In Sight

12 hours from now, the polls open in Florida.  And they close in 24 hours.  That is all that is left of the 2012 Election, unless some state “pulls a Florida” and finds a way to extend the counting of votes for another month (see 2000 election).

In 12 hours, I will be at my local precinct casting my ballot.  If you have followed along recently, it might be obvious who I am voting for.  I am proud of who I am voting for, and yes, I am better off now than I was four years ago (not that the question that answers was the only thing I considered).  I have the rest of my ballot in front of me, and I have pretty much have made up my mind on the candidates and other issues on the ballot.

I will not be voting to authorize an amendment to our state constitution that basically eliminates the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (Amendment 1, Article 1, Section 28).  Nor will I vote to authorize an amendment that all but eliminates abortion in our state (Amendment 6, Article 1, Section 28), even if the authors of the amendment were nice enough to leave a few “provisions” in there for rape, incest, or life of the mother.  I think I have made it clear in past entries where I stand, but if not, click here, or click here to read how unrealistic it is to even have those provisions there in the first place.

No matter who you are voting for tomorrow, or have already cast your vote for, you are probably like me in one way:  you are happy that hearing that some candidate “approved this message” over and over again.  I am also a little sad that the election will be behind us, because it seems like there has been a plethora of things for me to write about, and I will have to look harder in the future.  But, I guess I should not get too upset, because politicians are going to talk, and when they do, something ridiculous is bound to come out of their mouth.

Nicely Said

I am not cocky or self-centered enough to claim that I know it all, or that I always say things in the best way.  While I wish that more people were that way, this is not about that point.

I do not know for sure that David Frum is smarter than I am; I can suspect that he is, but I do not know for certain.  What I do know for certain is that David Frum is more articulate than I am.  Take, for example, his article on CNN.com regarding abortion (here).  He basically says what I have been thinking, but have had trouble articulating.  Let’s dive right in, right after I disclose that Mr. Frum is no bleeding heart liberal; he was a Special Assistant to President George W. Bush in 2001 and 2002.

Let’s look at the very first question he poses in response to Richard Mourdock’s comment regarding rape (which I am not going to put here again):

“OK, Mr. Mourdock, you say your principles require a raped woman to carry the rapist’s child to term. That’s a heavy burden to impose on someone. What would you do for her in return? Would you pay her medical expenses? Compensate her for time lost to work? Would you pay for the child’s upbringing? College education?

“If a woman has her credit card stolen, her maximum liability under federal law is $50. Yet on your theory, if she is raped, she must endure not only the trauma of assault, but also accept economic costs of potentially many thousands of dollars. Must that burden also fall on her alone? When we used to draft men into the Army, we gave them veterans’ benefits afterward. If the state now intends to conscript women into involuntary childbearing, surely those women deserve at least an equally generous deal?”

How does one respond to that?  I will say this, the question Mr. Frum posed puts the ball squarely in the court of those who want to scream down those who think that women should have a choice.  Those same people who scream for “smaller government,” but want to regulate what goes on in the bedroom or with a woman’s body.  My Mourdock post generated an interesting comment, and I have included my response:

thinkovationsays:

October 30, 2012 at 8:48 am(Edit)

You’ve misunderstood the sentence.

The “thing” that God intended to happens was “Life”.

He’s saying that even when a life is created in that horrible situation of rape, it is still sacred.

TommyKsays:

October 30, 2012 at 9:29 am(Edit)

I in no way misunderstood the sentence.  Just as, in your opinion, the sentence meant one thing, my opinion is that it read the way I interpreted it.  That is the cool thing about opinions.  And I get a little tired of people being righteous and telling me that I misunderstood this or that, or that I made the wrong conclusion.  Why can’t you, or people like you, accept that people have a different opinion than you?  Please stop trying to make it to where everyone who differs in opinion from you is wrong.  Do you speak for God in this case?  I do not think so.  Please do not cite a Bible verse or ten here, either.  The Bible was written by men, and there have been selective omissions along the way.  Is is truly God’s full word, or has stuff been left out for convenience along the way? There is no justification, in my mind, to force a woman who is raped to carry a baby to term.  She should have the choice, and if she chooses to do so, that is up to her and her alone.

I love when people try to badger me in to agreement.  And I really love when people try to say that I have “misunderstood” something or another.  You can see from my response how I feel about people getting all high-and-mighty with me.  I am a pretty smart guy, and I take exception when people try to belittle me or my views because they differ from their own.  That is childish and narrow-minded of them, in my opinion.  Maybe my commenter is one of those who feel that a rapist should have parenthood rights to a child created by their disgusting act.  That tells me all that I need to know.

But back to Mr. Frum.  He continues by offering examples of how other countries handle abortions:

As a general rule, societies that do the most to support mothers and child-bearing have the fewest abortions. Societies that do the least to support mothers and child-bearing have more abortions.

Germany, for example, operates perhaps the world’s plushest welfare state. Working women receive 14 weeks of maternity leave, during which time they receive pay from the state. The state pays a child allowance to the parents of every German child for potentially as many as 25 years, depending on how long as the child remains in school. Women who leave the work force after giving birth receive a replacement wage from the state for up to 14 months.

Maybe not coincidentally, Germany has one of the lowest abortion rates, about one-third that of the United States. Yet German abortion laws are not especially restrictive. Abortion is legal during the first trimester of pregnancy and available if medically or psychologically necessary in the later trimesters.

Maybe using Germany as an example will scare people in this country.  “Socialism” they will cry.  “Smaller government” they will scream.  But as Mr. Frum points out, Germany has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world.  Our country, on the other hand, has a lot of pro-lifers who will bomb abortion clinics yet seem to care less about the child after they are born.  In the womb, they care a lot; outside the womb, the mother is on her own (that is not to say that all pro-lifers are that way).

Mr. Frum concludes with this:

A woman who enjoys the most emotional and financial security and who has chosen the timing of her pregnancy will not choose abortion, even when abortion laws are liberal. A woman who is dominated, who is poor and who fears bearing the child is likely to find an abortion, even where abortion is restricted, as it was across the United States before 1965.

Rather than tell us what you’d like to ban, tell us please what you think government should do to support more happy and healthy childbearing, to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to alleviate the economic anxieties of mothers-to-be? 

(emphasis mine)

Take a look for a minute at what I have in bold italics.  A woman who is dominated is likely to find an abortion even where restricted.  Interesting.  You mean to tell me that restricting rights of women will not stop them from making decisions about their bodies?  Or how about, instead of telling us what will be banned, tell us how we can help women so that they do not exercise their right to choose to have an abortion?  That’s a novel concept.  I hear and read from pro-lifers all the time about banning abortions, but they never want to provide any alternatives.

I have read Mr. Frum’s article several times, and I can assure that I did not misunderstand or misinterpret what he wrote in any way, shape, or form.  I wish that people would stop trying to “school” me or “educate” me when it comes to this stuff.  I am not expert at all, but I have a well-formed opinion and will steadfastly defend it.  I know I am not likely to change too many minds, and that is ok.  I always find it funny how people like me, who are often called a “liberal” like it is a bad thing tend to be more accepting of opposing views than those who could call themselves conservatives.  I guess maybe it is because I was raised to respect other people and their right to have an opinion, and to realize that I cannot make everyone agree with me.

I encourage you to comment on this, or any other blog I write.  Please do so in a respectful manner and without talking down to me or anybody else.  If you cannot bring yourself to do so, refrain from commenting here and start your own blog to get your voice out there.  This forum will be used for productive debate, but I will not tolerate being demeaned or talked down to.  If you do comment, I may respond to you, and I will make every effort to be respectful of your view.

They Have Rights?

This is not something I enjoy writing about, and frankly, I was hoping to not have to write about it anymore after being attacked so fiercely for asking a question on another blog a while back.  Because of my question, I was basically called a “baby murderer” by someone who proved themselves both ignorant and intolerant for not being able to differentiate the definition of certain words.  But this is not about that.

This is more about one specific aspect of my original question, and that is the pregnancy that can result from a rape.  According to the CDC, rape results in about 32,000 pregnancies each year (source).  Add in the emotional stress, the fear, the anxiety, and anger that goes along with the attack, not allowing the victim to have the choice to terminate said pregnancy is barbaric and almost has sort of a caveman view to it.  Yes, some victims may choose to carry that baby to term, but they make that choice on their own.  Just like others should be allowed to make a choice to not carry that child to term.  The commenter I referenced above asked me why the baby should also be a victim of the rape by being aborted, and my response is to ask why the victim should be forced to be reminded, in a very physical and tangible way, every day about the attack.  I guess for that commenter, the psychological toll is not enough.

More to the point of this entry.  Should the victim choose to have a child conceived during a rape, 31 states grant the rapist fatherhood rights.  Read that again, just to make sure you read it right.  31 states protect the rights of the rapist when it comes to being a parent to a child conceived during their attack.  Todd Akin, of “legitimate rape” fame, and Paul Ryan, running for Vice President, co-sponsored a bill, HR-3, which will establish that, in the event of a rape causing a pregnancy, there really was never a rape because a pregnancy occurred.  The bill would also nullify the laws of the 19 states that do not allow the rapist to have rights as a father.

In what world does it make sense to allow fatherhood rights to a rapist?  That is one of the more ridiculous things that I have heard in quite some time.  Imagine a wife is raped, and she is forced to carry the baby to term, and she has the child.  Her attacker, if they are in one of the 31 states who allow it, has visitation and parental rights to that child.  Which means he can ask/insist to join his victim and her family for Thanksgiving dinner.  Sounds like a blast; two guys sitting on the couch watching the Lions game, talking about their kids, except one of them is a rapist and the other is married to the victim.  Even if that exact scenario does not play out, does anybody really think that the rapist, with his parental rights, is going to pay child support?

I know that, by writing this today, I have invited more criticism of my position on abortion and a woman’s right to choose.  That is fine.  I know that there are some people who will happily call me a “baby murderer” if they are brave enough to leave a comment on here.  That is fine, too.  I accept the hate you spew toward me because of my view, all while I am accepting of your view, even if I disagree.  If you are that person, or know that person, I sincerely hope that your wife or daughter is never faced with being the victim of a sexual assault, and that if they were, you would allow them the dignity of making the choice they feel is most appropriate for them and their health.  And I hope that maybe, just maybe, 31 states will wake up and not allow a rapist to have any rights at all to any child conceived by their attack.

At It Again

I think that there may seriously be something wrong with some of our public figures.  There was Todd Akin back in August with his “forcible rape” remark.  Twice in the past few weeks, Ann Coulter has shown her true, insensitive colors in using inflammatory speech to describe people (here, here).  And now we have Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock.  He opened his mouth, and out came more stupidity, this time along the lines of Akin.

In lieu of the appearance that I am parsing his words to make a point, check out what he said regarding pregnancies caused by rape (full article here):

“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God. And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

Come again?  A rape is something that God intended to happen?  Wow.  That is quite the claim there.  No amount of walking that comment back will make it to where it was not said.  You cannot un-ring a bell Mr. Mourdock.

To me, his view is wrong on so many levels.  Is he really claiming that God would “gift” a woman in having her be raped?  I bet rape victims would rather have not received such a “gift” in the first place.  And Mr. Mourdock advocates for the “gift” to keep on giving and for the rape victim to have the child that the rapist “gifted” her with.  I have made it clear in the past where I stand on this particular question, so I am not going to write it again, but you can click here if you want to know more.

What I am growing tired of, or what has already worn me out, is the belief that people can say whatever they want, regardless of who it hurts, and then be allowed to “take back” or explain what they “really meant” when people express outrage.  Here is the deal:  you say what you mean, and you mean what you say.  I have been burned in the past by saying what I really mean, but that is not going to change the fact that I will continue to do so.  I have made myself look like an idiot, but I continue to own my views and stand by them, and own my words and stand by them.  On more than one occasion, someone has suggested that I run for office, and I have to admit that it is an interesting proposition.  Then I realize that I won’t get many votes because I don’t run and hide behind garbled answers.  You ask, I answer.  That’s about as deep as I go; I have no filter.  Our political system weeds out people like that and keeps those who pander the best.

Akin, Coulter, Mourdock.  Birds of a feather flock together, and these three are dodo birds.

Know The Difference

The other day, I wrote about a post that my friend Ryan posted on his blog, and the question I posed to him about abortion (you can read it here).  Ryan is a man of his word, and he promised to write a thoughtful and in-depth reply, and I cannot wait to read it.  In response to my question, another commenter weighed in, and what resulted was a rather testy exchange over the course of a few days.  I apologized to Ryan in a comment because it was not my intent to make his post into a thread containing people going back and forth.  Amber also weighed in, and I think some of the passion in my later responses come from the urge I have to defend her from being attacked and questioned as a mother.

The commenter I am referring to somehow twisted my pro-choice view into me being someone who “advocates for abortion.”  I do not advocate for abortion, do not think abortion is great, and do not think abortion is the answer in every case.  It is offensive that this commenter would presume that about me, but he is entitled to his opinion.

What I want to do now is distinguish between someone who is “pro-choice” and someone who is “pro-abortion” because they are not one in the same.  Maybe to most it is a matter of semantics, but to me it is not.

Being “pro-choice,” to me, means being someone who believes that, in this case, a woman is entitled to have a choice on what to do with their body and regarding their healthcare.

Being “pro-abortion,” on the other hand, means being someone who is all for abortion.  Abortions on every corner, so to speak.  That is not me.

I do not believe that a woman who is raped, or a little girl who is impregnated by her father or brother should be forced to carry the child to term.  I believe that they should have the choice, and that the choice should be theirs alone.  I believe that, if it came down to it, a mother should be able to choose between her life and the life of her unborn child; it is not, and should not be confused as being an easy choice.  I do not believe that a rape victim should be made to ensure the health of the child of their attacker.  I do not believe, too, that abortion should be the “fall back” for people who choose to make irresponsible choices; there is a difference between two consenting adults choosing to take a risk and a person who is raped (no matter what Todd Akin thinks).

Read that paragraph above again.  Do you see the difference?  I am sorry to say that the commenter I referenced cannot.

Let me give you an example on what his view is:  If Amber were to be raped and become pregnant, he believes that we, as a family, should care for her and the unborn child up until delivery, and then we can just give the child up for adoption.  Yep, that is a rational belief.  I should allow my wife to live with the psychological scars of the attack, plus the physical toll of being pregnant.  Good call.  Oh, and if Amber were to have trouble during delivery and were to die, he is ok with that, as long as the rapist’s baby is ok; he did not seem to mind that I would be a widower and a single parent, all because my wife was attacked and did not have a choice.  While that is an ugly hypothetical, and one that I hope I ever have to endure and that nobody ever has to endure, it is a possibility.

The intent of my original question to Ryan was not to change his mind or his view, but was for clarification.  I respect the view of people who are “pro-life” and only ask that the respect be returned.  Was I passionate in my responses back to the commenter?  Yes I was, and I may have unintentionally offended him.  Was he respectful of my view?  Not even close.  He was derisive and dismissive, and felt free to talk down to me.  He believes that his view is the only view, and that if people do not agree with him, they are wrong.  I feel sad for people like that.  I know people reading this will not agree with my view, and I respect that.  If you choose to comment on this post, and you fall into that category, all I ask is that you keep your comments civil.

What If?

My friend Ryan wrote on one of his blogs yesterday a post with his view on abortion, and the science of pregnancy.  It was well-written with a scientific timeline of pregnancy from implantation of the sperm in the egg forward.  The purpose of his entry, at least from what I learned from it, was to show his displeasure regarding the responses of Joe Biden and Paul Ryan at last week’s VP debate, to offer his view, and to offer the science; I think he was successful at doing all three.  I very much respect Ryan as a writer and as a friend, and I know his view on abortion differs from mine, but I respect his view.

I guess maybe the point of this entry is to share with people who do not read his entries the comment I posted (or at least I think I posted it, as long as the computer gremlins did not catch it first).  Basically, my comment was as follows:

What about in the case of rape, incest, or health of the mother?

To me, that is a question, or series of circumstances, that should be addressed and reconciled by people on both sides of the issue.  In no way do I believe that abortion should be the answer for making an irresponsible choice, but there is, in my opinion, a place for the procedure in our society.  It is not a pretty procedure, let’s not fool anybody here.  But it is also not pretty to ask a woman to carry the child of her assailant to term, to care for her body and the child for 9 months.  It is not right to ask a little girl who was raped by her father, uncle, or brother to carry the child to term.  It is not fair to sacrifice the life of a mother in order to successfully bring a child into the world.

I provided an example in my comment as well:

If my wife were to be raped and become pregnant, would we as a family be reasonably expected to ensure that she takes care of herself and the child during the term?  What if, during the term or delivery, my wife died and the child lived?  Then what?  I am a widower and a single parent to the daughter we had together.

I cannot wrap my mind around that concept.  Losing my wife, my daughter losing her mother, all to protect the child of a rapist.  That is wrong on so many levels to me.  To carry it further, how could I possibly live with having to tell my daughter that she no longer has her mother to bond with because she did not have the choice to save her own life?  But at least my daughter would have a step-sibling who was the spawn of a rapist/animal.  I guess there is that.

To me, the issue of abortion is not cut-and-dry, black or white.  There is a lot of gray area.  No amount of science will convince me that a woman who is raped should not have the choice to carry that child to term or not.  If we, as a country, start down the path of restricting the rights of any of our citizens, where does that path end?  It is a slippery slope, and I don’t think anybody can say with certainty that there would be plenty of unintended consequences.  Restrict who can vote?  Restrict our free speech?  Establish a national religion and ostracize those who choose not to practice any religion?

I would love to know your thoughts on the issue.  If you choose to comment, please keep the comments civil and refrain from personal attacks (yeah, I can do that, it is my blog after all, and any debates on here will be respectful and civil).

It’s Called Accountability…

…and politicians should try it sometime.  It’s what most of us in the real world have to do on a regular basis.  It seems like as soon as someone gets elected, all accountability is lost, and everything can be explained away as “misspeaking” or “gotcha journalism” or some other ridiculous excuse.

Take, for example, Congressman Todd Akin, who is running for Senate in Missouri:

“It seems to me first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

He said exactly what he meant, and exactly what he felt.  And what he said is pretty much in line with the Republican platform and conservative agenda.  No abortion, under any circumstances.  This, from the party that thinks the death penalty is a good thing.  They have a warped sense of the sanctity of life.  And he wasn’t done with just that one comment.  He continued:

“…punishment for the rape should focus on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

So, he apparently feels like women should not only have to endure the trauma of being raped and possibly becoming pregnant at the hands of their attacker, but also carry the baby to term.  Seems like more punishment for the victim.  Under Mr. Akin’s warped sense of punishment, would the rapist then be required to pay child support?

I really do not understand Mr. Akin’s position, or his comments.  He seems to me to be a very close-minded person, and the people of Missouri will be telling the country a lot about their values if they were to elect him to the U.S. Senate in November.  No matter where you stand on abortion, Mr. Akin was out of line.  If you lean toward agreeing with his comments wholeheartedly, I feel somewhat sorry for you.  No, this is not a diatribe against anti-abortion people, just a comment on one politician’s statement.  I know some people will agree with him, and call it a Biblical matter, and I will not begrudge anybody their religious point-of-view; my sincere hope is that even the most ardent supporter of life as defined by the Bible find Akin’s views abhorrent.  If you read the entry I linked above, and here, you will understand where I stand on the issue.  I know people will not agree with me, but I stand behind my view on the matter; my view is my view, and it is shaped from my life experiences, in addition to experiences of those close to me.  I do not take someone else’s views and spout them verbatim as mine.

Anymore, a politician can say almost anything they want and just come out later and basically say “my bad, I was misunderstood or misspoke.”  And people just accept that garbage.  We have to hold them accountable.  If Congress is a representation of our population, I am happy today that I do not live in Congressman Akin’s district.

**Afternoon edit (I usually don’t do these, but I could not resist)**

Akin had me in stitches with a comment he made today regarding what he said yesterday.  This time, it was in reference to him not dropping out of the Senate race:

“I feel just as strongly as ever that my background and ability will be a big asset in replacing Claire McCaskill and putting some sanity back in what’s going on in our government.” (Bolding mine)

Really, this guy is going to put some sanity back into our government?  Sanity left him a long time ago, and seems to have no intention on returning anytime soon.