All kinds of arguments are around us regarding what is fair and what isn’t when we talk about taxes. We hear terms such as progressive, regressive, inclusive, exclusive, and even sometimes we hear about a thing called The Fair Tax. Assuming we need to pay for our government to run, we need to pay some form of taxation so that we can have a military to protect our borders. We also need a governing body in place to protect our Constitution and our rights as citizens. The rest of the governing can be done at the state level in my opinion.

I’m not going to talk about that though… Today I ran across a discussion on our local major newspaper’s website involving The Fair Tax… or flat tax or even national sales tax as some people like to call it whether that’s correct or not. I’ve written an article or two about that particular tax plan and I am a strong supporter of it. I’m not going to go into the details of the plan again, but you can read about it online and even read my past articles. What I want to talk about is a particular comment made by someone in the discussion I read today.

Person X states, “The only fair tax is a steeply progressive income tax. It puts the tax burden on those who can afford it.” This of course was in response to someone supporting The Fair Tax, but person X has never read or understands the components of the proposed plan/bill. What is mind numbing to me is the simple statement made above. A “steeply progressive” income tax is absolute communism… purely blatant Marxism to the dotted i and crossed t. As for the “burden” of taxes, who are you to decide? Is your vote worth more than another American citizen? Is your dollar worth more than your neighbor’s?

Sure, wealthy people can theoretically “afford” to pay more taxes, but should they be required to pay for everyone’s way just because they can withstand such a burden? Oh, it’s the greater good argument, I get that. That’s socialism and communism wrapped up in a nice ideology. Let me just say that I work for my wealth and I pay my taxes to support many things I am ardently opposed to. My tax dollars are now supporting abortions thanks to Mr. Savior President Barack Obama. My tax dollars are now supporting more welfare families that have no ambition to work than ever before. My tax dollars support millions of immigrants who have no inclination to become citizens but yet still utilize our healthcare, our police protection, and our public services… all paid for by tax dollars.

In the end, the wealthy and those who can withstand the “burden” of taxes will wise up and stop supporting the leeches of our society… fair for the goose right? Why would I choose to work and break my back to simply carry those “unfortunate” individuals who have less wealth? If you have the ability to work and aren’t disabled, you should be forced to work a 40 hour week just like everyone else BEFORE you receive a penny of taxpayer funded support. Helping the lazy in our society has put us in the position we are in.

If I am required to help more and more people and policies that I do not support, guess what, I’m going to stop working. I’m going to stop supporting the dregs of our society. Eventually, more and more people will do the same. The wealthy and even middle class will leave the country… maybe not physically, but their money will. Jobs will leave the country because taxes will be too high within our borders. Nobody will work because the entire system is built upon reverse incentives. Work hard, pay for more lazy people to stay home. Great, that’s fair…

The tax system is nothing more than a vote buyoff program. The so-called needy, poor, or non-wealthy are nothing more than pawns in the games of those in power. This group of society gladly trades their rights for dollars in their pocket. Promise me a check and you can have my right and my vote. Thank you Mr. Obama… where’s my food stamps and tax rebate check?

In the last article, I mentioned the 16 pages of bickering that resulted from the original topic writer’s opinion piece. What I didn’t mention was the fact that nearly all of the “debaters” considered themselves of the same faith. How can there be such disparate viewpoints on an issue so black and white such as abortion? Without religion, sure, there can be many shades of gray, but within the religious community, there is one simple and resounding fact, abortion is not to be accepted.

Let’s just throw this issue out and focus on the bickering and the resulting ramifications, because in reality, the issue isn’t the problem. The issue is that there are too many differing factions amongst the religious community. Each denomination can be separated by many different sub-categories and have their own set of acceptable rules and regulations you should abide by. Orthodox and unorthodox, strict versus non-strict, and the list goes on. But, as part of the Christian faith, all teaching should be directly rooted within the Bible’s passages and messages.

When the public sees Christians fighting amongst themselves over such core issues, what are they left to think? Are they going to think Christians are following their own standards and spiritual guides or are they going to think much differently? Christians, while debating such issues, must watch what they say and must think about their personal spiritual relationship before regurgitating some “official” Church stance on the subject.

Personally, I am a Christian, but I do not consider myself a member of a specific denomination. I don’t believe you have to be Catholic or Protestant. I believe you are simply a Christian if your faith is in Jesus Christ. However, when I debate religion, I am slow to argue and quick to listen. Debating is much different than arguing. Debating will attempt to answer questions and offer informational arguments concerning the issue at hand. Arguing only leads to a winner and loser mentality no matter what the fallout.

Christians, who argue in front of their fellow man, believer and non-believer alike, do nothing but harm their faith and leave those who can hear, see, and read with distaste for all involved. How can people of the SAME faith, be at each other’s throats over issues which are so clear amongst the Christian community? Some people feel the need to be, or feel, right no matter what the costs are. Some people will destroy everything for their own personal satisfaction. This is what I equate religious infighting to… some people are so worried about winning, they are actually losing and they are hurting more people than they can ever imagine.

You can take this ideology to any issue in your life. If you are too worried about winning, then you are likely arguing. If you are worried about the other person’s point of view and listen, then you are more than likely debating. Debating is healthy and we all learn from it, even on spiritual issues. Arguing is always a lose/lose situation. In the case of religious infighting, it’s even worse than just a lose/lose situation, you are potentially harming everyone around you and your entire faith. Be quick to listen, be slow to speak. The old adage “Think before you speak” can be applied everywhere.

After this “debate,” where did the discussion leave us? It left us in the same place we were in before and maybe a step behind in the overall sense of Christianity. Our world and society has many differing points of view and her letter focused upon Obama’s unwavering support of the Pro-Choice movement. He has stated that one of his first actions as President will be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Obama was also the co-sponsor of the Senate’s version of the bill in 2007 and he stated, “The first thing I’d do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That’s the first thing that I’d do.” I’m not going to regurgitate what the FOCA entails, but it basically removes all restraints from abortion until fetal viability. What is fetal viability? It essentially means before 24 weeks pregnant. You can find out any and all information you would like by simply searching online.

The lady who wrote this letter believes that based upon her faith, she cannot and should not vote for someone who supports abortion. Christianity by default is anti-abortion and is in fact quite the opposite. Christian leaders inform their congregations about the issues they vote about, not who to vote for (illegal by non-profit organization rules and regulations). However, based upon the issues and your Christian faith, someone should not come to the conclusion that voting for a pro-choice candidate is ok. I said “should not.” As we saw, over 65 million Americans voted for Obama in our Presidential election. Utilizing some recent data, nearly 80% of America considers themselves Christian. So, there must be a large portion of Christians who decided to vote for Obama no matter what his stance is on abortion is.

Sure, there are many other factors when choosing a President and we all know that a single position “should not” affect your overall choice, but for me, this is not a single issue versus many other comparable issues. Abortion to me is a deal breaker issue. For others, it is not and that is their right. For other Christians, it is not, and that is their right. I’m not trying to pass judgment upon anyone, but for me, if I had voted Obama, I would have effectively traded dollars for life. It supposedly means more money in my pocket due to his impending “tax cuts” and “better” economic policies in trade for his support of Roe v. Wade and the signing of the FOCA bill.

Yes, I know there are other issues at play including the two wars we are engaged in along with healthcare and educational issues, not to even mention immigration problems, but could I devalue my Christian faith for the blessings of government and dollars in my pocket? I could not. McCain was not my first choice and he was a “lesser of two evils” approach for me, but at the very minimum, he supported the protection of unborn children. Would I support someone who was Pro-Life but on every other issue I disagreed with? Of course not.

As for Obama and my vote, I disagreed not only with his Pro-Choice stance, but almost 100% on every other policy he supports. What if I had supported 100% of his other policies, would I have voted for him? Never. My Christian faith requires me to abide by my moral and ethical values. While being human, I do make mistakes, but this would have been a willful mistake. I would have chosen to rationalize that his Pro-Choice stance was a sacrifice we should make for the betterment of our country. Since when should we view trading unborn children’s lives as a necessary trade for a stronger economy?

You may believe that I am passing judgment, I am not. Each person, if truly being a Christian, KNOWS what the right decision is and they will either feel good about it, or feel remorse about their actions later if they chose not to follow. I voted my conscience in the sense of my faith and my policy choices by voting for McCain. Yes, I know our country needs change, but change for simply the sake of change is not what we need.

You may say there should be 0% religion in government because of the Constitution’s requirement of separation of Church and State. I say yes, the government cannot force religion upon our citizens, but our citizens can utilize religion and faith when voting and deciding policy. Taking a look at the latest statistics, 78.4% of Americans state that they are Christians. The rest is broken up into about 5% belonging to other faith traditions and 16.1% being unaffiliated with any specific religion. Our nation has always been and currently still is a Christian nation. Our forefathers and leadership during our nation’s formation were deeply rooted in their Christian faith, but they did not “shove” religion down our throats… going as far as making sure that it cannot happen.

Issue: Abortion

This may be the most divisive issue between the Conservative and Liberal Agendas. Unlike the Liberal Agenda believers, conservatives believe in Pro-Life. Many conservatives equate life with conception and not at birth. With life beginning at conception, abortion is nothing more than the murder of an innocent child. The innocence of life should be protected and not equated to a simple choice or right of the mother because it’s her “body.” What about the life of the child growing inside? Does it not have any rights?

Contradicting laws of our nation add to the volatility of this issue. Abortion is ok because the mother is “choosing” to abort because it’s her “body.” However, if a mother who is pregnant is murdered, the criminal faces two charges of murder. Or, if a pregnant mother is attacked and the baby is lost, the criminal faces a murder charge. On one hand, the child has no significance only because the mother decides that she doesn’t want the baby. On the other, the child is equivalent of a born human being, possessing all natural rights. The unborn baby either possesses all natural rights or does not. The Conservative Agenda says the unborn life possesses ALL natural rights.

Issue: Progressive Taxes

Unlike the Liberal Agenda, the Conservative Agenda does not believe in taxation to “spread the wealth.” Actually, removing the entire taxation system and replacing it with a “sales tax” is gaining momentum and traction amongst the true conservative nation. The idea here is to pay taxes upon the products you buy and not pay taxes on the amount of income you earn. Liberals utilize the broken progressive tax system to “earn” votes by “cutting” taxes for the poor and middle class… Look at your wallet and the past… when did you pay more taxes and when did you not?

Issue: Gun Control

Gun Control is another major issue dividing the liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe everyone will be safe as long as the people (not Joe Schmoe citizen) they determine should have weapons have them and nobody else does (I guess illegal weapons never cross their mind). Conservatives believe in the 2^nd Amendment and believe it is an American citizen’s right to own and bear arms. No, they are not saying we should have fully automatic weapons, tanks, and explosives. They are supporting our right to own civilian weapons if we are law abiding citizens because our Constitution and Bill of Rights says we can.

Issue: Homosexual Marriage

Like abortion, there are some religious motivations for opposing gay marriage. However, that does not mean the conservatives are forcing religion upon you. Our nation was founded upon Christian faith and ideology and the sanctity of marriage should be protected as such. Given that nearly 80% of our nation still considers itself Christian, it’s not a leap of faith to assume that the sanctity of marriage should be protected as one man, one woman. Marriage is not “just” a state recognized union, it is a Christian union.

Issue: Government Control

Conservatives profess that downsizing government is an ultimate desire. Decreasing the impact government has in our lives enhances our freedom as a nation. Conservatives believe that private enterprise produces competition and therefore we receive the benefits of better products and services. Government sponsored policies and services only add to the “fat” our government already abundantly has.

As you can see, there are night and day differences between the Liberal and Conservative Agendas. However, unlike what the media would have you believe, the conservatives are not about “shoving” religion down your throat and forcing you to abide by their beliefs. Yes, religion plays a factor in how their decisions are made regarding policy, but they are not creating legislation that forces the American citizen to abide by the Christian faith.

Citation: http://www.latimes.com/

Issue: Abortion

This particular issue is at the forefront of Obama’s policies and one he has recently spoken about. His past voting history while in public office have all been pro-choice/pro-abortion (the opposite side will ALWAYS argue that they are pro-choice because of the “inherent” woman’s choice, but in the end, we all see past the smoke and mirror show and know they are pro-abortion).

He has publicly stated his support of Roe v. Wade (thus ensuring abortion remains legal).
He has voted against banning partial-birth abortions.
He voted NO on prohibiting minors from crossing state lines for abortion.
He voted NO on requiring minors to inform parents of out of state abortions.
He is rated 0% by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) indicating pro-choice.

Is Obama a Liberal Agenda supporter on the Abortion issue? Check.

Issue: Progressive Taxes

If anyone followed the Presidential campaign over the last two years, you have no doubt where Obama stands here. However, if you have not, here are the facts.

He supports a “spread the wealth” tax system (progressive tax system in the purest form).
In October, 2007, he stated he wants to “restore progressive taxes.”
He is rated 100% by the Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) indicating support of progressive taxation.

Is Obama a Liberal Agenda supporter on the Progressive Taxes Issue? Check.

Issue: Gun Control

Obama is a Senator from Illinois, one of the strictest states concerning gun ownership. Illinois does not allow legal citizens an opportunity to obtain a concealed carry license (Wisconsin is the only other). The entire nation other than these two states and Washington D.C. allow law abiding citizens to obtain a concealed carry license to help ensure their personal protection.

He states that it is “ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws.”
Obama has openly supported Illinois’ gun ban laws.
He states that he respects the 2^nd Amendment but “local gun bans are ok…”
He wishes to ban semi-automatic weapons.

Is Obama a Liberal Agenda supporter on the Gun Control Issue? Check.

Issue: Homosexual Marriage

Obama plays a fine line in this particular issue. He has chosen to be one of the “grayish” leaning Liberal Agenda members here while supporting Homosexual Marriage without actually saying it.

He OPPOSES the California one man, one woman marriage law.
He OPPOSED the Illinois Definition of Marriage Act (DOMA).
He states that it is “ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples…”
He states that he opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions…

Is Obama a Liberal Agenda supporter on the Homosexual Marriage Issue? Check’ish (voting record supports while his spoken record is highly conflicted).

Issue: Government Control

Obama belongs to the Democratic Party so this one by default becomes true. His stances on providing government sponsored services are all in favor of governmental control over our decision making… taxation, healthcare, education, welfare, subsidies, affirmative action, etc. Obama fully supports government control in our daily American lives.

Is Obama a Liberal Agenda supporter on the Government Control Issue? Check.

After filtering through the data from Obama’s spoken and voting past, it is easily seen that he proudly wears the Liberal Agenda designation. As I have stated before, OnTheIssues.org has labeled him as “Hardcore Liberal” based upon his voting and spoken record. As a comparison, our current President is labeled “Hardcore Conservative.”

For the last eight years and mainly the last two during the campaign process, we have heard how divisive Bush and his policies were because of his “Conservative Agenda.” Well, Mr. Obama is not some middle of the road politician by any means. He is just as divisive as Bush has been labeled, just in the exact opposite on EVERY issue. Obama speaks about bringing our nation closer together from our division but his policies are nothing but more division. I’ve said before that some policies are never going to be bridged and in my opinion, Obama is on the wrong side of every moral or value issue.

Is our nation going to be brought together by Obama’s “bi-partisanship approach” or are we going to see even more separation because Obama is nothing more than the opposite of Bush? I suspect you know the answer.

Citation:  http://www.ontheissues.org/

Could you make that statement to your spouse and have an intelligent conversation? Well, my wife is not a Liberal Agenda type of person. She believes in the same fundamental rights I believe our government protects and we also share the same beliefs in how distinguished moral and ethical behavior should be paramount in any person we elect. I would whole heartedly expect her to say the same thing… she could not marry a Liberal Agenda believing man. You may be saying that love in the truest form can overcome such a trivial affiliation. I beg to differ.

The separation of a Democrat who has subscribed to the Liberal Agenda differs from the moderate Democrat and all forms and segments of the Republican Party. They have views that distort what truly matters most. These differences are not issues that can be compromised on for the most part. These differences are belief differences, not political process differences. Issues such as health care, immigration, taxation, and many other governmental talking points can all be debated and compromises can be reached that can satisfy all parties involved. However, there are certain aspects of the Liberal Agenda member that unequivocally separates them from the non Liberalized crowd.

Primarily, the issue of abortion is a core factor creating this vast difference. The Liberal Agenda Democrat will forever support abortion as a woman’s right. There is no compromise. The rest of us either believes in some kind of limitation of abortion to rape, incest, and potential mother death or completely ruled out unless the mother’s life is in peril. These two opposite sides of belief cannot be bridged with compromise. It’s an either/or situation. Can someone who believes a child’s life doesn’t carry any significance be married to someone who believes a child’s life should be regarded as one of the most pure and innocent blessings we have as human beings?

Another divisive issue is of course gay marriage. Democratic Liberal Agenda policy followers believe that everyone should be allowed to marry and receive the all inclusive tax benefits from doing so. Everyone else resides anywhere from agreeing only to Civil Unions to not even supporting that. Can someone who truly believes homosexuals should be allowed to rewrite what the institution of marriage consists of be married to someone who believes that it is morally, ethically, and spiritually wrong do to so?

Liberal Agenda followers believe in the basic fact that everyone should get to do anything they want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Get pregnant and don’t want to deal with nine months of pregnancy and a commitment to raising a child? Abort it. It’s your right, right? Are you gay and want to have the same benefits as a married couple? Change what marriage means so you can get the tax benefit. It’s your right, right? Want to smoke marijuana because it makes you feel good? Legalize drugs. It doesn’t hurt anyone but the drug user right? It’s your right to harm yourself if you wish, right? Want to remove all references to God and Christianity from education and our justice system because it may be offensive? Pass laws to remove it. It’s your right, right?

So, I stand by my comment. I could not and would not marry a Liberal Agenda Democrat. I don’t believe true love can exist in a situation with such disparate viewpoints. This is an either/or situation. I believe a standard Democrat and Republican can be happy together in marriage with a few bumps. But as we have seen, the middle of the road Democrat or Republican is a dying species. Our world has become divided by canyons of ideological differences that cannot be bridged by simple compromises. How we move forward will be a continuous struggle because at the root of our differences is actually our spiritual belief system. Religion has and always will be the major difference between us while we spend our time on this earth.

With that out of the way, what are the issues that determines which Democrat believes in Liberal Agenda policies? I’m not going to go into great detail on each one as I don’t want to enrage or put to sleep those who may be reading. The issues are in no order of importance and only appear as I randomly write them from my mind to digital paper.

Issue: Abortion

The Liberals would like you to believe that abortion has nothing to do with the child being grown in a mother’s body. They want you to focus upon the rights the mother has as it pertains to her body. While every human being has specific rights when it comes to their own body, a child changes the equation and the rights of that mother. Unborn babies have rights of their own and cannot be discounted. Abortion is the destruction of an unborn baby’s rights. Support abortion and support the minimizing of a child’s life.

Issue: Progressive Taxes

Democrats subscribing to the Liberal Agenda believe that it is the “patriotic duty” of the “wealthy” to pay massive penalties in the form of taxes to cover the hardships of the less wealthy citizenship. Spread the wealth is a socialist/Marxist/Communist tenet and is a focal point of the Liberal Agenda. If you enjoy free markets and American capitalism, you will vehemently oppose this ideology. Wealthy people “spread the wealth” by donations and by providing jobs for the society, not by being forced to return their earned wealth to the government for “appropriate” redistribution.

Issue: Gun Control

Many Liberals will try and make you believe that guns are at the root of all evil. An outright ban or severe limitation of who can own a weapon is another core item on the liberal’s agenda. Now, the liberals in power will of course be allowed to retain their gun ownerships, but the general citizen will not be allowed to exercise their constitutional right to own a weapon. Just to make a note, I don’t believe a citizen should own military grade, fully automatic weapons or explosives. Making a gun scary looking does not make it a military weapon. Semi-automatic guns are well within our rights as law abiding citizens. If a ban of the weapon itself cannot be achieved by the liberals, watch for ammunition bans…

Issue: Homosexual Marriage

Liberals wish to rewrite the general concept that marriage consists of one man and one woman entering into a lifelong commitment (a commitment which our Christian forefathers helped found this nation upon). They wish to include same-sex couples and redefine the institution of marriage. The reasoning for this primarily resides around the fact that same-sex couples are not afforded the same “rights” natural married couple enjoy. Tax credits from joint filing, child credits, and the list goes on. Civil unions are not enough… they want marriage redefined to include homosexual couples.

Issue: Government Control

Every issue the Liberal Agenda entails basically comes from this all encompassing issue. Liberals believe that the government should have ultimate control of our society. The rights of the citizens are trivialized because the liberals believe they can satisfy the public by doing everything for them. They believe a country RUN by the government makes things “better” for everyone. I believe the government is here to protect our rights, not disseminate them to us. If we subscribe to the Liberal Agenda, we are headed for a Marxist regime in sheep’s clothing.

There are many other issues involving affirmative action, government sponsored healthcare, foreign policy, and immigration just to name a few. But, I believe the above issues are more than enough to determine if you are of the mind to accept the Liberal Agenda or not. If you do not, it doesn’t make you a conservative or even a Republican. There are lots of Democrats who do not subscribe to the Liberal Agenda. However, more and more of the Democratic Party politicians are fully invested in the Liberal Agenda and these issues are their policy decision makers. Keep your eyes open to the true issues and remember you have rights not because the government gave them to you, but because you are an American citizen.

I’ll admit that I am guilty of being uncompromising on certain topics (abortion being one of them), but for the vast majority of other issues, I am willing to compromise when given an agreeable solution that actually helps people. I like to think that each and every one of us falls into this mold. There are some topics that are just divisive and always will be because of their roots in religious belief or moral and ethical makeup. But, it seems as our country progresses forward, we are making every single debate or difference a core division amongst ourselves.

I like the color blue and you may not. Does that mean that I must berate you and demean your intelligence level because, of course, all rational people must love the color blue? We can replace the argument with any topic and it fits the mold of how we are living. If other people do not agree with our idea, then of course they must be 100% wrong and must be corrected by submission or defeat at all costs.

Our current political process has succumbed to this theory of ideological submission and defeat. The other party is wrong, completely wrong, and they must be deported for their traitorous rhetoric. At least that is how they would like us to believe as voters. No way could the opposing party have anything substantial to bring to the table. Why? Because they are the enemy! Somehow over the years, our parties have been categorized as follows: Republicans – gun toting war nuts in search of oil so they can make their friends as wealthy as kings (oh, they are also homophobes intent on forcing women to give up their “right” of abortion). Democrats – tree hugging, drug legalizing, baby murdering, robin hoods intent on stealing your wealth and taking your guns away (and oh yeah, they are all communists).

With such trumped up sensationalistic ideology running rampant about both parties, isn’t it hard to believe and vote for either one? The media does nothing but try and hammer home the stereotypes listed above. There is no need to listen to politicians anymore. All you have to do is check which party they are affiliated with and that’s all you need to know right? That’s what they are hoping for. They do not want an informed society with an understanding of the middle ground. Middle ground is not a case for winning. It’s a case for compromise.

As the goal of winning at all costs being the decisive factor, all we will ever get is the kind of society splitting arguments we see pushing each of us farther apart. It’s in all of our lives, not just in politics. We must recapture our ability to debate without total annihilation of the “enemy” being the necessary outcome. Assuming that we all want our country to benefit from our existence, our goal should be what makes the country stronger, or what makes our society healthier, or what makes us come together more as a nation. Destroying the enemy as being the key to victory will only make those concepts unattainable.

We can easily see where divisive living brings us: deteriorating economy, foreign policy hatred, high divorce rates, broken families, and parentless homes. Our financial markets and political process are not the only victims of our country’s focus upon winning ideological debates. Our homes and families have also become victims. In the end, we are all paying the price because we have failed to realize that living together in harmony means more than being victorious in a spiteful debate over ideas. Winning is not everything, in life or in sports.

Now that we have that out of the way (and I’m not going to spoil the movie for anyone), let’s get into something that piqued my interest during the movie. There was an occurrence in the movie of the dreaded “A” word. If you know what I’m talking about, good for you, I’m sure you have some instant opinion on that subject. If not, the word I’m talking about is “Abortion.” If you are a regular reader of this site, I’m pretty sure you can guess my personal stance on the issue. Just to make it clear, I am vehemently opposed to abortion. I know all the liberal ideology about how it’s the woman’s body and it’s their decision and it’s their right and all the psycho babble that comes with that argument, there is nothing new to the argument and hasn’t been since Roe v. Wade.

My simple proposal to the entire issue is this, replace this particular “A” word with another “A” word. I’m sure you can guess what it is also. Replace Abortion with Adoption. Yes, I agree, it is your body and you have the right to do anything with it you like. Read that statement. Your body is a very big portion of that. What about the life being created within “your body” makes it entirely yours? Why do you have absolute power over its existence or not? Sure, you may not believe it has a soul until birth, or you may not believe it’s alive until its breathing. You may have lots of potential “if” and “until” statements regarding pregnancy. That’s fine and that’s your own path to choose. However, why should the child growing in your pregnancy have to pay the price of its life because you don’t want it? Can’t afford it, can’t handle it, don’t have the room, don’t want to put on weight, not ready, father doesn’t want to help, people will make fun of me, my church will look down upon me, there are thousands if not millions of excuses NOT to have a child. EXCUSES!

There are many families in this world that try every day of their lives for years to have children and cannot conceive. There are many families in this world that have lost their children to diseases or accidents that are looking for a child to help and raise and provide love to. My proposal is simple. If you do not want a child and find yourself pregnant, rather than ending the life of a person who can be loved by wonderful people, save the life of the infant and allow someone to legally adopt. Sounds simple in writing and theory, of course it’s not my body that is going to gain 30 lbs and make my back hurt and make my life turn upside down. I’ll have to agree, it is easy and simple to say and write. I won’t argue that pregnancy is hard, I’ve heard the stories, been around lots of pregnant women (one is my sister who has 5 kids) and they all seem to be ok after 9 months of “torture.” I don’t see any growing segment of crazy mothers out there ranting and raving about how pregnancy has destroyed their lives.

Yes, it’s 9 months of your life that you will have to deal with. But is 9 months so hard to live through if you can provide a family with a lifetime of love and memories? Just because you had an “accident” and don’t want to deal with the circumstances, it doesn’t make it right that you can end the life with a pill or a quick trip to the clinic. Don’t want to get pregnant, guess what, stop playing house and make decisions like mature adults. Sure, there are mistakes and accidents, but as with all mistakes and accidents, we pay the consequences of having done them. If you view a pregnancy as an accident or mistake, don’t make the child pay the consequences for your actions, how fair is that? Pay the consequences yourself and quite possibly, learn a valuable lesson in the process. Maybe you will decide NOT to give the baby up for adoption. Maybe you will change your mind and decide to raise it with your own love in its mother’s arms.

It all comes down to one thing. Love. Do you love enough to keep the child? Do you love enough to work through the pregnancy and provide another family a child to love? Do you love? If you are selfish enough to override love in your life, then abortion is an option according to our current laws. Yes, I said it. Selfish. How else can you explain it? When it comes down to the basic argument of abortion, it means you care more about yourself than a living being within you. It IS that simple.

I may or may not have offended some who have read this and if so, I apologize. You can enter into a mature debate below. I’m not placing blame upon anyone, but I am offering a solution to the matter. Choose adoption over abortion. Create, do not destroy. Love, not hate.