issue specific

During the rise of Adolph Hitler and the Nazis, had they simply remained peaceful and advocated a message about how great it is to be German and live in Germany, there would have been no cause for World War 2. But when a person begins to call for followers to violently impose ideas on other people, to the point of killing them, then the world cannot just sit by and "respect" such an ideology. This goes for political AND religious ideas.


The reason Islam is different than almost every other active religion is because the actual founder of Islam called for the killing of people who either oppose or won't submit to the ideas of Muhammad. This is unlike Jesus who never advocated killing anyone who would not believe. This is unlike Buddha who never advocated killing anyone. This unlike the Sikh's Guru Nanak who never advocated killing anyone. We can no longer pretend only some Muslims are violent since the source of the violence is NOT so called "extremists" or "radical Islam". The source of Islamic aggression is the Qur'an itself and specifically Muhammad. Any faithful Muslim simply following the ideas of Muhammad will eventually seek hostility toward non-Muslims.


In the same way the world ridicules Nazism out of our culture, making it impossible for anyone to publicly practice that ideology, so too we should ridicule Islam into obscurity. I am NOT calling for violence against Muslims or even necessarily banning them, but I am calling for politicians and society in general to STOP saying "Islam is a religion of peace" and pretending it is respectful. It is no more respectful than any other death cult. Charles Manson's group was not to be accepted and respected as legitimate. Jim Jones' message was not to be accepted and respected as legitimate.

Abortion or birth control is a topic that is often used to easily divide politicians or political parties. Traditionally, liberals or Democrats have supported abortions either on demand or at later terms of pregnancy. Republicans and conservatives have traditionally been more likely to advocate for limited use of abortion. The pro-life position ranges from accepting abortions only in cases of rape or known harm to the mother or baby if carried full term; to some that would restrict abortion no matter what the circumstances. Between the pro-life and pro-choice positions, the animosity ranges from accusation of murdering babies to trying to control a woman's body. This topic, perhaps more than any has been used by politicians to embolden their base.


I've outlined the positions so that I can now tell the voter my position. First, we must decide 2 important issues:

1. When does human life begin?
2. Who has control over human life?

These questions are important because it used to be that pro-choice advocates would claim that it was always the woman's "choice" if she wanted to abort, but only while the baby was not able to survive outside the womb. This is the reason, the initial abortion laws only allowed a woman to get an abortion under 12 weeks (3 months). Different states allowed abortions at early stages of pregnancy and thus you would hear of women traveling to those states to get a "legal" abortion. In 1992, the criteria for allowing abortions went from a trimester basis to a "viability" basis. So, again the question stands; WHEN DOES HUMAN LIFE BEGIN?