It's hard not to get frustrated watching two politicians dance around a touchy topic. Especially, when I expect grown-ups to be smart. Frustrated by their skirting a certain issue I run to type on my computer...and this is what I was thinking...
Let's imagine there is a land developer who has some old properties he wants to blow up/bring down so that he can build a shopping center or something. It's his property. His money. His future. His right to do with his own property as he chooses.
So, the whole demo team is there one day to blow up the building. Just as they're about to push the button…some guy with a Peta shirt comes running into the area, "No! Stop! Don't! There's a momma labrador retriever in there with a buncha' puppies! Stop!"
Now. The property owner could react a few ways.
One way he could react would be to look up and see this whack-job environmental rights tree hugging Peta fella' running at him...roll his eyes and say, "Get outta' here you whack-job environmentalist tree hugger! What the hell do you know about my building?" Then, without investigating the claim, proceed as planned and blow up the building.
And, if the land developer did that…that would say something about him, wouldn't it?
Another way the guy could react would be to look up and see this whack-job environmental rights tree hugging Peta fella' running at him…roll his eyes…signal to his demo team to "wait", sigh, shake his head, and say, "What are you talking about? Why do you say this?" and actually listen to the guy. Then, still rolling his eyes and feeling quite annoyed…he could actually send in a team to investigate to see if there really is a momma lab and puppies in that building or not.
And, if the land developer did that…that would also say something about him, wouldn't it?
Which of the two reactions would you think is more intelligent? More foolish?
The way I see it…the first way is the way both sides of the political debate handle the abortion question. One side looks like a buncha' radical whack-jobs wanting to stop people from doing with their own property what they want. The other side just looks at disgust at the claims and without investigating…simply proceeds.
Back when abortion was pushed into legalization it was a whole different world when it came to information and facts. We didn't have Google. We didn't have the Internet. We didn't have all pregnant ladies going for ultrasounds and books full of prenatal photography. We didn't have neurobiologists investigating the development of the human brain all the way back to the moment of conception and writing books about it. Back in the 70's all we had were these ancient things called libraries and those libraries...were not full of books with fetal photography, or books written by neurobiologists that could tell us "what" the abortion debate was discussing.
What we had back in the 70's was the news. It wasn't even on 24/7 but you had to watch it at certain times of the day or you missed it. What we had were some powerful people making the news as they were trying to legalize something they felt strongly about. This something was something that the general public was completely ignorant about and had no way of personally investigating or challenging the catchy slogans and inflated and false statistics.
These slogans and false data appealed not to some evil baby-killing lust of the American public. No! Slogans like, "It's my body my choice!", "Keep the government off my body" and all the false/mis-representational data like calling the baby "a cluster of cells" and "the products of conception" appealed to the empathic, loving, and trusting side of the American public who felt that this was a reasonable and helpful way to get women out of a tough situation.
What annoys and frustrates me listening to these "educated" people in politics and others on TV when they discuss abortion is that their discussion is still back in the 70's. Their discussion hasn't progressed to 2012, Google, and modern technology. We still argue slogans, rhetoric, and misrepresented data. The actual facts are kept far away from the discussion because most people don't think any farther than their parents threw them (they just believe what they were raised to believe) or because some know that as soon as the facts are exposed then the entire discussion will have to change.
I've seen this happen in my own life...
See…back a few months ago I was faced with such a turning point in my own life. Starting in 2010 I'd started pounding on the weight. I could feel it. And, it troubled and effected me all the time. I argued with myself about it round and round every day. It troubled me when I shopped for clothes. I was uncomfortable in public. But, do you know what I would not do? I would not weigh myself.
Not only would I not weigh myself but I also got MAD whenever someone even hinted at the truth by say…taking a photo of me. My oldest daughter was scared into never EVER daring to post ANY photos of me on Facebook lest she endure my wrath! Yes! If I saw full body photos of me they incited me to feel anger.
The truth hurts. And, so when we don't want to hear it we get mad, don't we?
In all my years I've not once seen any intelligent discussion on TV about abortion where the facts were discussed. Only rhetoric, slogans, and opinions. Everyone arguing over who should be able to decide the fate of the not born human based on...opinions and slogans.
But, ya know…back to my imaginary land developer situation...it would not matter how that momma labrador and her puppies got into the building or who owned it…the only thing that an intelligent person could do when faced with the dilemma of, "if you do this someone or something might die" is to investigate and find out the truth.
The only intelligent thing for that imaginary land developer to do would be to go in and see if there really is a dog in there or not…and to base his decision and discussion about his building on that.
If upon investigation he would discover there really was a dog in there as asserted by the guy he saw as a whack-job...once his error has been proven...the only intelligent thing for him to then do would be for him to approach the whack-job environmentalist and say, "My hat's off to ya. You were right." And, THEN…proceed with blowing up his building.
Or, if he goes into the building and sees that it's just a buncha' old stuffed animals…then the intelligent (and probably fun thing) for him to do would be for him to come out…drop the evidence at the whack-job's feet and ask, "Can I now proceed?" And, at that moment the only intelligent thing for the environmentalist to do would be to say, "My apologies. Thank you for checking."
So, whose right is it to decide when a human being is to have their life ended unnaturally if that human being has not yet left the uterus? Who has the right to "push the button" and "bring down the building?" The "property owner?"
Obviously, the woman should have the right to decide to do with her own body whatever she would choose…as long as the claims of what is INSIDE that body are investigated first.
And, so far…they haven't been.
This is why the discussion continues because as long as the discussion is about opinions...the discussion will never end. Everyone's opinions are equally valid. But, facts are facts.
Both sides are really stubbornly displaying their childish ignorance by sticking to the slogans and technology of the 70's. The anti-abortion side has not done their homework and is generally uneducated about what's "in the building". They stick to the old slogans and to pulling the "God Card." And, the pro-abortion side is like me not wanting to stand on the scale. Show them a photo of an aborted baby and watch the anger erupt (almost as bad as me when my daughter would post fat pics of me on Facebook!)
Right now…our country is stuck in the 70's, not looking at the scale, justifying whatever they want to do and getting mad at anyone who wants them to step on the scale and face the facts.
No one…would have a problem telling that land developer what he could or could not do with his own property if it was an indisputable fact that there was a momma lab and puppies in that building who'd be killed if he blew up his own property. No one would cry that the government was imposing its morality on him to stop him from killing that family of dogs. No one would think of themselves as anti-land-developing if they joined in to stop the man from blowing up the building.
And, if that man focused on asserting his rights as a man and a land owner and insisted on his right to ignore the claims that there was a family of dogs in his building and he insisted on his right to blow up his building without interference…if he asserted that this decision was to be made between him and his finance director in the privacy of his own office...and that it was no one else's business…yes…that man would sound like what?
The land developer could say, "Well! It's not MY dog! I didn't put that dog in there!" And, use that excuse to justify proceeding with the demolition.
The land developer could say, "My ex-wife put that dog in there just to cause me problems!" And, use that excuse to justify proceeding with the demolition.
But, it wouldn't matter how the dogs got in there would it? The only thing that would matter in the decision whether or not to demolish that building or not would be "are there live dogs in that building?"
So, rape? Incest? Some people wanna try to say they're, "pro-Life"...but...with exceptions. They think they're holier and more noble than the plain old, "pro-Choicers." But, the pro-lifers-with-exceptions have the SAME OPINION as the pro-choicers...and that is, "If I feel/agree that the woman's pregnancy is very unpleasant then she should be able to abort." The difference between the pro-choicers and pro-lifers-with-exceptions is the scale of unpleasantness. Pro-choicers find financial stress or deprivation of schooling to be unpleasant enough to abort. Pro-lifers-with-exceptions believe that being raped would be unpleasant enough. They think they have different beliefs but they both believe the same thing. "If I feel the woman's pregnancy is very unpleasant then I agree she can end it unnaturally." That's it. Neither of them address the only thing that makes a difference and that is, "what is it!"
Unless the essence of what is conceived is completely different when the conception occurs in a very unpleasant or traumatic manner...then the discussion of the pleasantness of the conception is all a matter of opinion and is therefore completely irrelevant.
If that life conceived even during a traumatic act of sex is a human being…alive and growing...then that changes the discussion. And, that's the question that needs to be openly discussed by both sides.
In the last 40 years it's been 50 million abortions in the US?
We'd better hope that once the intelligent discussion is opened up, that it turns out that those claiming that there's a LIFE inside "that building" are wrong…'cause if you can imagine the fuss there'd be if a building owner went ahead and blew up a building and in the rubble they found a momma dog and some puppies after all? Can you imagine the Facebook pages, petitions, boycotts, websites, and news reports about this horrible, selfish, stupid man who just recklessly brought down that building even tho' the Peta guy had come and told him the little animal lives were inside there? That's the ruckus that'd start over one momma dog and some puppies destroyed because some man decided to do with his own building what he wanted to without thoroughly investigating the claims that there was life in the building…and this is over dogs...so imagine the ruckus there should be over the US gov't allowing 50 million human babies to be destroyed…
I wonder if I'll ever see such an open discussion in my lifetime? Old habits die hard, and this is a 40 year long cultural "habit" with too many people who are "guilty" of promoting the abortion culture that I doubt we'll ever be brave enough for it to happen...
For me...I had to get sick and end up in the hospital on a scale to see what I weighed...
I wonder what that will be for the US? What will make us finally "step on the scale" and see what's really "in that building?"
- - -
Fetal photography of a legally abortable 20 week old female...