G.E.H.R.K.E 7.29.04
By Andrew Gehrke


The lighter fluid is on the Presidential coals and the match is struck: The Presidential race is about to heat up. It is in these times that questions should begin to be asked. “Who does one vote for?” being the primary inquiry, but also, “Why should one vote for them? What moral, or immoral, qualities and beliefs do they have that should persuade me to either side?”. Though the Presidential Candidates are nearly halfway through the election marathon, it is still anyone’s race. Debate challenges have not started up; slandering commercials are few and far between. Yet this is the pleasant time of a presidential race. This is the more wholesome part of politics – the period where it does not matter much yet what the other person has or has not done (mostly because the opponents are still trying to figure it out) – the segment of the show where what is important is being introduced. Candidates are still running around and talking to us common folk, just rapping out on the front porch, trying to get the low down on what American citizens want. In these times where the good is still among us, we begin to find out what our candidates really believe – how they really feel about topics that are relatively small in comparison to a failing war, but quite large when it comes to a person’s or persons’ life.

A fail proof candidate has not emerged in this race, but a fail proof candidate has never emerged in any political race since the dawn of time. As men voting on men – men running for men – men trying to please men, there is one simple fact: Men will be corrupt, and men will be corrupted. We are man, and we are mistaken quite often. Just take a look at the Patriot Missile Defense. However, on some of the more important issues, the ones that really matter in the lives of Americans, there does seem to be a man who stands apart from the ordinary – a liberal that strikes this columnist’s peculiar: John Kerry.

ABC’s Peter Jennings recently had an interview with Mr. Kerry. Kerry’s opinions on abortion struck out like an armless child playing baseball. Many people understand the conflicting opinions about abortion. The religious and righteous understand it to be wrong, and the “less moral” understand it to be A.O.K. When asked about abortion in the first-trimester, and whether or not it is murder, Kerry had to say, ”No, because it’s not the form of life that takes personhood in the terms that we have judged it to be in the past. It’s the beginning of life. Does life begin? Yes, it begins.” Kerry believes that the child is near the beginning of life, but not far enough along to say that we could apply murder penalties. Senator Kerry feels that it is not the government that should choose if a child should be aborted or not, but that it is up to the individual(s) involved.

All if this is not to say that John Kerry is necessarily in favor of abortion, but that he does not think it should be taken out of the running. He feels strongly that the matter should be taken realistically. He takes the stand and makes the point that many tend to waive to the side when fighting against abortion: That there are delicate situations surrounding abortion – delicate moral situations. He names two specifically: rape and incest. He feels it should be rare, but legal. Abortion should be resorted to if abstinence fails and adoption is not an option. Foremost, however, proper sex education should be administered, and that means something better than the crap they teach in 9th grade Biology.

Then, I am sad to say, America has Bush. Bush will not fund abortion clinics because he stands so firmly against abortion, but if clinics are poorly funded, then there is a risk of killing more than one “life” right? Without proper funding, proper investments cannot be made and advancements in that field of science are jeopardized. Then again, why would he care? He is against the idea. Bush certainly will not leave any child behind. He stands firmly on that. However, does President Bush ask himself, “What about risk factors?” Activists could start an abortion boycott and that portion of civilization could be destroyed. That would be for the better, except for a few small issues. Girls – small girls – who might be raped - could try to give birth to their child. If a woman is too small then she can not deliver the child in to the world, and complications arise, and in these complications, both, the child, and the mother, could die.

“Research would be permitted on existing stem lines-that is, on cells taken from embryos that had already been killed - but it would be forbidden on new ones, and the federal government would extensively fund research into adult stem cells, cells that came from the patient's own body and that required no killing at all.”

Mr. Bush refused to back down on his pro-life campaign. He would not “kill” any child in the quest for stem cell research; however, he would accept the use of stem cells from already deceased embryos. Does this mean that children aborted could be used in stem cell research? Stem cell research provides America, as well as the world over, a closer chance at immortality. The paralyzed may move – the brain damaged may have a chance at “normal” living. The severely injured may be saved. Bush does not wish to lose lives. He wants to save them. For this, he should be commended. However, what if the child is going to be put in a situation in which it will only be killed regardless? While no official abortions will be performed, if a mother wants the child dead, she will find a way. It would be safer for all involved to let the child be aborted safely so that science may continue its never ending quest to help mankind. Let us not forget the waste management employees who are getting sick of dead babies showing up in the garbage.

Politics are tricky. Figuring out what people want is tricky. Science is tricky. Abortion is tricky. Americans need to make something out of this heating fire that is the Presidential campaign – produce something that will stop their hunger for representation before the fire goes out and it is too late. God forbid, however, they abort a baby calf and throw that on the fire. In these tricky moments it is hard to decide right from wrong – him from her – moral from immoral. Someone has the answers, and they know it is not about how you were brought up religiously. They know it is about how Americans feel. These people are out doing front porch campaigns, instead of over seas getting mothers’ babies killed.

Kerry stands morally separated from Bush. He stands in front of the U.S. and tells them what he feels, instead of what they want – he tells them what they told him, instead of what campaign managers told him to tell them. He stands boldly, admits to his doings, and speaks for his beliefs that have been molded by society, as opposed to religion. He stands closely with American citizens, so close he sits with them on the front porch, figuring out what the common man wants – just rapping with them before dinner finishes cooking – so that he can apply this knowledge to better America instead of countries over seas, or at our borders. While Bush is saying, “Let them come, we’ve got specialists waiting,” Kerry is saying, “Abort! Abort!”

Send Feedback to Andrew Gehrke | Send a Letter to the Editor