There was a "meteor shower" last night.
That meant setting my alarm for 2:55 a.m. (in the morning), and taking my wife and dogs outside to watch five or six shooting stars.
Even so, still beautiful.
I'm teaching a class tonight on Christianity in American history. Alot of quotes and what not.
I'm doing less actual lecturing and trying to get them to think about things that aren't always fun to think about. We live in a different country now than a couple hundred years ago. I have them split into two groups and discuss things that don't really have a right answer. Adam will have a field day with tonight's topic (until he finds out that I most likely agree with him).
The idea is that abortion is not mentioned in the healthcare legislation. Now, first off, I don't think Obama is some He-Man Baby Eater, get that straight. There is however legal precedent that if something is not expressly excluded from legislation, it is implied that it is included. So, somewhere down the road, someone will bring this case forward and prove that abortion should be covered by their universal healthcare.
And they will be right.
If it is not excluded, it in included, and so it should be. This is also how the case for secession is made, by the way.
The question I will ask is whether or not we should be alright with paying for an abortion with tax money.
But wait, aren't we alright with paying for capital punishment with tax dollars?
What about all of the people who oppose the death penalty? Is that fair to them?
No. It isn't.
The difference is in the details. Capital punishment is within the state's rights to determine. The healthcare reform will be federal (I don't believe it should be, as the power should rest with the states, but that's a whole other conversation).
So, in this case, I would be opposed to both, on principle.
Interested to hear what ya'll think.