Abortion Rights

This article is based off my own opinions, supported by a few of the things I have read about abortion rights. In no way does this reflect the opinions of ANYONE ELSE.

I am Pro-Choice.

I can't understand why a cluster of cells in a woman's uterus has any right to life simply because that cluster has the potential of becoming a solid life form. That's like saying that a woman's egg and a man's sperm have a right to life and therefore shouldn't be "killed". It doesn't make any sense to me at all.

I also can't understand why Pro-Lifers believe that if abortions were legal, women would be having them left and right for ludicrous reasons. As far as I know, frivolous abortions don't exist, and if they do, they are few and far between. Most women who want abortions simply don't have the means of taking care of the child when its born, including women in poverty, rape victims, women subject to abuse from their partner, etc. Others know their baby won't survive outside the womb. But the problem for these women is that, because of the government (state governments included) and fierce Pro-Life lobbyists, they can't receive abortions unless undergoing shame-inducing tests or "invasive 'transvaginal sonomgrams".

For example, I watched a video where an angry father, whose baby, if born, would have no bladder or kidney. The Pro-Life advocates yelled at him and his wife for getting an abortion, trying to make them feel guilty and horrible, and he stepped up to the plate and fought back. I commend this father for doing what he thought was right, and I agree with him. No mother should have to get yelled at and trodden on on the worst day of her life.

I read some of the comments below the video, and one person's comment in particular caught my eye. The username "misscrackerjack" posted a comment saying that the couple should have had the baby anyway, and that there "could be some medical procedures" to save the baby's life.

I couldn't believe what I was reading. Does this person really believe that this couple should put themselves and their baby, if they did have it, through expensive, delicate medical procedures, for just a CHANCE at life, with no guarantee that the baby would live? Why in the world would they put the child through that?! I believe that the parents made the right decision in aborting the baby. Their child would have had little to no chance at life, and if it did, what would be the cost?

And I'm not just talking about medical expenses. The physical and emotional baggage that couple would have to carry if they had tried to get the baby to live after birth and it didn't make it... I can't even begin to imagine how that would feel.

Why not, instead of giving birth to children who might not live, we started adopting children whose parents have abandoned them? Why aren't Pro-Lifers doing that instead of making other people feel horrible about themselves? That would be something productive. Why not give those children a home? They need someone to love them and take care of them.

I'm actually thinking about doing it myself. I mean, I still plan on having my own child someday, but I know that there are children who need a family and I'm more than willing to take them into my home and give them one. Well, when I'm on my own two feet and have a job and a house and everything.

Anyway, I really think that Pro-Lifers need to do something more productive and beneficial to society than yelling at women who are getting abortions. I also don't appreciate the fact that they're shoving their opinion down the throats of everyone else. My belief is that if they don't like it then they can just avoid it. Stay away from women who are getting abortions. Stay away from abortion clinics.

Besides, whoever gave them the right to take control over what I do with my body? Or anyone else's for that matter?

No one, that's who.

Gay Marriage?

You know, one of the main arguments against gay marriage really confuses me. Whenever I watch the news or read articles about gay marriage there's always someone there to say that it would ruin the "sanctity of marriage."

Sanctity of marriage?? That is the weakest argument that anti-gay-marriage advocates can come up with. There is no such thing as sanctity of marriage. There's no way to preserve it if it doesn't exist. Oh I know you might think I'm a heathen or something who doesn't believe in God or the Bible or whatever (or maybe you're not thinking that at all, I would have no idea seeing as I can't read minds :D)

But here's my question, for those of you who do believe that legalizing gay marriage would ruin the "sanctity of marriage."

If there is such a thing as "sanctity of marriage" and we have to do everything to preserve it, why is there a such thing as divorce?

I read an personal essay by Scott Bidstrup that lists all of the arguments against gay marriage and the absurdities behind them. He poses questions that I'm sure that not many people think about (people on both sides of the argument). I like this essay because he doesn't attack the opposition, but instead takes their arguments and turns them upside down.

You guys should read it. But I have to go now. Job hunting :D

Ra ra ra a aaaaa

That title has absolutely nothing to do with what this post will be about, but I'm mean and want that song to get stuck in your head.

I'm currently in my philosophy classroom waiting for my teacher to get here and for class to start, and while I'm doing so I keep thinking about an article I read about Rush Limaugh bashing on the First Lady because of her diet and anti-obesity campaign.

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh decided to poke fun at Michelle Obama for her hypocrisy in her anti-obesity campaign. She'd been seen eating quite a lot of junk food, like hamburgers, sausage, pizza, and potatoes at various outings including the Super Bowl. Though she has said that she has never been an advocate of eliminating junk food completely, Rush Limbaugh still felt the need to talk about her waistline.

When I first read this article I felt a bit of anger for many reasons. One of the main reasons is that I don't particularly like Limbaugh or how he presents information. However, after seeing a few points of view from others who read the article, I have to say that I can't disagree with his hidden message. And that message is that Michelle Obama shouldn't be telling Americans what they can and can't eat without following her own rules. However, this is the first time I've heard about her "Let's Move" campaign, so I don't know her whole story either and cannot in good faith give an accurate report.

Maybe you can read the article yourself (link given above in the word: article) and give me your opinion on the subject. I'm always up for debate. For now, however, class is starting and I need to go.