What is your specific position on abortion laws and rights?
I believe that abortion is inherently evil, and must be stopped. There are three circumstances I believe it can be warranted, but the selective “oops, let’s get an abortion” must end. The only valid reason to abort the life of a child, in my mindset, is rape, life threatening of the mother, and incest. That is it.
My reasoning behind this is rooted in the Declaration of Independence, the law, and science. First, it is the job of the government to protect the rights of all its people, and this includes the unborn. The Declaration states that we have unalienable rights, that among them is Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The government cannot say it is ok to terminate life when governments are instituted among men to protect life. They cannot guarantee liberty, because without the life existing, they have no chance to pursue their course.
One must also look to science. Genetically, the child is human, because even at the earliest stages, if one took the DNA from the child, it would be human DNA. Secondly, doctors will not pronounce you dead if your heart is beating. If you are declared dead at the end of a heart beat, would not the beginning of a heartbeat indicate life? Also, scientists have marveled at the discovery of signs of life on distant planets when microbial organisms are found fossilized in a meteor that hits the earth, yet fail to recognize that life is inside the mother’s womb. The scientific evidence concludes that you are terminating the life of a human being, which constitutes a murder, especially when it is premeditated that you will end the life, and you are also doing so for selfish reasons.
This brings me into the law portion of my point of view. A crime is committed when there is an evil act (Actus Reas) and an evil mind (Mens Rea). The evil act is the termination of the human life, or murder. The bad mind comes from the fact that you willingly terminate the life for self gain, as is the case with selective abortions (on demand). Also, one must look to the fact that if a mother is killed, and is pregnant, the perpetrator is charged with a double homicide for two lives being ended. We cannot be arbitrary in our laws. On one hand, a life is murdered, yet in the same breath they say the mother can terminate that same life.
Essentially, you could be killed on your way to the abortion clinic to have the baby’s life ended, but if the murder occurred on the street, it becomes homicide.
Because of the contradictory nature of this one of two courses must happen: (1) Either the baby is recognized as a human being with the same rights we have; or (2) there can never be a double homicide charge when a child is killed due to the death of the mother in the event of a crime. We cannot have it both ways.
What is your specific position on non-traditional marriages and domestic partnerships (anything other than nuclear; husband and wife)?
I would say that it is none of my business, none of the federal government’s business, and no authority should be able to dictate the manner in which one person will love another. Our laws are supposed to give equal protection to all, yet, if I were to choose to be with a man, I would not be able to have any insurance.
What I propose is that the relationship is not the issue, so long as it remains between consenting adults. As long as you can prove in some measure that you are a life partner with a person (marriage, ceremony, state license, what have you) then you should be extended the same treatment as any other couple. There need not be any other law passed other than stating as such.
I believe that the family is essential, but I cannot force my life on another. Now, if the individuals are granted such measures, they also cannot be allowed to infringe on the beliefs and rights of another human being. Essentially your rights end where another’s begin. So if a gay couple tried to sue a pastor for refusing to marry them, that infringes on the pastor’s right, both religious and business. So it has to be a two way street.
What is your specific position on the freedoms of expression which allow citizens who never earned their place in this state of freedoms to do things such as burn the flag and slander heroes with erratic name-calling such as “baby killer”?
As much as I dislike the fact that these sorts of things can and do happen, it is a guaranteed right. It is one I would lay down my life for, even thought the fools are ignorant. Even though they may have never served in the military, or in large part, done a thing in their lives as is typical among groups like this, they are still citizens of the United States. Just as I am fighting against the government for selectively choosing what rights they are extending to the American people, I cannot then turn around and selectively allow rights to be stripped from the American people in other regards.
That being said, there can be ways where you can put them in their place. For instance, if they burn a flag without a permit for public burning, that is a fire code violation, a health hazard to others due to possible fumes, reckless endangerment, etc. I can use the law against them doing such things to the flag I defended, and it should be done. While the crime cannot be for burning the flag, as is their right to do, we can ensure that anything that is violated in the process of doing so is enforced.
The Mormon faith was established fairly recently. What is your specific position on those who continue to add to the Bible as the Mormon founder(s) recently did, and on those who establish entirely new faiths? Will you work to prevent incidents such as that of the Branch Davidian Compound? To what extent will you help guarantee true, total religious freedom?
I believe wholeheartedly in the freedom of religion. One should not be forced to worship one way or another. That being said, when you are looking at infringing on the rights of another citizen, such as poisoning them or in the case of many in Islam, convert or die, then you have crossed the line. Specifically to address the incident in Waco, the Federal Government overstepped their authority. Even if the position isn’t popular, they still have a right to do what they wish religiously, so long as it doesn’t affect another person’s rights.
For example: I have no problem with the FLDS church allowing polygamy. What I do have a problem with is forcing minors to marry 50 year old men. That violates laws and the rights of the girl. In that religion (spin off of the LDS church), the patriarch will choose who you will marry. I find this inherently wrong, because you must have the freedom to choose for yourself, and this must be done as a consenting adult. The child, who knows nothing of the world outside, cannot make such an informed decision. I also find it wrong that many of the male children are thrown out to keep the competition away.
It all comes down to the individual rights.
To prevent this, it’s simple: no investigation without a warrant under probable cause and reasonable suspicion. No military style equipment should ever be used domestically. There is no reason what so ever to ram a tank into a building. Finally, the judge who issues any warrant must look at all the evidence presented and determine whether anyone is actually being harmed. There must be reason to go to a building to search or make arrests.