i know this "blog" hasn't been getting updated on the regular basis it used to. so i intend to change that. im going to try and just totally go insane and post as much shit as i can. but while i'm working on that, ill leave you with a paper i just recently wrote for my "im pretty sure i took this in middle-school" rhetoric class. ENJOY!
Abortion and Its Effects on Society as a Whole
Out of the all the issues in the world today, abortion could easily be singled out as one of the most important. Of all the differing viewpoints, counterpoints, rhetoric, propaganda and such, it still comes down to one basic question: Should women have the right to make any choices concerning their bodies? In my opinion, the answer is most definitely a "yes". Who is to say what we do with our own bodies, female or not? Why should we give up our basic human rights to a governmental entity, possibly fueled more by politics and money than human interest? When we start leaving our own personal decisions up to faceless "representatives," can we be absolutely sure that they have everyone's best interests at heart? This problem cannot be resolved due to the nature of our governmental system. It's not a question of morals, religion, or fundamental beliefs. It's one that is about a human's right to make choices, the choices about our bodies, our well being, and the well being of others.
This is where the argument becomes more complex. The pious declare that it is morally wrong to take the life of an unborn child, no matter what the cost. Christianity dictates that God is the decision maker, the omni-potent, and taking the life of an unborn child is a sin. That is a valid argument, but a hypocritical one in my opinion.
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
I consider myself a reasonable man, with reasonable ideals and motives. That is why hypocrisy among the enlightened is such a frustrating concept. The concept of Pro-Life should be just that. Not just it should consider the lives of unborn children, but the ones still living on this earth, the ones living in our state wards, in our broken homes, even on the streets we call our own. Where is their special interest group? Where is their congressional lobbyist? The simple fact is that Pro-Life ends at birth. Another single mother persuaded, but most importantly, another potential abortion averted. Now the child can go home with its mother, unsure of the future ahead. Who is to say what the future holds? If a pregnant woman is seriously considering abortion, I cannot see how she could let herself be swayed, either by religious rhetoric or by the guilty feelings acquired from society. An unwanted pregnancy is just that. The woman is not ready for children, plain and simple. Why force her into coming to term? The majority of abortions are from single women, a child out of wedlock. (usstat 2001) God said killing another human is a sin. Under that logic, I would have to say that the three day-old cells reproducing in a mother's womb are just as important as a serial rapist and murderer on death row, and vice-versa. If so, why are so many Pro-Life proponents also supporters of the death penalty? Is it save the innocent, destroy the guilty? I wonder whatever happened to:
"Judge not, lest ye be judged."
-Jesus Christ (judgenot 2005)
That quote sums up the whole situation that Pro-Lifers, and those who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, face on a moral basis. I don't see how is it righteous to save the 'life" of an unborn child, while it is also righteous to point fingers and pull switches on those who are less fortunate. When did the life of an unborn child become more important than the life we all live in together as a society?
It has been shown that the majority of people who are pro-life also happen to have conservative or extremist political views. This is the current Republican Party; a party whose support for banning abortion, gay marriages, and anything else us God-fearing Americans don't like, is all just the typical banana-on-a-string political ploy. These men are not righteous; these men are the war-mongers, the epitome of greed, gluttony, and sloth. The very sins we spend our lives trying to not commit, the government seems to revel in. I can see the reasoning for the contradiction, though. The government openly fights the causes we feel need fighting, and keep their own self-serving interests under the table. If we can't see it, it must not be there. These contradictions are on the verge of obscenity, right along with their amount of sheer apathy.
A person who is Pro-Choice might as well refer to themselves as Pro-Death. I know that seems a little ironic. It sounds more like useless slander, just trying to further the fight for the rights of unborn children. That still just brings me back to my original point, my main opinion. When did the rights of living, breathing, walking, talking human race come in second to those of an unborn fetus? How are we now the insignificant ones, when we are the providers and decision-makers in everyday life? No matter at what cost, abortion should always remain legal. The laws even need to be loosened in a lot of areas, such as the 18 and under rules and availability of the 72-hour pill. How would this help us as a society? A lot of children who are wards of the state wouldn't exist. (penn 1998) That statement may seem shocking at first, but it requires some thought. It has become common knowledge that a person is not born a criminal, such behavior is learned. A community full of un-raised, under-funded, and under-appreciated children is a breeding ground for the underbelly of society. We should then think about that one fetus; that unborn, untainted sample. Now its mother has ceased that was soon to be. That is one less child, one whose only future is becoming just another victim of society.
Are the things we value most in life also the things that will destroy us? It may be a rhetorical question, but it is one that should still make us think. It seems to make me think about some certain questions, questions such as: "Is it a good thing that some states are passing laws that will ban all abortions, even in the cases of rape and incest? Is human life so important, that we would force a woman to give birth to a child conceived under such conditions? Do we care so much about the life of the unborn, that we're apathetic towards the other lives that could be destroyed? Is it right to allow a child into this world whose quality of life will be considerably sub-standard? Is a heartbeat the only thing that defines such a life?" These are all just different ways of expressing the original question at hand. It may seem repetitive, but it's the only way I can find the truth behind my own thoughts and opinions. From this, I've come to learn that the best way to find the answers is to ask the questions that have none.
I am sure my opinion of abortion is not likely the most popular one. That is the beautiful thing about this country, the fact that every opinion has the right to be heard. The problem I have isn't with a person's opinion in general, but with the amount of significance that we give to it. One day, we will all understand the true failure of our society. We leave it up to uninformed politicians to make decisions for which matter the most, and the choices they make will be the destruction of the lives they have fought to create.
Howse, Brannon. "How "Judge Not" is Destroying America"
World Net Daily.com. 14 May 2005
Blaum, Paul. "Welfare Reform, Abortion Restriction Polices Create Paradoxical Outcome"
Penn State Population Research Institute. 25 August 1998
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Abortion Surveillance: Preliminary AnalysisUnited States, 2001."
U.S. Abortion Statistics, 1972-2001
Drinking coffee could cause cancer, according to lawsuit. To be fair, not drinking coffee results in FIST OF RAGE [Scary] - [image: Scary] [link] [7 comments]
20 minutes ago