Funky Views

Pro Choice

I am pro choice.  Extremely pro choice.  When my eldest daughter, Katie, came to me to tell me that, at 16, she was pregnant, my pro choiceness was put to the absolute test.  Because allowing my daughter to examine all of her choices that were available to her and step back and let her make the choice that was best for her was the absolute litmus test of that belief of mine.

Now my being pro choice does not mean I encourage abortion.  I abhor abortion.  It's the absolutely worst choice of the three choices Katie wrangled with.  (abortion, adoption, teen parenthood)  Of the women I know who have had an abortion, there isn't one of them who doesn't regret that decision with every ounce of her being.

I also think that there should be limits on abortion,  such as not being legal after 20 weeks gestation.  And I think that every woman who is raped should take the morning after pill so the abortion issue doesn't even have to come up for her. 

I spend a lot of energy telling people of the miracle of adoption that I was privileged to participate in back in 2002.  No, that choice wasn't easy for Katie to make.  Continuing to attend high school while pregnant wasn't easy, either.  And for the pregnant teens in her support group who kept their babies managing to keep going to school and care for a baby and deal with the baby daddy or lack of baby daddy and all that isn't ever easy.

And abortion seems like such an easy way out.  Until you have one and have to live with that knowledge for the rest of your life.

But I never want my country to make abortion illegal.  Because that choice needs to be as safe and supported as possible.  So those who do make that choice survive their choice.

Rape Kit Story

When Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, AK, rape victims were charged for their own rape kits.  That isn't under dispute by me or by anyone.

Did Mayor Palin institute this policy?  Nope. 

Was Wasilla, Alaska the only place in the United States who had this policy?  Again, nope.  Congress had to pass a law in 2005 a law requiring states to provide rape exams free of charge or reimburse victims for the costs according to a quote by Ilse Knecht of the National Center for Victims of Crime in Washington in USA Today. 

In the oft quoted newspaper article from the Frontiersman, it is the police chief who is having issues with paying for the kits out of his budget. 

In my humble opinion, victims of any crime should never have to pay one penny for any of the investigation tools or rehabilitation that they must go through as a result of that crime.  We also must remember that law enforcement agencies get frustrated when they are told again and again that they must do more with either the same amount of money or less money.  I'm not excusing that police chief for his statements.  I'm just trying to understand where they may have come from.

 

I'm white trash!

Palin backers "white trash".  Thank heavens that's been cleared up.  God bless the CBC!

A thought

This came to me via a strange and winding path and it sort of fits with my previous post.  So here's the thought for the day:

"The intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, and the solution comes to you and you don't know how or why." -Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Prayer in high places

In a discussion with a co-worker about the election in general and Gov Sarah Palin in particular, he has many reservations about her.  One of his biggest reservations is that he's tired of our country being led by people who pray.  He wants a leader who uses sound reasoning for their decisions instead of listening to God.

That remark has been rattling around in my head for the past couple days and I have some thoughts on it.  First, what harm does praying about problems and issues do?  If there is no God around to help guide the petitioner's thought process, then it stands to reason that praying turns into a sort of meditation and the part of our mind that reasons things out will be able to work without much distraction, thereby finding a good and reasonable solution to whatever problem has been prayed/meditated about.

Meditation is simply the practice of focusing your attention on a particular object — generally something simple, like a word or phrase, a candle flame or geometrical figure, or the coming and going of your breath. In everyday life, your mind is constantly processing a barrage of sensations, visual impressions, emotions, and thoughts. When you meditate, you narrow your focus, limit the stimuli bombarding your nervous system — and calm your mind in the process. The reason meditation works so effectively is that it connects you with a spiritual dimension, which different commentators give different names, but many people simply call it "being."

Swiped from Meditation for Dummies, 2nd Edition

So if one's focus is on whatever the problem is and one's mind is calming, one generally can come up with new and innovative solutions to problems that seem insurmountable.

I'm all in favor of prayer/meditation/whatever to help whoever's in charge make better decisions.

Polygamy

The Fundamental Latter Day Saints (FLDS) church has been in the news a lot the past couple of months.  Seems that the great state of Texas determined that every child of parents who practice this religion are or could be victims of abuse.  And that, in my humble opinion, is an enormous miscarriage of justice. 

Just because the culture of polygamy may be distasteful or considered bad and wrong doesn't make it right to take away all the children of that culture.  The Texas child protective service doesn't have the evidence that each and every child was in harm's way.  They shouldn't move in to remove children until they have that kind of evidence.  If individual children need to be removed from their homes because there is evidence of abuse, then that should happen.

Then there's the argument that if their parents are practicing polygamists, they are law breakers and children should be taken from people who break the law.

I think a lot of laws are like the visiting hours at a hospital.  They're there to be enforced if a need for enforcement arises.  But if everything's going well, you can visit after visiting hours are over.  And you can practice polygamy in your own home(s).  Along the same lines as adultery is against the law.  And oral sex.  And sodomy in lots of places. 

There are lots of laws like those that I'd rather not ever get enforced.  And as long as my local polygamists aren't forcing their young daughters to marry old lechers before they are "of age", I really don't have much of a problem with them quietly going about their business.

Polygamy is part of my heritage.  My ancestors practiced polygamy back in the 1800's when the Latter Day Saints, or Mormon's as they're more commonly known, practiced polygamy.  But Mormon's don't practice polygamy today.  One of the standards of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is that they follow the laws of the land where they are.  So as long as the law of this land is against polygamy, you won't find any Mormon's practicing polygamy. 

That's not to say there aren't splinter groups who do practice polygamy.  There are a lot of those.  Especially around here in Utah.  Some of them dress the way you've seen the Texas group dress and stand out a bit from the crowd.  Other's you wouldn't know unless they told you. 

I am very glad that Texas seems to have seen the light and are allowing most of the children to return to their homes.  I hope that the authorities in Texas and elsewhere have learned that the burden of proof must be met BEFORE removing a child from their home.

United We Stand - Same Sex Marriage

I am a Mormon Catholic.  Or a Catholic Mormon.  Depending on your point of view.  I'm just letting you know that I have dual citizenship in two formal religions.  So now I'm sure you know where I stand on the issue of same sex marriage.

I'm against it.

BUT before your knickers get totally tangled up, I'll attempt to explain myself.  And I'll completely understand it if you don't agree with me.  My youngest daughter is gay and I can feel her eyes rolling into the back of her head from here. 

It isn't fair that a married couple has more rights to be viewed as a couple than a gay couple.  A couple that is committed to each other enough to want to become entangled in all their dealings, financial and other, should be offered the opportunity to do so.  I think it's a tragedy that my daughter's partner, who should know her better than I do, would not be able to tell medical personnel what her wishes would be.  The medical community would have to wait for my husband and me to travel from Utah to Ohio to make these decisions for her.  Granted, because I'm completely aware with how close my daughter is to her partner, I would consult with partner and enact the decisions that she makes, but it's just an unfair practice.  And, yes, daughter and partner could go to a lawyer and have several different types of legal documents drawn up to help everyone understand their relationship and who daughter wants making this type of decision for her, but that's a lot of time and money.  And it would be pretty much a waste of time and money if I decided to be vindictive mom and fought those documents in court.

What a waste of time, energy and effort to attempt to legally formalize what is a very close, personal relationship.

First off, I think that our country needs to come up with a Civil Union something or other.  The Civil Union would be the legal agreement between two committed people that allows them all the rights and privileges afforded to legally married couples today.  Rights of survivorship and health insurance and buying a home together and sharing all debts and all that jazz.

Then the churches can take over marriages.  Because in my belief system, marriage is ordained by God for the union of a man and a woman.  So it stands to reason that if I believe that God said we should be married, the church should be the place to get married.  But this marriage business is between the couple and God and the state should stay out of this ceremony.

I know that in several places in Europe, couples must get "married" by some government official in one ceremony and then, if the couple chooses, they can have another ceremony in a church or a field or castle or wherever to solemnize their vows in front of God and family and friends.  I truly think that this is the way to go. 

It appears that my biggest stumbling block is the insistence to call a union a marriage.  I really want marriage to stay between a man and a woman.  But I believe that anyone who desires to be united with a partner "until death do we part" should be allowed that opportunity.

Unchartered Territory

I've not ever been all that keen on talking about my positions on a lot of the issues out there in the world today.  But lately, I've been feeling the urge to change that and share some of my views.  I'm not all that crazy about getting into a debate about why I believe one way and you believe the other way.  I find debates most uncomfortable.  So, while I'm not going to shut down comments, I'm probably not going to respond to them.

I'm off to develop a position on something.  I'll be back!