From the ABC's AM progam this morning:
JOHN SHOVELAN: The growth in the number of people voting on moral issues was second only to the increase in those who voted on national security.
Evangelicals are driven by two key issues – opposition to gay marriage and a desire to overturn a woman's right to abortion in the case Rowe versus Wade.
Just love that turn of phrase. How about: Evangelicals are driven by two key issues - support for traditional marriage and the right to life. Or this one: Small 'l' liberals are driven by two key issues - support of gay marriage and a desire to allow unrestricted access to abortions.
It all depends on your point of view. In the interest of balance, could the ABC alternate its perspective every second report, so that a more fair and accurate portrayal is offered?
Sent to the ABC
3 comments:
That is basically untrue. liberals are not driven by a support of gay marriage or a desire to allow unrestricted abortion. I know several lefties that oppose abortion, and plenty that oppose gay marriage. liberals are driven by a combination of many factors: a belief that the poor should be helped is one of the primary factors, and one that no true Christian should oppose.
That no comment should go unanswered...
My use of the term "small 'l' liberal" was not here used in the Christian sense (although a quick persual of Wikipedia lends some support):
"... Typical positions include rejection of fundamentalism, acceptance of homosexuality, inclusion of women in the ministry, and rejection of literal interpretation of the Bible."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity)
I was actually referring to "political small 'l' liberal" in the left-wing sense as espoused in particular by Hollywood, the US Democratic Party and the ACLU, whom I believe have clearly articulated their positions on these issues consistent with my description.
Given the context of the post (US politics, Evangelical Christianity) both meanings may be taken, although I hope this post clarifies the issue.
Thanks. This reminds me of a comment by Mark Latham, "Abortion is an issue between the woman and her doctor. We don't want politicians in consulting rooms"
Or apparently anyone willing to speak on behalf of the unborn. Not even the father gets a say apparently, especially when paternity suits are being prosecuted. For example, "Child support is an issue between the woman and her solicitor." No say again for the dad.
Latham's comment are as good as saying that "War is an issue between the soldier and his enemy" ie the only people qualified to speak on issues of warfare are those who are willing to risk their lives in it. Take it further, and we would have democracy modelled after Plato's Republic, where service confers citizenship, and only those prepared to risk their lives for the body politic are qualified to make decisions on its behalf.
As I see it, abortion is a public issue, not confined to the patient-doctor consulting relationship - why is society suddenly expected to have a duty of care towards its most vulnerable citizens on birth, yet leave this responsibility in the hands of an individual prenatally? This is a hypocritic individualism at its very worst.
Post a Comment