Viewpoints
I received an email from someone who made it sound like I'm pro-war and pro-life. That's what it SOUNDED like. I may (and could very well be) wrong.
First of all, I'm not pro-war. I think war is evil. I just see some parallels between Saddam and Hitler; and that (ultimately I hope) the Iraqis will be better off without the "Butcher of Baghdad." I think the premise used to go into Iraq, as reported, was very lame*. Just say why you're going to do something. I guess President Bush figured he wouldn't get international support if he said it like it was. I'm sure it also doesn't help if you are the parent of one of these men and women getting killed over there. I know if my son were over there, I'd be a mess. So I don't condemn those who reject the war.
Not like we got all that much support anyway.
As far as abortion goes, I have only the following to say: "...the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (Gen 2:7) Read into that what you will; but this is primarily directed at the conservative Christians who claim to be "pro life," and that the fetus is a living being. Medically, it is still part of the mother; and Biblically, as it hasn't received the breath of life, it is not a living being. That is my position. I personally take it farther to say that if the fetus CAN take a breath, it should not be aborted. I refer to "partial birth" abortions, which just give me the heebie-jeebies. Only if the life of the mother is in jeopardy, and the baby would die anyway, could this be acceptable. But it still repulses me. That's just my opinion. I consider myself in the "pro-choice" camp...and if I were a woman, I'd choose to keep the baby. If I couldn't support it, I'd give it up for adoption. That would be my choice, and all women should be allowed to choose what is best.
Now, I have changed my mind on these viewpoints over the years, but not on a whim. My viewpoints change as I learn more from other people, and hear their points of view. I used to be anti-gay, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-war right-wing "Bible-thumping" Christian. Today, I'm pro-gay, STILL pro-gun (with some restrictions), pro-choice, middle-of-the-road Christian/New-Age(ish) mix. Some things changed, and others didn't, as I learned new ways of thinking and realized that I didn't know everything. To come up with an opinion and treat it as carved in stone is ...well, stupid. Nobody has all the answers, and anyone who purports to is an imbecile.
* Addendum: Even if Bush honestly believed there were WMDs in Iraq, based off of the intelligence his people gave him, he is still responsible and accountable for them and the information. In the Navy, if the captain of a ship had his vessel run aground, for example, it is the captain who is "relieved for cause" (i.e. fired). Even though a lieutenant may have been on watch (i.e. driving the boat), the captain is still responsible and accountable for the lieutenant's actions. So now Bush is revamping his staff. It's probably too little too late now. I admire the man's conviction, but he bungled this one. Neither he and/or his subordinates should've been so arrogant to think that the voters of this country--and the citizens of the world--wouldn't catch on eventually. I'm sure there are things in government that they (not necessarily Bush but any government official or politician) successfully keep hidden; but for every ten things hidden, one comes out into the open to bite them in the ass. It's karma, baby!
First of all, I'm not pro-war. I think war is evil. I just see some parallels between Saddam and Hitler; and that (ultimately I hope) the Iraqis will be better off without the "Butcher of Baghdad." I think the premise used to go into Iraq, as reported, was very lame*. Just say why you're going to do something. I guess President Bush figured he wouldn't get international support if he said it like it was. I'm sure it also doesn't help if you are the parent of one of these men and women getting killed over there. I know if my son were over there, I'd be a mess. So I don't condemn those who reject the war.
Not like we got all that much support anyway.
As far as abortion goes, I have only the following to say: "...the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." (Gen 2:7) Read into that what you will; but this is primarily directed at the conservative Christians who claim to be "pro life," and that the fetus is a living being. Medically, it is still part of the mother; and Biblically, as it hasn't received the breath of life, it is not a living being. That is my position. I personally take it farther to say that if the fetus CAN take a breath, it should not be aborted. I refer to "partial birth" abortions, which just give me the heebie-jeebies. Only if the life of the mother is in jeopardy, and the baby would die anyway, could this be acceptable. But it still repulses me. That's just my opinion. I consider myself in the "pro-choice" camp...and if I were a woman, I'd choose to keep the baby. If I couldn't support it, I'd give it up for adoption. That would be my choice, and all women should be allowed to choose what is best.
Now, I have changed my mind on these viewpoints over the years, but not on a whim. My viewpoints change as I learn more from other people, and hear their points of view. I used to be anti-gay, pro-gun, pro-life, pro-war right-wing "Bible-thumping" Christian. Today, I'm pro-gay, STILL pro-gun (with some restrictions), pro-choice, middle-of-the-road Christian/New-Age(ish) mix. Some things changed, and others didn't, as I learned new ways of thinking and realized that I didn't know everything. To come up with an opinion and treat it as carved in stone is ...well, stupid. Nobody has all the answers, and anyone who purports to is an imbecile.
* Addendum: Even if Bush honestly believed there were WMDs in Iraq, based off of the intelligence his people gave him, he is still responsible and accountable for them and the information. In the Navy, if the captain of a ship had his vessel run aground, for example, it is the captain who is "relieved for cause" (i.e. fired). Even though a lieutenant may have been on watch (i.e. driving the boat), the captain is still responsible and accountable for the lieutenant's actions. So now Bush is revamping his staff. It's probably too little too late now. I admire the man's conviction, but he bungled this one. Neither he and/or his subordinates should've been so arrogant to think that the voters of this country--and the citizens of the world--wouldn't catch on eventually. I'm sure there are things in government that they (not necessarily Bush but any government official or politician) successfully keep hidden; but for every ten things hidden, one comes out into the open to bite them in the ass. It's karma, baby!
posted by xanadian at 9:50 PM
1 Comments:
Forgot to say, in regards to a captain getting fired: the aforementioned lieutenant may not get fired, but his career is pretty much in the toilet. That happened on my ship when I was in the Navy, except that the ship wasn't run aground. It (a) lost its anchor and (b) collided with an aircraft carrier. Two separate incidents. Not a very good tour. The captain was fired and the lieutenant on watch when the ships collided ended up resigning.
Post a Comment
<< Home