Baby Killers!!!

The abortion controversy has been a huge debate among politicians since before I can remember. One hears the presidential candidates’ viewpoints on it during almost every presidential debate during election year. Potter Stewart said, “Abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life.” I too am a pro-life advocate. I have a 19 month old daughter and could not imagine life without her. My wife and I decided to have a child at a young age, but it never crossed our mind to terminate her when we found out we were pregnant. The keyword to my statement is the word “terminate.” The definition of terminate is to “put to an end prematurely.” Consequently, the definition of murder is the same, “to put to an end prematurely.” I am appalled, that the government allows women to choose whether or not they murder their babies. In article III of the United States Constitution, murder is outlined as a criminal law. Why is it that we allow mothers to chose whether they commit a criminal or not and let them get away with it. In the blog Pro-Life or Pro-Choice Brooke Christensen, recalls the video clip Silent Scream to exemplify her Pro-Life ideology. I agree with the opinions of Ms. Christensen and feel that the decision in Roe vs. Wade should be overturned.

A lenient policy in an aggressive time

I have many times considered myself to be a Republican. I have had many debates with friends and family over various topics of government. I have backed up the far right 99 times out of 100. Today I have been called to take a more liberal approach on American legislation. President Obama has now decided to take a somewhat passive approach in handling nuclear arms. Mr. Obama feels that we should not use nuclear warfare against nonnuclear states that comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. President Obama has stated that possible threats of nuclear attack could be handled by a series of options that do not imply using nuclear force. He did indicate that nuclear force would be used if a biological attack were carried out on the United States. The new Nuclear Posture Review, like many policies, is likely to be a controversial issue prone to discussion and debate amongst conservatives and liberals. President Obama is not currently discussing the issues amongst Congress, but rather several nations of the world that they would apply to. Many governmental analysts and citizens view the new sanctions as a threat to American safety and liberty. It is important to note that the Nuclear Posture Review was created in order to slowly shift into an elimination of nuclear weapons, while not undermining our country’s nuclear deterrent. Mr. Obama’s nuclear strategy has been in the making for some time. It is considerably different than former President George W. Bush’s strategy that called for the use of nuclear force in response to a wide range of threats. Mr. Obama primarily views nuclear weapons as deterrents to nuclear attacks on the Unites States and allies. President Obama declined to state that the “sole role” of nuclear weapons is to deter an attack however. Over the next couple of weeks there will be many meetings between world powers to discuss this new stand. President Obama is hosting 47 world leaders at the White House next week to discuss the new plan. Over the next four years, the ultimate goal of the Nuclear Posture Review will be to safely lock down the world’s nuclear weapons. Many political debates and skirmishes are sure to arise over the next couple of weeks, even years, over the new policies. I believe that, policy set aside, the new stand on nuclear weapons will be pivotal in preserving the safety of innocent lives around the world.