people in America begin to take on politics either in a professional or grassroots role.  We see the signs of pictures of babies still inside the womb of the baby’s mother, or the “war on women” speak that suggest that legal abortion is somehow a woman’s civil right and part of the healthcare system.  It was Democrat Wendy Davis from Texas brought the debate to the forefront of the subject on late term abortion.  It is once again the extremes that take hold of the debate and conversation that tends to divide us the most.  As faith brought those who came before it is faith that argues that the unborn should have every chance at life as those who bring the child into the world or those who end the child’s life out of convenience.  Since the conservative side deals with the liberal’s arguments of equal rights for a woman’s health then fire back with equal rights for the unborn child as Josh Brahm discusses in his article “The Most Undervalued Pro Live Argument Against Abortion”.

 We’re asking pro-choice people if they agree that all human adults have an equal right to life.

When they say yes, we ask them, “Doesn’t that mean there must be something the same about us?”

In other words, if we all have an equal right to life, then we must all have something in common that demands that we treat each other equally, and we must have that property equally. It can’t be something (like size or intelligence) that comes in degrees, or it wouldn’t explain our equal right to life.

The idea that the a baby inside the womb of the mother has the same equal rights as anyone else does make for a compelling argument and one that is hard not to agree.  It is by faith that leads people to be champions for those who are unable to speak for themselves.

            Those that are pro-choice seem to focus on the rights of the mother according feminism, want and right of the mother.  Although, those things may be important because women in this country have struggled to even hold property and vote it may be that as women remembering that our own mothers sacrificed a part of themselves in order give life.  Those who do not see it the way of persons of faith may give rise and acceptance to the extreme side on the subject of Abortion.   “[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk” (Saletan).  This quote from an article highlighted by William Saletan was written by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.  It calls for the killing of children because the mothers could not raise their babies because of economic, social or psychological reasons.  This is pure selfish and evil to consider a child nothing more than an object in which to decide the child’s fate.  This is not our decision to make it is God’s decision.

            The final political and moral topic on the lips of Americans into today’s social climate is whether a gay couple can marry legally in the United States.  Those who believe that love is love and the same sex marriages are not any different than a heterosexual marriage.   This may be true for some, yet there are some in America that believe that a sacredness of marriage is between a man and a woman.  Maybe there doesn’t need to be legislation and people should just be allowed to go live their lives as they see fit.  This is fine if you are in agreement with gay marriage.  What if you are not in favor of gay marriage because of your religious and spiritual worldview?  If you are asked to bake a cake for a gay couple and refuse then you are to face taunts of discrimination.  This is why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act has been signed into law not only here in Indiana and twenty other states in the Union.  “The legislation would prohibit the state from denying a person, company or nonprofit group a license, accreditation, employment or contract — or taking other “adverse action” — based on the person or entity’s religious views on the institution of marriage” (Jindal). 

            These are three issues that have been part of my life as I have gone from liberal to conservative.  Common sense has helped me to conclude that the Second Amendment cannot be taken over by legislation.  All people should have a right to keep a weapon either for sport or for protection.  Common sense has coupled with the spiritual to form my beliefs that all life is sacred and marriage is also sacred.  I look towards my father in law who wisely spoke to a LA Times reporter covering the NRA convention in 2013 and said, “You have to be able to find some common ground,”