opinion

Life and Living

Standard

image

(It says: “Until life within the womb of a mother is safe, life outside the womb will never be safe.”)

(*Note: I saw this earlier today and I had an opinion on it to share. Not all of my reflections this Lent will be on my positive journeying through the forty days. I have many things that cross my mind in a day, and this was today’s.
Trigger warnings for abortion and choice.*)

I could not disagree with this more. In fact, I find it offensive that this is part of a so-called pro-life campaign.

In fact, I think the opposite is true: it is our obligation to care for those already born and through education and appropriate birth control, abortions will, and have been going steadier, lower.

The false equivalency of a fetus and a grown person having the same safety concerns tells me that the person who wrote this sign doesn’t understand the real issues that women in this country, pregnant or not, face on a daily basis.

Is abortion really less safe than being born without a spinal cord or a brain stem?

Is abortion really less safe than starving and dying in poverty?

Is abortion really less safe than living in a chronically abusive household?

Do we really care more for our unborn than our already born? Our persons of color? Our single parents? Our foster kids? Our child victims of rape who are forced to carry babies to term when their emotional states and their physical bodies are not ready for it?

Shouldn’t we begin with taking care of those outside the womb first? If we can’t get that right, how can we presume to know what’s the best options for inside someone else’s body?

We also know that a fetus could not survive on its own without its physical attachment to the mother, the host, unlike people who are already living, breathing, thinking human beings. It is not a symbiotic relationship; it is strictly one-sided. If you remove the baby from the situation, the mother will still be alive. The opposite is not true.

I would prefer less bumper sticker sanctimony and more real world options without the attack on pregnant women at every turn.

An Uncomfortable Conversation

Standard

Recently while I was driving, my eight-year old daughter started a conversation asking how people had babies. After a moment of almost going off the road I realized that she wasn’t asking how they are made but how they were born. She already knows they grow in women’s tummies. I’ve had three C-sections, so I started there, but eventually had to get into vaginal birth and it was still very basic, no problem.

Then the tougher questions came.

“Do I need to have a boyfriend to have a baby?”

Okay, good moment to express my equality stance by saying, no, you don’t need a boyfriend. You don’t need to be married. You can have a girlfriend. You can be married if you want. (There was a tangent taken that you do need a boy and a girl to make a baby, but you’re too young so we’re not going to talk about that, but no, you can be single and have a baby.)

So far, so good. Or really just satisfactory because this is the most uncomfortable, but necessary conversation to have with your child.

Then it got tougher still.

“What if I don’t want to have a baby?”

You don’t have to have one.

“What if someone wants to make me?” (No idea where this came from, but she was concerned about it.)

I won’t let them.

“What if you’re not there?” (Thanks for reminding me of the fragility of life and my impending mortality.)

If you don’t want to have a baby, there will be people who care about you who will make sure that you don’t have to have one. Or a boyfriend if you don’t want one. But don’t worry about that now, okay? You have a long way to get there.

Okay.

I could feel us both near tears by the end of this conversation, and I guess I put it out of my mind.

She was satisfied with the answers; I was satisfied-ish with my answers and all was well until the next time this subject (or another one like it) comes up.

This was weeks ago, and this morning at about 3am, I suddenly woke up and realized that with the way things are going in this country, my daughter may be more prescient than I thought. The irony that this came to me unbidden on the eve of the birth of Jesus is not lost on me. Perhaps he is the child of the most famous, single teenage mother to date. Not only a single mother, but a person of color living in her parents’ house, struggling with some tough decisions that a teenage girl should not have to make. Obviously, we know how her story ends; the Archangel Gabriel asked her and her faith led her to her decision, her assent to becoming the Mother of G-d.

I tried to ignore the replay of that conversation with my daughter in my head. It would not go away. I spent two hours tossing and turning and not sleeping when I realized sadly how relevant that exchange was.

What I thought of as a little girl’s worries about things she doesn’t understand are more relevant to today’s women than I realized.

There are women today who are forced to give birth against their will because someone else decided that they can’t have an abortion.

They became pregnant in the first place because someone else decided that they can’t learn how to prevent pregnancy.

Someone else decided that they can’t choose their own birth control and family planning; that their reproductive rights are nothing more than an antiquated notion as they are patted on the head and sent on their way.

These same people, who find the names of their football teams sacred, who can’t say the word vagina even when legislating against taking care of it, who choose to have vasectomies and abandon their own children are deciding that my child can’t make her own choices.

I realized that this world is not as far off as I thought it was.

In stating that I wouldn’t let anyone do that to her, it was the knee-jerk reaction of a mother protecting her child, but I won’t be there forever. Who will protect her rights when I’m gone?

We need to fix this now.

Right now.

No more Rick Brattins, representative of Missouri who wants a woman to have the permission of the father to get an abortion.

No more Bob McDonnells, former governor of Virginia, who wants to force women to undergo an unnecessary and invasive medical procedure before having an abortion (which has thankfully been ruled unconstitutional recently in federal court.)

No more Joe Walshs, Republican representative who said that there should be no exceptions to anti-abortion legislation including if the life of the mother was at stake.

No more Sam Brownbacks and Scott Walkers, governors of Kansas and Wisconsin respectively who followed Bob McDonnell’s trans-vaginal ultrasound stance.

No more Todd Akins and Richard Mourdocks.

This needs to stop.

Abortion needs to remain safe and legal for ALL women regardless of circumstances and socio-economic disparity.

We need to teach girls and boys alike that abortion is a last resort, but it is always an option. If we weren’t so afraid of premarital sex being the official bogeyman of a teenager’s life, we could talk about real reasons why teens should wait for sex. We could teach comprehensive sex education including PREVENTING pregnancy, which in itself would prevent abortions.

We wouldn’t be demonizing contraceptive drugs in their non-birth control use and glorifying and making easily available men’s erectile dysfunction drugs which are held up in every advertisement as take this, have sex.

I won’t be around to protect my daughter and make sure that her wishes for or against pregnancy are followed.

I need the rest of this country to look out for HER INTERESTS instead of their own.

At eight years old, my daughter should not be worrying about people making her have a baby or forcing her to have a boyfriend or be married if she wants a baby.

At eight years old, she may not fully understand it, but she knows it’s wrong and it worries her.

It worries me too.

The Republicans win the Senate

Standard

The headline I woke up to was ‘seize’ the Senate, but really it was simply apathy that won the day. And before someone says it, two more Senators does not a mandate make.

Where would we be if every eligible voter votes and voted their conscience? I think Congress would have a completely different make-up.

For the most part, the Republicans I know personally all have good hearts, but the money disparity in the campaigns (thanks to Citizens United) can no longer be ignored. When “corporations are people, my friend” and women aren’t, there is a serious misconception (no pun intended) in what constitutes equality and fairness.

Does anyone who voted Republican truly think they’ve made a difference? Do they think that Republicans will turn this dwindling economy around? They won’t. They’ve had six years and have focused on social politics that get them money and votes, but not jobs when even registered Republicans have answered the polls negatively; have stated that the focus on marriage equality and reproductive rights/conception is their platform even when their constituents don’t want that.

They have had the power in the House to take care of the economy and help Americans but instead, they’ve provided gridlock worse than an L.A. freeway or the NJ Turnpike on Thanksgiving weekend and if humanly possible it will only get worse. They will concentrate on making their fortune while continuing to do nothing.

They’ve contributed to hate talk, fear-mongering, to fact-ignoring and in its place they’ve offered “if I say it, it must be true, no matter how ridiculous.”

We’ve become a nation of paradoxes:

a land of immigrants who are anti-immigration.

a land of GI Bill recipients and subsidized housing that wishes its disabled veterans would go away, preferably quietly.

a nation that promotes the porn industry in private and then blames the subjugated for how they are treated.

a nation of individuals unless your individuality is that of transgender youth wanting to use the bathroom without harassment.

a nation of equality unless you’re a woman exercising your reproductive rights or a black teenage boy walking down a street.

It’s hypocrisy at its worst, and it will only get worse.

I propose a solution to this lame duck Congress. Instead of wasting two years getting nothing done and paying for it, waiting for the next election and watching the blame game dance of pass the House & Senate, vetoed by the President, we banish them ALL and hold the election again.

We have seven weeks.

Everyone back to your corners, everyone given the same exact amount of campaign funds, no interest groups, no DNC, no RNC, and EVERY AMERICAN ELIGIBLE VOTES.

Let’s see where this country stands when push comes to shove because this – what we have now – is worse than 1775 and we know what happened then.

Instead of GOTV, how about GOYA!

Vote.

Serve jury duty.

Help your neighbor.

It’s not someone else’s problem; it’s everyone’s problem.

Where is the respect for a differing opinion? Buried under piles of interest group money.

It’s time to fix this system before it’s too late.

Beliefs: Faith and Social

Standard

I’ve been thinking on this part of this ask for weeks now and the way my mind works this may or may not flow well. One thought led to another one and things expanded from there. This is the portion I’ve concentrated on:

“To be a member of the Roman Catholic church means that you accept that the Pope is infallible when he speaks on matter of faith, and is communicating the the true will of God. That also means that you accept that acting on homosexuality is sinful and disordered, separates one from Christ, and that gay people are called to celibacy, as the Pope has stated.”

 

I know a lot of religious people have opinions on social issues and politics based on their concept of their religious teachings, their interpretation of the Bible and their surroundings (the people they know, their experiences.) I’ve also never heard of homosexuality being ‘disordered’. I’ve also said before that priests were previously allowed to marry, and if not marry, there was an open secret that they had women and children who were acknowledged by the church officials.

I don’t know where along the way there was this mix-up between social, moral, civil lives and faith. I’ve always thought of religion separate from religion. That may be having grown up in the US with the Bill of Rights as my benchmark.

Continue reading

Reconcilling Church Beliefs and LGBT Issues

Standard

I was recently asked how I reconcile church doctrine and my faith with issues like LGBT and I didn’t answer the question very well. After some time to think, I realized that it’s easier than you might think.

First, I try not to inflict my views on others. If I’m asked, I will say. Obviously, this is my blog and I give my opinion freely. I’m willing to engage in debate, and on some issues there is no middle ground. I also try really, really hard to keep an open-mind, much more open than many I know and I hope that people will listen to my views as deeply as I listen to theirs.

With LGBT in particular, I don’t see a conflict at all. The Bible isn’t written by G-d; it is an interpretation of G-d’s laws and a historical primer. It’s well established, including by the church that the four Gospels were written well after Jesus died and by people who did know him personally. After reading Reza Aslan’s book, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, I wonder how different the church would be if James had lived to be an elder in the church and Paul had been executed, but that is a different debate.

Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Bible and anywhere it’s inferred, it is ambiguous at best.

Any parts that talk about man lying with woman or marriage is between a man and a woman discounts polygamy and concubines as well as if a woman was barren (or presumed barren) as well as if the man died and his brother married the widow. Some consider the deep abiding friendship between David and Jonathan to be a tacit approval of homosexuality, not to mention that same-sex relationships have been around since the beginning of time. Most marriages were a contract with the end result being progeny. In fact, when Jacob was deceived and married Leah without knowing it, he was permitted to marry Rachel after seven years of work. Clearly that marriage was not one man and one woman and he was an indentured servant to pay for his bride, which is a whole other can of worms.

My second point, and more importantly, LGBT is not an ice cream flavor. You don’t walk into Baskin’ Robbins and choose one or two or however many scoops you want. Whether or not someone is LGBT is a biological fact. Gender is biological. Orientation is biological. It, like race, cannot be changed or adjusted to someone else’s liking.

Marriage equality, employment hiring and firing practices, housing, medical treatment – these are all things that every single person is and should be entitled to.

LGBT is not a gay issue. It is a civil rights issue.

When you have a great civil rights leader such as John Lewis agreeing on this issue, it is easy to see the comparisons to the rights of African-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s.

When 38 states can fire you for being transgender, when your legal marriage isn’t recognized in another state, when the military had been turning away qualified men and women because of something biological but not detrimental to their service, it is easy to see how this is a civil rights issue.

Equal rights for everyone benefit everyone.

As far as the church goes, I believe in the separation of church and state. What this means is that the church can’t inflict its doctrine on my civil rights and the civil authority cannot force religious institutions to provide for things not in their doctrine. I would not tell the church to start performing same-sex marriages, but the church should not be telling the state that they can’t be done in a civil venue.

The topics of reproductive rights and gynecological and medical procedures that conflict with religions and health insurance is a different debate and one that I would write on in the future if anyone is interested in my opinion.

The Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Standard

Today is the forty-first anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Whatever side in the political abortion debate you’re on, we should all be of the same mind to equally protect the already-living and giving women the equality and the respect of autonomy over their own bodies.

I find it hypocritical that many of the same people who are anti-abortion are also pro-death penalty, anti-food stamps, anti-unemployment insurance, anti-birth control and anti- anything that will benefit women who choose to have their children and single mothers, some of whom are in crisis. Many lack health insurance and pre-natal care, which is the difference between a healthy pregnancy and a death sentence for the mother.

In all the conversations I’ve had with pro-choice people, not one of them has ever been pro-abortion. It is one of the most difficult decisions that a person ever has to make. The choices available should also be available to all women and not only the women in abusive situations. There are many reasons to have an abortion, and they are as individual as there are pregnancies.

For me personally, I had the right and the opportunity to make the choice. I don’t know what I would have done, given my mental state at that time without that choice. My choice was the right one for my family and me, and that should be all that matters to anyone facing that decision.

Everyone wants to eradicate abortion, but instead of shaming women (and some of these women are victims of assault, incest, domestic violence, economic disadvantage), we should be helping them. We should be making legitimate health, gender and sex education available, which includes how the body works and all those uncomfortable but anatomically accurate words, contraception, reproductive choices and rights for everyone instead of the constant barrage of misinformation about our bodies and suggesting that abstinence is the only answer when many of these pregnant girls and women didn’t have any choice or say in the matter of getting pregnant in the first place and would have chosen abstinence if their rapist had offered it.

We should put more value on girls and women as individuals, not as baby carriers and then maybe they would understand how their bodies work and have more respect for themselves.

Don’t misread that last statement. Having respect for yourself doesn’t mean not having sex; it means that you like yourself and can make informed choices without Puritanical shaming on every decision you make.

In fact, we give more bodily autonomy to cadavers than we do women. We need written consent to donate organs or to participate in ongoing scientific research. How is it even possible in this day and age that we are against reducing pregnancies and for abolishing abortions? It’s oxymoronic.

At least give out the correct information and the condoms. Continue to promote abstinence, but just like touching the stove for a toddler, we wouldn’t say no we’re not treating that burn – you should have abstained from touching the stove.

Whether you are for or against abortion, keep it safe and legal or many more than unborn will die. And please stop putting more value on unborn than on the already living.