My biggest bone of contention with the pro-life movement in general is that it forgets what illegal abortions were like. We're talking STAPH infections, mangled uteruses, and in many cases, death by hemorrhage. Women were being butchered by their care providers because there was no legal standard for a safe abortion. Abortion was legalized not only on the grounds of free choice, but also as a pragmatic solution to a growing health problem.
Furthermore, there would be no need to criminalize abortion if our society would just take that next step and invest in other women's health options. I think we need to have that conversation WAY before we have the conversation that the pro-life movement is having.
What's that? People getting unhealthy illegal abortions does not make the concept OK and does not set a precedent for making it legal?
It sets the precedent if society at large is being harmed. "Public health problem" means the problem is big enough to affect more than just a few individuals, and the course of law is designed to deal with secular problems like public health.
And we're not talking about a cold, by the way. We're talking about mutilation and death. If you're going to sacrifice the mother for the child you should be equally willing to sacrifice the child for the mother. Death is death.
I think that few people who identify as pro-choice actually endorse abortion. Pregnancy is a joyous affair. Just knowing that a little person is growing inside you makes you see things in a whole new light. Wrestling with yourself over whether to terminate a pregnancy is heart-wrenching.
But here's what we're forced to think about: is the father going to be around? If he's not, how am I going to take care of the child? What will my family think? Will they support me? Can I support myself?
I can tell you that I personally would not have help if I fell pregnant. I could do everything right. I could wear a condom and it could break. I could go to the drug store the next day and take a morning after pill, and there's a possibility it wouldn't work. So now what do I do? I can hope the father will help me take care of it, but who says that they will? Who says they will even be a good father? I certainly wouldn't be able to ask my family because, due to circumstances outside of my control, we are estranged. The government won't help me because I'm above the poverty line. Barely, by the way, by about 5k a year, and children cost a lot more than 5k a year.
So what is a girl left to do? I could put it up for adoption, but can I really sit tight and watch as a doctor carries away the child that I spent 9 months bringing into the world? My answer to that is "unlikely." I could tell myself throughout the entire pregnancy that I WILL give it up, but once I hold that baby, once I see its face, hear its voice, and feed it with the milk of my body, well, a mother's love is primal. My deepest, oldest instincts simply wouldn't allow me to give it up.
If I carry the child to term, I keep it, and plunge myself into poverty. Forget about any other great task I would have accomplished, I'll spend the better part of my life just struggling to survive.
Oh, and my circumstances certainly aren't the worst. I'm not an addict. I'm not homeless. I'm not in an abusive codependent relationship. What happens to the children of those mothers? Do you think they will live meaningful, productive lives?
I am more than a uterus. I have a heart, a mind, a soul, and a purpose. My world is greater than the outcome of one pregnancy, and my children deserve to have a mother who will give them the best opportunity at a good life. THAT is why I'm pro-choice.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Friday, May 10, 2013
Dear Tamerlan,
I'm sorry that the American public has treated your family with such cruelty.
Just so you know, I tend to believe that, while your actions were wrong, you were not an evil person, simply one who was misled by an extreme faction of humanity. I'm not sure of the Islamic faith, but the Christian faith realizes the fickle nature of the human spirit and only requires you to ask forgiveness and repent for your sins.
Katherine, my heart is broken for you. I would be beside myself if my husband simply died. I would be absolutely insane if I had to manage my husband's untimely death while reconciling the fact that he died after murdering someone all under the camera glare of media harassment and a bloodthirsty American public who won't even allow you to bury his body. My heart goes out to you.
And this is for everyone else:
Get the fuck over yourselves. The dude killed three people. Three. Fucking. People. You won't even pause to think about the thousands of people who die violently every day, the tens of thousands we've killed in much the same way in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you somehow find it in yourself to passionately hate a single human being who set off a bomb and killed three whole people. I'm not one to quantify suffering, but seriously.
Just so you know, in your heart of hearts, you are no better than the people bent on killing us. Hatred is as hatred does, and you are clearly incapable of rising above the animalistic nonsense that drives terrorism. You suffer from the worst kind of hypocrisy. You may be able to save face, but as soon as you speak words of hatred, as soon as you condone persecution, as soon you condemn an innocent family to suffering for the actions of another, the high horse that you sit upon topples to the ground and you become a squealing animal, bathing in the shit pool of your own moral assertions. If you believe that the Tsarnaev family is not worthy of same consideration you would give your neighbor, then I am ashamed to call you my countrymen.
Just so you know, I tend to believe that, while your actions were wrong, you were not an evil person, simply one who was misled by an extreme faction of humanity. I'm not sure of the Islamic faith, but the Christian faith realizes the fickle nature of the human spirit and only requires you to ask forgiveness and repent for your sins.
Katherine, my heart is broken for you. I would be beside myself if my husband simply died. I would be absolutely insane if I had to manage my husband's untimely death while reconciling the fact that he died after murdering someone all under the camera glare of media harassment and a bloodthirsty American public who won't even allow you to bury his body. My heart goes out to you.
And this is for everyone else:
Get the fuck over yourselves. The dude killed three people. Three. Fucking. People. You won't even pause to think about the thousands of people who die violently every day, the tens of thousands we've killed in much the same way in Iraq and Afghanistan, but you somehow find it in yourself to passionately hate a single human being who set off a bomb and killed three whole people. I'm not one to quantify suffering, but seriously.
Just so you know, in your heart of hearts, you are no better than the people bent on killing us. Hatred is as hatred does, and you are clearly incapable of rising above the animalistic nonsense that drives terrorism. You suffer from the worst kind of hypocrisy. You may be able to save face, but as soon as you speak words of hatred, as soon as you condone persecution, as soon you condemn an innocent family to suffering for the actions of another, the high horse that you sit upon topples to the ground and you become a squealing animal, bathing in the shit pool of your own moral assertions. If you believe that the Tsarnaev family is not worthy of same consideration you would give your neighbor, then I am ashamed to call you my countrymen.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Pissy Atheists
What's worse than a born-again Christian shoving the bible down your throat? It might be an Atheist waving Hitchens in your face. Well, I don't know if the Atheist is worse, but he's at least on par with the Christian.
I once went to something called a "Reason Rally" in DC (I'm an atheist) and, while I was impressed with a multitude of the speakers there, but the headliner was none other than Richard Dawkins and at the end of his speech, he trumpeted the rally cry of (quite literally) "Insult them thoroughly and publicly."
I'm sorry, but the Dawkins/Hitchens soap box speech gets old, especially Hitchens. I wish I could understand what he's saying, but unfortunately, I speak neither Asshole nor Fuckish. The sad thing is, the dude had some really great points, but they were so heavily punctuated with insults and obscenities that all I heard was "I'm a classless and pompous ass." It's like he's actively trying to project that image. Dawkins is a little better. He at least comes off as a rational person.
And the thing that tears me up is that these stupid little Atheist kids follow their example. The secular movement is a good thing. It encourages equal protection of the law. It encourages education and critical thinking skills. It supports the vital role of scientific understanding. And, most importantly to me, it encourages people to break down the barriers built by creed. But when its representatives make it a priority to abuse the viewpoints of others, it degrades the whole movement.
And honestly, who are you guys kidding? You're not crusaders for some great cause, you're bullies. You use inflammatory tactics that generally insult and demean your opponent. You say you're "taking a stand" or "proving a point," but that justification always follows an onslaught of insults, personal digs, and just enough worldly knowledge to make the opponent feel like they don't know what they're talking about. It's not a conversation, it's an assault, and people see that. It doesn't matter how right you are, nobody's going to listen to someone who presents their argument like a fucking asshole.
Think about it. The two biggest religions in the world are Christianity and Buddhism, and their figureheads were passive peacemakers who preached endlessly about the virtues of love, compassion, and service. The two most famous social leaders of the 20th century were MLK and Gandhi. Those people were famous not only because they were peaceful, but because they were effective.
Atheists are trying to liberate society from the bonds of organized religion. Or at least that's what they say, but they can't get over themselves enough to really think about how to implement it. Shit, we can't even get past infighting. Conversations between Atheists are fucking brutal. Way more brutal than conversations between Christians. Fuck.
I once went to something called a "Reason Rally" in DC (I'm an atheist) and, while I was impressed with a multitude of the speakers there, but the headliner was none other than Richard Dawkins and at the end of his speech, he trumpeted the rally cry of (quite literally) "Insult them thoroughly and publicly."
I'm sorry, but the Dawkins/Hitchens soap box speech gets old, especially Hitchens. I wish I could understand what he's saying, but unfortunately, I speak neither Asshole nor Fuckish. The sad thing is, the dude had some really great points, but they were so heavily punctuated with insults and obscenities that all I heard was "I'm a classless and pompous ass." It's like he's actively trying to project that image. Dawkins is a little better. He at least comes off as a rational person.
And the thing that tears me up is that these stupid little Atheist kids follow their example. The secular movement is a good thing. It encourages equal protection of the law. It encourages education and critical thinking skills. It supports the vital role of scientific understanding. And, most importantly to me, it encourages people to break down the barriers built by creed. But when its representatives make it a priority to abuse the viewpoints of others, it degrades the whole movement.
And honestly, who are you guys kidding? You're not crusaders for some great cause, you're bullies. You use inflammatory tactics that generally insult and demean your opponent. You say you're "taking a stand" or "proving a point," but that justification always follows an onslaught of insults, personal digs, and just enough worldly knowledge to make the opponent feel like they don't know what they're talking about. It's not a conversation, it's an assault, and people see that. It doesn't matter how right you are, nobody's going to listen to someone who presents their argument like a fucking asshole.
Think about it. The two biggest religions in the world are Christianity and Buddhism, and their figureheads were passive peacemakers who preached endlessly about the virtues of love, compassion, and service. The two most famous social leaders of the 20th century were MLK and Gandhi. Those people were famous not only because they were peaceful, but because they were effective.
Atheists are trying to liberate society from the bonds of organized religion. Or at least that's what they say, but they can't get over themselves enough to really think about how to implement it. Shit, we can't even get past infighting. Conversations between Atheists are fucking brutal. Way more brutal than conversations between Christians. Fuck.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Quote: "Terrorism"
Ok. I get it. People died, Boston was shut down, people are hurting. Death is always grievous, especially when it's unexpected. Especially when the people dying are innocent civilians.
What I don't understand is why we react so strongly to isolated events like bombs and shootings but we are apathetic and even sometimes vitriolic toward the death and destruction that happens every single day. In our country and around the world.
I mean, three people died. Three. I know that more were injured and I know that three families are grieving tremendously. But still. Three.
Why is it that the violent death of three people is more shocking to us than the thousands of violent deaths that occur everyday? Why are victims of bomb explosions more deserving of our consideration than the victims of domestic or gang violence? For that matter, why are we up in arms about a bomb exploding in Boston when we don't even pause for victims of the same fate in Afghanistan? I'm sorry, but victims are victims, whether they happened to die in a bomb explosion in Boston or not.
Also. Bombs. Why is it that the idea of a bomb exploding has us shaking in our boots, but the ease with which a criminal or psychopath can get a gun is not only ignored, but actually endorsed and supported by a large margin of people?
The American public's image of terrorism only encompasses immigrants, bombs, and public places. And for some reason, this woefully one-dimensional image of terrorism lurks in our minds, posing as the single greatest threat to the American way of life. It has us giving up core rights like a fair/speedy trial and illegal searches/seizures (but fighting tooth and nail to preserve the "constitutional right" to unlimited magazine rounds...)
We have expended so much time, money, and energy protecting ourselves from "terrorism." We have sacrificed so much. Yet we neglect those victims that live in terror every day from other forms of violence. Gang violence, domestic violence, human trafficking, police brutality, hate crimes, even deportment... And that's just in our own country. I haven't even touched Syria or Uganda. Or the terror that we've imposed on innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The summation of rage expressed by the American public about the Boston bombing compared to our complacency concerning other violence in our own country and around the world only confirms our ignorance, our ethnocentrism, and our utter and complete hypocrisy.
What I don't understand is why we react so strongly to isolated events like bombs and shootings but we are apathetic and even sometimes vitriolic toward the death and destruction that happens every single day. In our country and around the world.
I mean, three people died. Three. I know that more were injured and I know that three families are grieving tremendously. But still. Three.
Why is it that the violent death of three people is more shocking to us than the thousands of violent deaths that occur everyday? Why are victims of bomb explosions more deserving of our consideration than the victims of domestic or gang violence? For that matter, why are we up in arms about a bomb exploding in Boston when we don't even pause for victims of the same fate in Afghanistan? I'm sorry, but victims are victims, whether they happened to die in a bomb explosion in Boston or not.
Also. Bombs. Why is it that the idea of a bomb exploding has us shaking in our boots, but the ease with which a criminal or psychopath can get a gun is not only ignored, but actually endorsed and supported by a large margin of people?
The American public's image of terrorism only encompasses immigrants, bombs, and public places. And for some reason, this woefully one-dimensional image of terrorism lurks in our minds, posing as the single greatest threat to the American way of life. It has us giving up core rights like a fair/speedy trial and illegal searches/seizures (but fighting tooth and nail to preserve the "constitutional right" to unlimited magazine rounds...)
We have expended so much time, money, and energy protecting ourselves from "terrorism." We have sacrificed so much. Yet we neglect those victims that live in terror every day from other forms of violence. Gang violence, domestic violence, human trafficking, police brutality, hate crimes, even deportment... And that's just in our own country. I haven't even touched Syria or Uganda. Or the terror that we've imposed on innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The summation of rage expressed by the American public about the Boston bombing compared to our complacency concerning other violence in our own country and around the world only confirms our ignorance, our ethnocentrism, and our utter and complete hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)