Moving To Canada?....Seriously?

The recent presidential election has pleased many while discouraging others. Many of my facebook friends posted a common theme on their status the night of the election: Obama? I'm moving to Canada! The conservative community has made similar statements voicing their negative attitudes about being part of a country under the leadership of President Elect Barrack Obama. Does it seem strange to anyone else that these people would chose to remove themselves from United States society at the drop of a hat? I'm sure that they are trying to make a bold statement, but attempting to do so in an extremely ineffective, irrational way. Running away from a situation that opposes a given groups' opinion shows fear and instability. The nation’s collective support of the new president, regardless of personal opinion, would have a major impact on our government and, in turn, the nation. A more vested interest in the United States government doesn't necessarily require a hard-core republican to adopt the President's view or agree entirely with his policy. The founding of our country’s Constitution set up government to be by the people and for the people. The key term here is PEOPLE. People have a voice in government that they rarely use. Those who create so much controversy and noise have an opportunity to use all their efforts for good (or at least what they consider good).

Those elected to government offices have a responsibility to work for the good of the United States. This means that their office serves those who elect them. Citizens have adequate opportunities to lobby for change, yet there seems to be so much bark, but little bite. We see heated debates and endless editorials, even facebook opinions. Granted, opinions are healthy and debate challenges ideas. When these stop at only words our nation will suffer and has! Leaders may have policies and ideas, but people taking a stand for issues helps refine policy.

Many have strong opinions and political views, yet are extremely uneducated about reasons for political agenda. This fault does not fall entirely on the general public, as most government officials operate out of the public eye, emerging only for speeches and campaigns. On the other hand, people could make time and effort to more actively participate in government. Both are at fault, but both have a Constitutional responsibility to work together. Sometimes citizens of the United States forget the privileges of this nation because they get tied up in hate or pity for themselves. Arguments arise that the government is a corrupt institution, only concerned agenda in its best interest. The government doesn’t help people so why should people support the government? These people point a finger and makes accusations of hypocrisy, yet refuse to make changes themselves. The success of our nation depends upon the combined efforts of ordinary citizens and leaders. Moving to Canada seems to remove an important part of the equation!

Murder?

Ms. Cheatheam's article "Why do we think we have the right to kill the Unborn?" raises some interesting points to consider about the morality of abortion. Unfortunately she fails to address her opposition and cites articles only supporting her claim. By doing this she stiff-arms pro-choice advocates and weakens the effectiveness of her viewpoint. She approaches her stance as a hot headed argument rather than making a plea for readers to re-evaluate their opinion of the issue. Her description of the abortion process and the reality of the matter does make a strong emotional appeal. This could be considered a tactic used to irrationally scare someone to support pro-life. Interestingly enough her points only express true facts about the medical process of abortion. They are not pretty or pleasant, but real. We need people to start being bare bones honest about injustice and Ms. Cheateam lays it on the table. The title makes a bold and highly relevant point. Unborn does not translate to non-human. A live fetus existing inside a woman's uterus relies on others to live. Nobody can argue the fact that an unborn fetus is living and yet some are of the opinion that they have a "right" to abort it. Where does this right come from? Where does our right to exist come from? If somebody on earth were threatened, they would not agree that someone else had a right to abort their existence. Superb title! One specific comparison was made about a man dismembering his wife and a doctor dismembering an unborn fetus. She asks why we don't treat both instances as murder. A better question might be: "How can a country grant anyone the right to terminate the existence of another human or fetus. And for that matter, on what premise do we decide that a walking and breathing human has more rights than an unborn fetus, who is the beginning of human life? The issue runs much deeper than what appears on the surface. The author needs to make an argument asking people how they can justify being granted this kind of right. While the idea has great potential, greater detail needs to be considered when trying to help others see a specific point of view. Nobody likes a slap in the face, with a hand or words. Facts about abortion are nasty but so is a narrow minded argument. Since both can be turn-offs, she needs to explore and seek to expose motives behind abortion. She claims that abortion is murder, which may very well be true. My question is why?