Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Random thought of the day...
As I sit here watching the news talk about the ongoing hatred towards gays, especially of those who want to adopt or already have, I am struck with a thought; why is it "ok" (or becoming more increasingly ok) for some kids to have 2 moms(and/or dads)? Yet when it comes to a child who is adopted by a more "conventional" family(ie 1 mom & 1 dad) the mother,who's DNA that child carries, gets demoted to merely a "birthmother"? A child who is adopted isn't allowed to have 2 mothers. For the most part, there usually HAS to be a distinction of some sort. Anybody care to weigh in?
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Colorado's proposed Amendment 62
This time of year always brings out the nastiness in folks; all the political ads and what not. (Not to mention the impending holidays that are rapidly approaching.) I honestly wish I could just fast forward, and be done with it all. I didn't get my ballot in the mail this year as I normally do or I would have voted early. Alas, election day is finally here and by the end of the day I can turn the volume back up on my tv during commercials.
In the state I live, there is a proposed amendment on the ballot that is attempting to define "personhood". We had a similar amendment at the last election as well. So you can imagine the debate that ensues. Each time I see such an amendment, it always gets the wheels a turning in my brain.
I immediately think of all the pregnant women who have been murdered . Two cases in particular stand out for me: The murder of Cherica Adams by Rae Caruth and Carol DiMaiti Stuart's murder by her husband. I am the first one who wants justice for that child who wasn't allowed to reach gestation. It makes me madder than a wet hen to see criminals get away with murdering a child in utero simply on a "technicality". But the reality is that is just another unfair part of life. I wish this amendment was about saving those children, or future children, but it is not.
I can understand wanting to protect mothers and their unborn children. TRUST ME, I GET THAT! ;-) I have absolutely no problem with it. However, that is not the reason behind proposed amendment 62. Make no mistake, said amendments are backdoor attempts to get around legal abortion. Especially when one takes a closer look at the wording of this amendment. If this was REALLY about respecting life and giving women an "alternative" to all of the other "options" (as I was informed by a caller from a coalition support this amendment, looking to gain my vote) & not limiting access to contraceptives, then the wording would be precise and well defined. There would be no wiggle room. It is the lawyers(ie professionals for arguments sake) who write these "ballot bulk" items, not the actually lay people or groups who back these ideas. Yes they are the driving force behind these types of items, but if the real person, place, or thing, is far dangerous in my opinion. It's the foundation in which these ideas come to be: religion.
How do I know this you ask? I don't know anything for certain, but I can read between the lines. Especially if one is to take recently created,"religiously based"political parties into account. I have seen quite a few political candidates regurgitate the exact ideas that I was taught as I grew up "in the church". Some of these politicians make no bones about where it is that they get their "ideas" from. Others come close to the line with out actually crossing it. Either way, most can read and see things for themselves. For me I would have more respect if one's moral compass came from any other place rather than religion. I would love to hear people who oppose abortion not out of some religious reason but just as a matter of morality.
Defining when one actually becomes a person is a slippery slope at best. If we start there, where do we stop? The common argument I hear is that certain (if not all) forms of birth control would then become illegal. I just can't help but think this whole thing is a more about a certain groups values being thrust down the throat of of others. Because if it was REALLY about "saving babies" then there would also be a push for women to keep their babies single or not. It just kills me because these are the same people who want to kick folks off of welfare or limit it somehow, yet they are attempting to take away a woman's right to actually use family planning? The door can't swing both ways at the same time. These "people" are condemning others for being poor while simultaneously pulling the rug out from underneath them, limiting their access to certain forms of birth control(among other things) all because it's against ones religion"???? I don't know about anyone else but you know what I hear? A group of people trying to push their values and morals down my throat all the while telling me "We know better than you what's in your best interest when it comes to you & your family." The worst part of is they are trying to use the government to do it! Kind of gives credence to the whole idea that this is all about money.
This is how I get there: if it wasn't about money then why is it the only other "option"(under the conditions this amendment would possibly open the door to creating) besides marriage would be adoption??? No birth control, no abortions just those 2 options: marriage or adoption. Marriage can be and usually is cheaper than adoption, generally speaking. Adoption is NEVER free. Once again, guess who has the money? This same group of people! They already HAVE MONEY to assist others BEFORE they become pregnant unexpectedly, but suddenly they only really seem to "care"(ie dole out the "assistance") once there is a baby involved. That tells me it's not about the baby at all. Truth be told, it's about that baby's soul and ultimately religion and the furthering of said religion. (Pick which ever one fits, there are plenty to choose from) It's about passing judgment and giving while expecting something in return. (Most of the time a baby.) It's "compassion" with an asterisk.
What ever happened to being TRULY compassionate, caring, and most importantly, Christ like? In all the years I went to church I NEVER once heard or read a proverb where Jesus withheld love and support because he didn't like how someone was living their life. As a matter of fact it was the other way around. He reached out to those exact people. He went in and mingled with the "lowlifes" of that time; the lepers, the prostitutes, the poor, the needy. He wanted to let them know that society may have forgotten them but he had not. He reached out to let them know that they too were worthy of love, ESPECIALLY HIS LOVE! It was his reaching out to those that others dared not come into contact with, that contributed to his death. He made the religious figures of that time look bad. He put his words into action. He didn't hide behind a robe & point fingers & belittle; he got down in the "trenches" with the people of that time. My (now lost)point is this: Being compassionate to others shouldn't come with strings attached or certain conditions needing to be met. It's done because there is a need for it to be done. How compassionate is it to tell someone they can't have Plan B or an abortion after being raped simply because those forms of birth control go against another's personal beliefs? How compassionate is to allow fellow human being fall by the wayside and only offer assistance when it makes another "look good" or allows them to gain something in return? (ie a baby?) Make no mistake, there is no compassion when it comes to Amendment 62..only judgment and self righteousness.
In the state I live, there is a proposed amendment on the ballot that is attempting to define "personhood". We had a similar amendment at the last election as well. So you can imagine the debate that ensues. Each time I see such an amendment, it always gets the wheels a turning in my brain.
I immediately think of all the pregnant women who have been murdered . Two cases in particular stand out for me: The murder of Cherica Adams by Rae Caruth and Carol DiMaiti Stuart's murder by her husband. I am the first one who wants justice for that child who wasn't allowed to reach gestation. It makes me madder than a wet hen to see criminals get away with murdering a child in utero simply on a "technicality". But the reality is that is just another unfair part of life. I wish this amendment was about saving those children, or future children, but it is not.
I can understand wanting to protect mothers and their unborn children. TRUST ME, I GET THAT! ;-) I have absolutely no problem with it. However, that is not the reason behind proposed amendment 62. Make no mistake, said amendments are backdoor attempts to get around legal abortion. Especially when one takes a closer look at the wording of this amendment. If this was REALLY about respecting life and giving women an "alternative" to all of the other "options" (as I was informed by a caller from a coalition support this amendment, looking to gain my vote) & not limiting access to contraceptives, then the wording would be precise and well defined. There would be no wiggle room. It is the lawyers(ie professionals for arguments sake) who write these "ballot bulk" items, not the actually lay people or groups who back these ideas. Yes they are the driving force behind these types of items, but if the real person, place, or thing, is far dangerous in my opinion. It's the foundation in which these ideas come to be: religion.
How do I know this you ask? I don't know anything for certain, but I can read between the lines. Especially if one is to take recently created,"religiously based"political parties into account. I have seen quite a few political candidates regurgitate the exact ideas that I was taught as I grew up "in the church". Some of these politicians make no bones about where it is that they get their "ideas" from. Others come close to the line with out actually crossing it. Either way, most can read and see things for themselves. For me I would have more respect if one's moral compass came from any other place rather than religion. I would love to hear people who oppose abortion not out of some religious reason but just as a matter of morality.
Defining when one actually becomes a person is a slippery slope at best. If we start there, where do we stop? The common argument I hear is that certain (if not all) forms of birth control would then become illegal. I just can't help but think this whole thing is a more about a certain groups values being thrust down the throat of of others. Because if it was REALLY about "saving babies" then there would also be a push for women to keep their babies single or not. It just kills me because these are the same people who want to kick folks off of welfare or limit it somehow, yet they are attempting to take away a woman's right to actually use family planning? The door can't swing both ways at the same time. These "people" are condemning others for being poor while simultaneously pulling the rug out from underneath them, limiting their access to certain forms of birth control(among other things) all because it's against ones religion"???? I don't know about anyone else but you know what I hear? A group of people trying to push their values and morals down my throat all the while telling me "We know better than you what's in your best interest when it comes to you & your family." The worst part of is they are trying to use the government to do it! Kind of gives credence to the whole idea that this is all about money.
This is how I get there: if it wasn't about money then why is it the only other "option"(under the conditions this amendment would possibly open the door to creating) besides marriage would be adoption??? No birth control, no abortions just those 2 options: marriage or adoption. Marriage can be and usually is cheaper than adoption, generally speaking. Adoption is NEVER free. Once again, guess who has the money? This same group of people! They already HAVE MONEY to assist others BEFORE they become pregnant unexpectedly, but suddenly they only really seem to "care"(ie dole out the "assistance") once there is a baby involved. That tells me it's not about the baby at all. Truth be told, it's about that baby's soul and ultimately religion and the furthering of said religion. (Pick which ever one fits, there are plenty to choose from) It's about passing judgment and giving while expecting something in return. (Most of the time a baby.) It's "compassion" with an asterisk.
What ever happened to being TRULY compassionate, caring, and most importantly, Christ like? In all the years I went to church I NEVER once heard or read a proverb where Jesus withheld love and support because he didn't like how someone was living their life. As a matter of fact it was the other way around. He reached out to those exact people. He went in and mingled with the "lowlifes" of that time; the lepers, the prostitutes, the poor, the needy. He wanted to let them know that society may have forgotten them but he had not. He reached out to let them know that they too were worthy of love, ESPECIALLY HIS LOVE! It was his reaching out to those that others dared not come into contact with, that contributed to his death. He made the religious figures of that time look bad. He put his words into action. He didn't hide behind a robe & point fingers & belittle; he got down in the "trenches" with the people of that time. My (now lost)point is this: Being compassionate to others shouldn't come with strings attached or certain conditions needing to be met. It's done because there is a need for it to be done. How compassionate is it to tell someone they can't have Plan B or an abortion after being raped simply because those forms of birth control go against another's personal beliefs? How compassionate is to allow fellow human being fall by the wayside and only offer assistance when it makes another "look good" or allows them to gain something in return? (ie a baby?) Make no mistake, there is no compassion when it comes to Amendment 62..only judgment and self righteousness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)