Tag Archives: pro-choice

The A-Word

There are some words in the English language that when spoken tend to make people cringe. There’s, of course, the mother of all dirty words: the F-word. There’s the C-word that especially drives the fairer sex to shudder, or so I’m told. And then there’s the A-word. Not to be confused with the other A-word which is commonly followed by hole. (Oddly enough, censors have decided hole is a more offensive term than ass. Hole is the word always bleeped out on broadcast television when combined with that A-word.) The A-word I’m alluding to is probably the most cringe worthy word when mentioned in our society at this moment in time. I am, of course, talking about abortion.

Admit it. You just cringed. And a good number of you are now saying, “Oh no he di’int.” Well, yes I did just go there. I’m well aware discussing this topic is a no-win situation for me, but I really don’t care. I also realize both the pro-choice and the pro-life advocates are extremely passionate about their chosen stance. I think there are sensible arguments to be made on both sides, but when the rhetorical idiocy and politicizing enters the fray – and it always does – the extremists’ and alarmists’ voices drown out any rationale thinking and hinders all bipartisan discussion.

You’re either a sanctimonious conservative Christian opposed to civil rights, or you’re an immoral liberal gung-ho on killing babies. Those typically are the only two categories of people offered by the media. You are either an anti-abortion extremist fond of abortion clinic bombings, or your views align with Michelle Wolf’s who recently said, “Don’t knock it till you try it! And when you do try it, really knock it. You know, you gotta get that baby out of there.” The “comedian” equates anti-abortion as being anti-woman, proclaims “men are irrelevant” in this matter, and finds humor in quipping, “God bless abortions and God bless America!”

I’m a moderate when it comes to the A-word. I assume my chosen stance is quite the anomaly in this country, but hopefully not. I believe life begins with a heartbeat – usually detected at six weeks after intercourse. Therefore, my thoughts on the A-word are based on that premise, and I think anything goes in a pregnancy up to that point. That’s surely why I’m a proponent of the “morning-after pill.” The single dose does not abort a baby, but it does prevent fertilization if taken in time. The pill is fairly inexpensive and highly effective up to five days after engaging in unprotected sex.

I think this allows a woman the best chance of having peace of mind since she’ll truly never know if she would’ve become pregnant. Sort of like the old-time firing squads that enabled a sense of “diffusion of responsibility” by issuing one firearm containing a blank cartridge amongst the firing squad. Nobody knew for certain if he actually participated in the execution. I also believe Planned Parenthood is not the evil that some portray the vital organization as being. The reproductive health agency offers numerous services other than abortions. Planned Parenthood was a godsend to me and the missus prior to and during our first year of marriage.

I absolutely think abortion should be legally available in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in jeopardy. I think legalized abortion should be an option in some cases of unwanted pregnancies as well. For example, the hormonal fifteen-year-old who makes a mistake and afterwards has no means to properly care for a child. She should not be coerced to carry a baby to term for adoption purposes either. I think if the government forces motherhood on a woman then the government has to be willing to financially support the child for as long as needed. But at the same time, women who continue to choose to bear children they cannot afford should not be rewarded with an abundance of government funding.

I’m definitely not entirely onboard with the pro-choice notion that a woman’s body is solely hers to do with what she wants. None of us, male or female, realistically have total control of our bodies. There are laws against prostitution and drug use, and the government can quarantine any human body with an infectious disease, such as tuberculosis, at any time. It also seems a bit unfair that the man has no real voice in the matter – because it does take two. However, it is probably proper for the woman to have the final say on whether or not to give birth. Proper up to a point.

I do not think abortion should ever be used as a method of birth control. Acquiring an abortion after the first trimester of a pregnancy should not be as readily available as Michelle Wolf desires. But banning abortion entirely is just as silly. I’m completely fine with the government imposing restrictions on abortion once a heartbeat is detected. I am relieved we currently have a conservative majority in the Supreme Court although I don’t anticipate any significant changes coming concerning the A-word. The Supreme Court Justices are there to interpret congressional laws, and the lion’s share of them tend to rule with high regard for set precedents.

Right or wrong, or somewhere in between, those are my thoughts on abortion. The goal of this essay is not an attempt to radically change people’s minds. It’s simply intended for all to consider what they may have never considered. I also think it offers some hope that we are capable of engaging in a much more civil dialogue regarding the A-word.

Advertisements

Pro-choice

As time goes by I realize I’m being discriminated against more and more often, and I’m certain it’s only going to get worse. I’m not being treated unjustly because of my race (that’s another story) or due to my religious beliefs. I suppose I could be considered a victim of age discrimination since I’m singled out and treated differently based on my fondness for “the good old days.” I’m mostly discriminated against though for maintaining a pro-choice attitude pertaining to advanced technology that is obviously running rampant in the world today. I’m not opposed to progress, but I am against forcing it on people.

“The man” (whoever he is) insists we blindly accept change, whether we like it or not, without even considering the consequences. He continuously and vigorously imposes his will on us until ultimately we are either too exhausted to continue resisting or else we’re left feeling inadequate when we don’t succumb. I often think the younger generation, who I’m beginning to suspect may be “the man” (in this instance), is eagerly waiting for those of us a bit leery, of their pursuit of never-ending advancements in technology, to expire. The reason being there would then no longer be any of us left, to challenge the only kind of life they’ve ever known, regardless of how well-intended we were with our warnings.

Fortunately, “the man” has failed a time or two in the past when attempting to get everyone on board with his agenda although not for his lack of trying. We currently continue to have the option of reading books, magazines, and newspapers without the aid of technology. However, I’m positive offering periodicals on-line and books via the Kindle was intended to replace all paper copies of those types of literature. Thank goodness that hasn’t happened (at least not yet). I reckon there is still enough of us on this earth, who prefer perusing a genuine newspaper on Sunday mornings, to halt any inclination publishers may have for offering on-line editions only. The day I lose that choice is the day I become an ignoramus because I refuse to read a book or a newspaper on a computer screen.

I thought compact discs were finally safe from extinction, but now I’m not so sure. I recently discovered, while vacationing in North Carolina with my family, that cd players are no longer prevalent in some of the newer vehicles. Our rented Chrysler 200 came equipped with extensive “bells and whistles,” almost to the point of being too confusing to drive, yet the mid-size car was void of a compact disc player. I can understand omitting the cassette tape player, as a standard feature in newer models, because that format of recorded music is no longer even produced. I can also understand why a manufacturer might provide a way to attach an iPod to the vehicle’s speakers since many people are entrenched in that sort of technology. What I can’t comprehend though is why the cd player is apparently being phased out when approximately 50% of the population continues to fancy purchasing CDs instead of downloading music off of the internet.

I figured the people had already spoken, in regards to preserving compact discs, and I no longer needed to worry, but I guess the verdict is still out. I have well over a thousand CDs in my collection, but my only alternative in North Carolina was listening to a lame radio station while cruising in the rented Chrysler. I experienced another unwanted encounter with advanced technology, during my outing in the Tar Heel State, and once again (as expected) I was not a fan. My family and I went out for an ordinary dinner, but the restaurant’s ordering process was anything but ordinary. We entered the establishment expecting the simplicity of good food and good conversation, but instead we were instantly forced to kowtow to a newly acquired piece of state-of-the-art-technology. We were informed the iPad setting on our table was actually our menu. The waitress explained how convenient the contraption was, for all concerned, but of course to my chagrin.

My anxiety level immediately rose like a launched rocket ship. The young lady tried teaching us (mostly me) how to use the gadget, but I probably would’ve been better off trying to learn Chinese. I did discover that successfully swiping a computer screen with my finger, navigating through numerous food items and over 150 beer options, was extremely difficult, confusing, and tiresome. The waitress’ proclaimed convenience, for using the iPad, was in actuality our inconvenience in disguise. If it weren’t for my tech-savvy son, sitting at our table, we might’ve died from starvation before the evening was through. I don’t think dining out should be that complicated; therefore, I can’t imagine ever going back there in spite of how tasty the food and beer might have been.

Once in a while we’re seemingly given a choice, but when a negative consequence accompanies one of the options, but not the other, is it then really a choice? For instance, some grocery stores now offer their customers additional savings if they download the week’s digital coupons onto their shoppers’ card. We all have a similar card, yet only those who go on-line before shopping gets the luxury of receiving more for their money. Not everyone has a smartphone, and not everyone owns a computer: whether due to modest finances or simply by choice. Regardless, penalizing people based solely on them not embracing technology seems unfair. I think it’s blatant discrimination.

Unfortunately, Starbucks has recently expanded their love of advanced technology as well by offering a new promotion deemed “Mobile order and pay.” Also a bit unfair. They are literally encouraging customers to “skip the line” by doing everything on their electronic devices. At Starbucks it’s no longer first-come, first-served…it’s first-texted, first-served. It pains me to know my favorite place to write is part of the problem although I’m not willing to sacrifice my grande, dark roast coffee (with free refill) for the sake of fairness. I’m a very weak man when it comes to my Starbucks fix.

I had my first inkling, approximately a dozen years ago, as to where our nation was most-likely headed concerning its admiration for advanced technology. My lovely wife and I were dining out one evening when I noticed a gentleman romancing his cellphone instead of his female companion. I vividly remember how engrossed the man was with his tiny object and how defeated the ignored woman, seated across from him, looked. I pointed out the awkward situation to my wife, and we both agreed it was truly a sad sight to behold. The clueless man continuously ogled and caressed his electronic date for the duration of their stay. Now, the previous scenario has become the rule, not the exception, in today’s society. Spying an assortment of electronics on nearly every table in a restaurant is commonplace nowadays. I assume if people are willing to forgo conversations with their loved ones, while out for dinner, then it’s fairly conceivable they’re probably not sufficiently interacting with one another at home either.

I’m troubled that droves of people have become so attached to their electronic devices even to the point of idolatry. I’m also concerned about what other types of technological discrimination is waiting for us just around the corner. Here’s where I’m suppose to say, “To each his own.” I’m not lobbying to thwart the advancement of technology, but I am adamantly opposed to being forced into a lifestyle I believe is detrimental to relationships. Just because it’s the norm that doesn’t make it right. I presume some of you are guilty of rolling your eyes, at some point while reading this, and mistakenly referring to me as a dinosaur or else making some sort of horse-and-buggy wisecrack. If so, I’m left wondering why. I assuredly have no desire to make the horse-and-buggy my main mode of transportation, but I hold no animosity towards anyone who does. I’m not anti-technology…I’m just pro-choice!