Float a hot topic or appropriate question regarding a controversial category and it’s typical the real core issue will rarely be addressed. Usually emotion and unsubstantiated opinion will dominate discussion.http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=3574
Religion, politics and marriage should produce stimulating conversation as long as there is no fudging of decorum ie: no personal attacks or nonsensical arguments.
How did life begin? This statement will uncover the religious theorists and those with opposite values to have spirited discussion. One subscribing to creation cannot explain God, however neither can anyone with opposing views explain how life began.
Is abortion murder? The pro-choice forces only want to discuss the rights of the potential mother, while the pro-life crowd prefers to talk about the rights of the child.
What is marriage? Gay activists are attempting to include homosexuals into the definition of marriage while the traditional marriage advocates want the distinction of marriage defined only to one man and one woman. The fallacy lies in the coverage of domestic partnerships and civil unions.
Failure to adequately cover civil unions and domestic partnerships with proper coverage for benefits in medical, dental or life insurance is not the fault of traditional marriage standards. Rarely, if at all, is the discussion on this important issue.
On abortion the question is ignored on constitutional rights of the unborn or if the fetus has a right to exist. Viability of life is based on the personal view of a second party and not medical science. The life definition goes far before the standard set by Roe-Wade in the early 1970s based on breakthroughs in science. Unfortunately the abortion issue has been redefined to whether it is convenient to the host instead of whether the baby has a right to life.
Should there be a death penalty? While death to the unborn by millions is not considered a big issue, when it comes to the death of a heinous villain for unspeakable acts of brutality, then death is looked at differently. Life without the possibility of parole is used as an alternative to a death sentence. Killing a criminal is “barbaric” and “uncivilized”, however ending the existence of babies by the millions is not.
Logically it is a moral paradox when abortion and capital punishment is brought up. Those for abortion are typically anti-capital punishment, while those pro-life are for capital punishment. It’s puzzling why there is such compassion for a convicted murderer while there is a lack of compassion for an unborn child. Those that are pro-life need to address the reversal that takes place when taking about someone on death row. This inconsistency is not as acute as those posturing for pro-choice, but it is there nevertheless.
The answer to any intriguing question lies in where the individual stands as his or her moral authority. The answers fall exactly to what authority rules their personal life. You will always have different answers based on what altar one bows down to.
It’s simplistic but quite true.