Violated...
Listening to: The 8 fans of my rig.
Dringking: Red Bicyclette Merlot
With the relative torpor of the holidays, it was easy to rest one’s mind, relax one’s habits and fall in the crowd of excuses that form the funeral procession of good intentions. Thus this blog laid dormant for 2 months. It was going to take an earthquake to shake my lethargic abandon and, for good or bad, this earthquake happened: South Dakota challenged women’s choice.
I first want to say that you will not read my personal opinion about abortion in these lines. The reason is fairly simple; not being a women and never, in this life at least, having to face this choice, I do feel I lack all the elements necessary to cast an enlightened judgment on the subject. You may of course disagree… I have been told many times that not being a woman is not the problem, that the fate of an innocent life is the problem. Granted, this may be, but I just refuse to get dragged into an argument that involves more faith than reason.
What I really feel strongly about, though, is the fact that this country was founded upon a concept of freedom, which includes freedoms of and from religion. Thus, I do not see why we should consider a Judeo Christian view of a topic when drafting laws, which is exactly what is being done in South Dakota. The fact that a category of the population thinks, because of their faith, that abortion is not acceptable does not make it a crime for those who do not embrace their particular faith. Once again, I am not saying that abortion is or is not acceptable for me, just that I do not wish to infringe upon others’ choice. Just what kind of arrogance is needed to think that one’s opinion is the only valid one? Did I just sleep through a long trip and have I landed in one of these Middle Eastern theocracies? Maybe is it time for our nation to tell the theocrats that their particular breed of Taliban is not acceptable in the United States of America. Then there is the ‘rational’ argument…
Many ‘pro lifers’ maintain that the infant is a being since conception and thus has rights, just as any other human. This leads us to the question: when is a fertilized egg a human being? Once again, I will not get into this debate, considering that it clearly is impossible to determine who is ’right’ or ‘wrong’ the issue resting upon belief rather than mere facts. I will however raise the point that many ‘pro-lifers’ I talked to are in total support of the war. I am not sure I understand the ability to conciliate this vehement fight for an unborn life with the blind acceptance of the legalized extinction of life that is war. Of course, being non violent makes me biased but I cannot help but wonder what the difference is between the fetus and the grown individual in their right to life. Just because someone belongs to another faction does it make their life less worthy of living? Only in self defense would I raise my hand in violence and even then, I would hesitate to kill. After all, life is the most precious commodity and how can we show the way to peace if we were to allow our actions to contradict our words. Also, what about those of the ‘pro-lifers’ who admit being in favor of the death penalty?
So next time you express your fervent opinions about the right to live, think about the entirety of your beliefs and try to be coherent. This being said, in our country, personal freedom always trumps religious laws and so I encourage you to raise your voice in disagreement if you feel that the recent events in South Dakota constitute a threat to the American way of Life.
As an alternative, check out ‘The Prevention First Act’(Senate Bill 2458 and House Bill 1073) and take action at http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/ppan_pfa/wxwdx8w215kt5we?
Now go on make the world a better place.
Pierre out.
With the relative torpor of the holidays, it was easy to rest one’s mind, relax one’s habits and fall in the crowd of excuses that form the funeral procession of good intentions. Thus this blog laid dormant for 2 months. It was going to take an earthquake to shake my lethargic abandon and, for good or bad, this earthquake happened: South Dakota challenged women’s choice.
I first want to say that you will not read my personal opinion about abortion in these lines. The reason is fairly simple; not being a women and never, in this life at least, having to face this choice, I do feel I lack all the elements necessary to cast an enlightened judgment on the subject. You may of course disagree… I have been told many times that not being a woman is not the problem, that the fate of an innocent life is the problem. Granted, this may be, but I just refuse to get dragged into an argument that involves more faith than reason.
What I really feel strongly about, though, is the fact that this country was founded upon a concept of freedom, which includes freedoms of and from religion. Thus, I do not see why we should consider a Judeo Christian view of a topic when drafting laws, which is exactly what is being done in South Dakota. The fact that a category of the population thinks, because of their faith, that abortion is not acceptable does not make it a crime for those who do not embrace their particular faith. Once again, I am not saying that abortion is or is not acceptable for me, just that I do not wish to infringe upon others’ choice. Just what kind of arrogance is needed to think that one’s opinion is the only valid one? Did I just sleep through a long trip and have I landed in one of these Middle Eastern theocracies? Maybe is it time for our nation to tell the theocrats that their particular breed of Taliban is not acceptable in the United States of America. Then there is the ‘rational’ argument…
Many ‘pro lifers’ maintain that the infant is a being since conception and thus has rights, just as any other human. This leads us to the question: when is a fertilized egg a human being? Once again, I will not get into this debate, considering that it clearly is impossible to determine who is ’right’ or ‘wrong’ the issue resting upon belief rather than mere facts. I will however raise the point that many ‘pro-lifers’ I talked to are in total support of the war. I am not sure I understand the ability to conciliate this vehement fight for an unborn life with the blind acceptance of the legalized extinction of life that is war. Of course, being non violent makes me biased but I cannot help but wonder what the difference is between the fetus and the grown individual in their right to life. Just because someone belongs to another faction does it make their life less worthy of living? Only in self defense would I raise my hand in violence and even then, I would hesitate to kill. After all, life is the most precious commodity and how can we show the way to peace if we were to allow our actions to contradict our words. Also, what about those of the ‘pro-lifers’ who admit being in favor of the death penalty?
So next time you express your fervent opinions about the right to live, think about the entirety of your beliefs and try to be coherent. This being said, in our country, personal freedom always trumps religious laws and so I encourage you to raise your voice in disagreement if you feel that the recent events in South Dakota constitute a threat to the American way of Life.
As an alternative, check out ‘The Prevention First Act’(Senate Bill 2458 and House Bill 1073) and take action at http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/ppan_pfa/wxwdx8w215kt5we?
Now go on and make the world a better place...
Pierre out.