I broke our toilet. When you weigh as much as I do, or maybe it is a chick thing, you walk around with a constant fear of breaking whatever you are sitting on. It really is kinda funny. "Oh shit, the chair is squeaking. Please don't break." And I'll probably never grow out of it because if I do ever manage to lose this weight, I'll still be rather large as I am tall and muscular, and yes, I literally do have big bones. :-) Anyway, it isn't an excuse for being over weight, but you'll never see me at 120lbs, and if you do, it will be because I am very sick. ANYWAY
So I was sitting on the throne and reached back to give it a flush, but the tubing slipped out and started spraying all over my back from under the lid that is too big for our toilet. I'm also holding a book I desperately don't want to soak. I finally give up and leave my hand wedged between the lid and the tank and let the water deflect off my hand and into the tank. It finally fills up and I can set my book down and get my pants back on and deal with this. Well, in trying to get my hand out, the lid slips sideways into the tank and causes it to crack at the bottom. So now a whole toilets worth of water is spewing all over the bathroom and on my feet and I still haven't marked my spot in the book and gotten my britches up! Warren saves the day by turning off the water (GENIUS). But we do need a new toilet.
So no, it didn't break because of my fat ass, but still, I broke the toilet.
Warren wanted to rip up the tile while we had the toilet off and replace it as well, so I worked off my shame by taking it out on the VCT. My knuckles hurt, but I feel better.
All that to say. It is my birthday today. Guess what we are going to do tonight? Shop for a new toilet. I'm getting a toilet for my birthday. Yup.
I could be pissed, but that really is pretty funny.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Robert Pattinson
Here is a fellow I feel a lot of sympathy for, Robert Pattinson. Oh my goodness. Did I see Twilight? Yes (x2). Do I think he and the rest of the cast did a great job portraying these characters? In all honesty, I really do. Do I think he is one beautiful piece of handsomeness? You betcha I do. But my goodness. What is the deal?
I'm certainly not trying to insinuate that he isn't a fantastic person. I don't really know having never even seen him in person. But the screaming and following and obsession? I think the pain of all of that would be worse than the pain of ruining my career by saying, "Please stop. You've gone too far." Of course, that is just me, and actually, should I ever be put in that ridiculous position, I probably would never say that, but I would probably want to. Very badly. These girls are asking to be bitten, married, impregnated, and/or killed. Darlings, are you even thinking before you speak? What if he insists you live with your mother in law who hunts squirrels and force feeds them to you every night? Now do you want to marry him? And impregnated? Really? The child might be good looking, but you would also be a single mother. Yippy Skippy. Asking to be bitten, well, what can you do about that, he did play a vampire. And we should all run from anyone who asks us to kill them. Surely that was just an exception. Otherwise I'm very embarrassed to be a fan right now.
And I think that is my point. I am embarrassed to be a fan right now. The man isn't Edward. Edward only exists in 80 y/o's that have had time to perfect themselves, if they put their mind to the effort. But then, obviously, they are 80, so in order to be in love with them, you would have had to have fallen for the trick 60 years previous when they weren't Edward. So by my account, Rob hasn't a prayer of being like Edward, and you crazy fan who is offering your soul up to him, you would be fantastically lucky if he were even a Jacob. Again, I don't know Rob, but I'm just saying, Jacob's are hard to come by.
So can we let the poor man alone and save his ear drums. Let us thank him for a job well done. Let us thank him for letting us gaze upon his pretty face. Let us wish him well. Let us not ask if we can have his baby. He is not the answer to all of your problems and you are not the answer to his.
Now I feel bad, like I might have been too harsh. But I really do feel bad for this guy. I know its part of the job, the admiration of the fans and all. But aren't we just supposed to be fans, not lunatics?
I'm just sayin'....
I'm certainly not trying to insinuate that he isn't a fantastic person. I don't really know having never even seen him in person. But the screaming and following and obsession? I think the pain of all of that would be worse than the pain of ruining my career by saying, "Please stop. You've gone too far." Of course, that is just me, and actually, should I ever be put in that ridiculous position, I probably would never say that, but I would probably want to. Very badly. These girls are asking to be bitten, married, impregnated, and/or killed. Darlings, are you even thinking before you speak? What if he insists you live with your mother in law who hunts squirrels and force feeds them to you every night? Now do you want to marry him? And impregnated? Really? The child might be good looking, but you would also be a single mother. Yippy Skippy. Asking to be bitten, well, what can you do about that, he did play a vampire. And we should all run from anyone who asks us to kill them. Surely that was just an exception. Otherwise I'm very embarrassed to be a fan right now.
And I think that is my point. I am embarrassed to be a fan right now. The man isn't Edward. Edward only exists in 80 y/o's that have had time to perfect themselves, if they put their mind to the effort. But then, obviously, they are 80, so in order to be in love with them, you would have had to have fallen for the trick 60 years previous when they weren't Edward. So by my account, Rob hasn't a prayer of being like Edward, and you crazy fan who is offering your soul up to him, you would be fantastically lucky if he were even a Jacob. Again, I don't know Rob, but I'm just saying, Jacob's are hard to come by.
So can we let the poor man alone and save his ear drums. Let us thank him for a job well done. Let us thank him for letting us gaze upon his pretty face. Let us wish him well. Let us not ask if we can have his baby. He is not the answer to all of your problems and you are not the answer to his.
Now I feel bad, like I might have been too harsh. But I really do feel bad for this guy. I know its part of the job, the admiration of the fans and all. But aren't we just supposed to be fans, not lunatics?
I'm just sayin'....
Friday, November 21, 2008
Oh Lordie! Twilight the Movie!
If you haven't heard of Twilight, google it. Seriously. You don't have to like it, but you should be embarrassed for not knowing. Even I know, and I'm always the last to know anything. You must have been trying not to know. (some one's cranky...)
Yes I'm cranky, because I have gotten NO sleep the week. Am I making excuses? NO! Because I loved it, and I would do the same thing given the opportunity for a redo. I had to stay up all night for a sleep deprived EEG, so that was just necessary. But when I was just barely recovered from that later in the week, I went to a midnight movie which I never do because my bed time is 9pm that is the kind of not night owl I am.
So the movie that made that whole ordeal worth it, Twilight, had some major major pressure to deliver. First, I went to see it at midnight, which is not it's fault, but still counts. Second, I am a fan of the books. Third, I'm not a teenage girl who is hopelessly in love with the actors playing these characters, so they can't suck because I am actually paying attention. Then there is the HYPE. Oh my goodness, the hype. I HATE when they hype movies like this. If it is only barely slightly less than the hype led you to believe it would be, you think it was no good, when really it was pretty dang good, it was just slightly less than the hype. So not fair. So those were some factors in my head going into this whole experience. One factor on the side of the movie is that I am not a "the movie better be the book in motion picture" fan. I realize they are two different types of art, two very different ways to communicate ideas. AND, if I wanted to experience Twilight a la Stephenie Meyer, I would have just reread the book. But this was Twilight a la Catherine Hardwick, so I was excited to see where she took it. These were some things in my head going into the experience. So what did I think?
I should start out saying that I really enjoyed myself because I have some tough criticisms,and you might not catch that in everything I have to say. There were some parts I would have done differently, but there were some parts that were so transcendentally better than the book, I was literally breathless. It was geared to a young audience, so I forgave the offenses I had due to my age. The movie felt much more "teen love" rather than "epic love". I was disappointed in that a little. But this is the most difficult part of these kinds of projects. I read the books and took something very personal from them, which was the immense sacrifice that both Bella and Edward took part of for the other. So of course when that part was not the focus of their love story, I missed it. It was there, but I'm talking about my unreal expectations as a previous fan in that example.
I think overall I wish they could have moved away from the book more than they did. I definitely understand the pressure to make the book fans happy, but since I am a fan of the interpretation more than the accuracy, I felt a little like, "yeah, I've read that line before... 5 times... I don't want to hear it". Some of it was good, like the lion and the lamb, and the other was a little redundant like Bella's three lines about how Edward is a vampire, he wants her blood and she loves him. I think it does sum things up really well, but I've just read those lines a lot, so it was a little redundant (like I said ;-)).
Lastly, and this has to do with having too much of the book in there as well, I felt as if there were many many aspects that only Twilight insiders would understand. Again, this is a super hard balance where you will find yourself pleasing no one because book fans want to see the aspects they fell in love with, and new on lookers want things to make sense and not fly over their head. For instance, in the biology scene, instead of wondering what the hell Edward's problem is with Bella because he is acting weird (you aren't supposed to know he wants to kill her), I laughed because of how far they took the pain Edward was in. Part of Edward's character is that he maintains a very firm facade, and that is part of the appeal of the books because you get to peek under it. So seeing Edward flinch like he did was kind of out of character and weird. He was supposed to come off as a jerk who seemed offended at Bella, not as a psychopath. There were a couple of scenes like that where I just basically felt the whole bit was overacted, not a little overacted, severely overacted. But again, in this story which is so focused on passion, how do you draw the line? When does something go from passionate and stirring to cheesy and over the top? I felt like some of the editing and music contributed to that as well.
On the other side of that very coin, however, I was totally caught up in some of the scenes. Instead of flying over my head, they took me up with them. The kiss scene was just. Oh Lord, it just was. I loved how they integrated the whole revealing who Edward really is and how everyone really feels about each other in the one scene in the woods. That went very well and would have taken up way too much space to do separately like it was in the book. The back and forth of the fear and uncertainty, the acceptance, the vulnerability, all of it was just wonderful, with the climax of the mutual understanding that they were falling in love in the worst and most dangerous of circumstances. The setting and chemistry and music was fantastic. I also really really enjoyed the getting to know each other parts that followed. It brought much needed levity. I liked how they had much more fun meeting the Cullen's and Hales than they did in the book. Poor Nicki Reed and Ashley Greene (they play Rosalie and Alice) just got soo much grief. I think they were wonderful. In fact I wasn't much worried about any of the casting with the exception of Jacob.
I am just barely not a Team Jacob fan for Bella, and I am 100% a Team Jacob fan for myself. I was not feeling Taylor Lautner for the part of Jacob. I can't really pin why. However, seeing his performance just sealed the deal. He has just enough chemistry and shyness. He clearly felt inferior to Edward, but I definitely got the sense that he was interested but not hopeful for Bella. I liked how they prematurely started the tension between Jacob and Edward in a "this is more than I'm jealous of you" kind of way. I am actually very excited what they do with Jacob in New Moon whereas before I was not looking forward to it. He carried that part in a way that put my fears about his age and maturity to shame.
I was afraid the villains were going to be over the top, but I liked them. You connected with them, got a real sense of their feeling of superiority. James wasn't evil, he was condescending, and it was his pride that lead him to feel like he could treat Bella as no more than a dinner roll. I really liked how they captured that. I think in that, they allowed us to understand a little that the even though we spend so much time with the Cullen's, that they are in fact the exception, not the rule. Their position is precarious and vulnerable because of their lifestyle. I thought that dynamic was subtle, but I am really glad it was there. It is a depth that I believe is essential for the rest of the series.
I really enjoyed Bella's friends. I had a hard time connecting with them in the books which served my obsession for Edward well. In the movie however, I felt that Bella was more integrated, and that the tension will be a good focal point in later movies. I appreciated more of Angela and less of Jessica as well. Jessica really got on my nerves in the books, so that was a huge relief for me.
So there ya go. Some parts I literally rolled my eyes at, and some parts literally left me speechless and breathless (which makes me want to roll my eyes at myself now). Very very interesting direction. Hardwick took this movie to a place I never expected it to go, not even with all the footage we were allowed to see ahead of time. I don't know how to describe that place, but it was different than expected. It wasn't a cheap imitation of the book, it stood alone as a piece of art. I REALLY liked the indie quality because of what I feared the massive popularity and hype would do to it all. I didn't miss the polish even a little bit. It was totally unexpected, and I loved it!
One last thought. The sparkle. Even in the books I thought this was over the top and ridiculous. Seriously. Sparkles? But I was very impressed by the effect they did for it in the movie. I actually liked it! I thought it enhanced and didn't detract. I could never wrap my mind around that reading the books, so it was a delight to have it done for me in the movies!
Will I see it again? I think I'm gonna have to just to wrap my mind around it. There were so many aspects that were so unexpected (which is a real feat for a movie based so closely on a book). I enjoyed everything so much the first time, though. So it will be no chore, let me assure you!
Yes I'm cranky, because I have gotten NO sleep the week. Am I making excuses? NO! Because I loved it, and I would do the same thing given the opportunity for a redo. I had to stay up all night for a sleep deprived EEG, so that was just necessary. But when I was just barely recovered from that later in the week, I went to a midnight movie which I never do because my bed time is 9pm that is the kind of not night owl I am.
So the movie that made that whole ordeal worth it, Twilight, had some major major pressure to deliver. First, I went to see it at midnight, which is not it's fault, but still counts. Second, I am a fan of the books. Third, I'm not a teenage girl who is hopelessly in love with the actors playing these characters, so they can't suck because I am actually paying attention. Then there is the HYPE. Oh my goodness, the hype. I HATE when they hype movies like this. If it is only barely slightly less than the hype led you to believe it would be, you think it was no good, when really it was pretty dang good, it was just slightly less than the hype. So not fair. So those were some factors in my head going into this whole experience. One factor on the side of the movie is that I am not a "the movie better be the book in motion picture" fan. I realize they are two different types of art, two very different ways to communicate ideas. AND, if I wanted to experience Twilight a la Stephenie Meyer, I would have just reread the book. But this was Twilight a la Catherine Hardwick, so I was excited to see where she took it. These were some things in my head going into the experience. So what did I think?
I should start out saying that I really enjoyed myself because I have some tough criticisms,and you might not catch that in everything I have to say. There were some parts I would have done differently, but there were some parts that were so transcendentally better than the book, I was literally breathless. It was geared to a young audience, so I forgave the offenses I had due to my age. The movie felt much more "teen love" rather than "epic love". I was disappointed in that a little. But this is the most difficult part of these kinds of projects. I read the books and took something very personal from them, which was the immense sacrifice that both Bella and Edward took part of for the other. So of course when that part was not the focus of their love story, I missed it. It was there, but I'm talking about my unreal expectations as a previous fan in that example.
I think overall I wish they could have moved away from the book more than they did. I definitely understand the pressure to make the book fans happy, but since I am a fan of the interpretation more than the accuracy, I felt a little like, "yeah, I've read that line before... 5 times... I don't want to hear it". Some of it was good, like the lion and the lamb, and the other was a little redundant like Bella's three lines about how Edward is a vampire, he wants her blood and she loves him. I think it does sum things up really well, but I've just read those lines a lot, so it was a little redundant (like I said ;-)).
Lastly, and this has to do with having too much of the book in there as well, I felt as if there were many many aspects that only Twilight insiders would understand. Again, this is a super hard balance where you will find yourself pleasing no one because book fans want to see the aspects they fell in love with, and new on lookers want things to make sense and not fly over their head. For instance, in the biology scene, instead of wondering what the hell Edward's problem is with Bella because he is acting weird (you aren't supposed to know he wants to kill her), I laughed because of how far they took the pain Edward was in. Part of Edward's character is that he maintains a very firm facade, and that is part of the appeal of the books because you get to peek under it. So seeing Edward flinch like he did was kind of out of character and weird. He was supposed to come off as a jerk who seemed offended at Bella, not as a psychopath. There were a couple of scenes like that where I just basically felt the whole bit was overacted, not a little overacted, severely overacted. But again, in this story which is so focused on passion, how do you draw the line? When does something go from passionate and stirring to cheesy and over the top? I felt like some of the editing and music contributed to that as well.
On the other side of that very coin, however, I was totally caught up in some of the scenes. Instead of flying over my head, they took me up with them. The kiss scene was just. Oh Lord, it just was. I loved how they integrated the whole revealing who Edward really is and how everyone really feels about each other in the one scene in the woods. That went very well and would have taken up way too much space to do separately like it was in the book. The back and forth of the fear and uncertainty, the acceptance, the vulnerability, all of it was just wonderful, with the climax of the mutual understanding that they were falling in love in the worst and most dangerous of circumstances. The setting and chemistry and music was fantastic. I also really really enjoyed the getting to know each other parts that followed. It brought much needed levity. I liked how they had much more fun meeting the Cullen's and Hales than they did in the book. Poor Nicki Reed and Ashley Greene (they play Rosalie and Alice) just got soo much grief. I think they were wonderful. In fact I wasn't much worried about any of the casting with the exception of Jacob.
I am just barely not a Team Jacob fan for Bella, and I am 100% a Team Jacob fan for myself. I was not feeling Taylor Lautner for the part of Jacob. I can't really pin why. However, seeing his performance just sealed the deal. He has just enough chemistry and shyness. He clearly felt inferior to Edward, but I definitely got the sense that he was interested but not hopeful for Bella. I liked how they prematurely started the tension between Jacob and Edward in a "this is more than I'm jealous of you" kind of way. I am actually very excited what they do with Jacob in New Moon whereas before I was not looking forward to it. He carried that part in a way that put my fears about his age and maturity to shame.
I was afraid the villains were going to be over the top, but I liked them. You connected with them, got a real sense of their feeling of superiority. James wasn't evil, he was condescending, and it was his pride that lead him to feel like he could treat Bella as no more than a dinner roll. I really liked how they captured that. I think in that, they allowed us to understand a little that the even though we spend so much time with the Cullen's, that they are in fact the exception, not the rule. Their position is precarious and vulnerable because of their lifestyle. I thought that dynamic was subtle, but I am really glad it was there. It is a depth that I believe is essential for the rest of the series.
I really enjoyed Bella's friends. I had a hard time connecting with them in the books which served my obsession for Edward well. In the movie however, I felt that Bella was more integrated, and that the tension will be a good focal point in later movies. I appreciated more of Angela and less of Jessica as well. Jessica really got on my nerves in the books, so that was a huge relief for me.
So there ya go. Some parts I literally rolled my eyes at, and some parts literally left me speechless and breathless (which makes me want to roll my eyes at myself now). Very very interesting direction. Hardwick took this movie to a place I never expected it to go, not even with all the footage we were allowed to see ahead of time. I don't know how to describe that place, but it was different than expected. It wasn't a cheap imitation of the book, it stood alone as a piece of art. I REALLY liked the indie quality because of what I feared the massive popularity and hype would do to it all. I didn't miss the polish even a little bit. It was totally unexpected, and I loved it!
One last thought. The sparkle. Even in the books I thought this was over the top and ridiculous. Seriously. Sparkles? But I was very impressed by the effect they did for it in the movie. I actually liked it! I thought it enhanced and didn't detract. I could never wrap my mind around that reading the books, so it was a delight to have it done for me in the movies!
Will I see it again? I think I'm gonna have to just to wrap my mind around it. There were so many aspects that were so unexpected (which is a real feat for a movie based so closely on a book). I enjoyed everything so much the first time, though. So it will be no chore, let me assure you!
Monday, November 17, 2008
Goings On
There is kinda a lot going on with me right now. I'll not be worrying about chronological order, FYI. I have to stay up all night tonight because I'm having a sleep deprived EEG in the mornin'. Wed I have an MRI at 8pm. Thurs night I'm going to go see Twilight. Sat I went to The Rose Garden Tea Room that has the best rose petal tea EVER. In your face. Next Mon is my birthday, and I have absolutely no plans (maybe Ill count Twilight as my birthday fete). Thanksgiving is in a week and a half. I desperately need to go to the grocery store. My mom is coming into town soon, as is my father. I don't know how they will share their grandchild time, but I'm sure we will figure it out. I'm not even a little convinced that these tests we are going to run this week on my brain will give us any answers. I knew I had to bite the bullet and go though because I fainted twice in 2 weeks for apparently no reason, so that always merits a visit to the brain doctor. What else? I restarted my "diet" which I've been ignoring for the last several weeks. It always astounds me how full I get with such little food when I eat slowly and take sips between bites. I made awesome pancakes this morning, only to find that we didn't have syrup. Husband was thrilled about that. Oh, more things the husband is thrilled about. According to the brain doctor we need to have all the kids we want to have asap because my pituitary is a ticking time bomb. We both want child #2, we just weren't quite on the child #2 train. We certainly want to hop on before it leaves the station, we just thought we had a little more time to prepare. I'm thinking this might be my last pack of BC. Yay for 6 week long cycles and PMS from Satan himself. I'll not mention some of the vaginal festivities that ensue when not on BC. That should be graphic enough. Did I mention that I am super excited about Twilight? I think it is going to be really really good. I generally like book to movie movies, but some are just bad. Bad bad. So we'll see. However, I've been hearing good things so far. Wanna know how I'm going to spend my entire night trying to battle sleep? I'm going to read the latest installment of the Inheritance Cycle, Brisinger, by Christopher Paolini. I hope I spelled that man's name correctly, and his book. I don't have time to spell check too hard core, I'm at work. Which brings me to my final point.
Drafting is still boring. With the weeks looking like they have and will, I'll stop complaining about it and be grateful for a time.
Drafting is still boring. With the weeks looking like they have and will, I'll stop complaining about it and be grateful for a time.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Weird Dream
I wanted to get this dream down because it was really weird and I never remember my dreams, if I do, it is only for a few seconds. This one has stuck with me all day.
A little background info. I had a childhood friend, Morgan, who for some reason won't reply to my efforts to contact her. She didn't come to my wedding (although, she may have been out of the country, but I never heard from her), and she has ignored a couple of messages I've sent her over facebook. I really am trying not to be petty, but I feel pretty hurt over it. We were friends for 18 years, and then just not friends after graduation. So, the whole situation nags me, apparently enough to dream about it. Here we go.
Morgan finally calls me after all this time of avoidance, and asks if I want to come over to her apt to hang out. I go, but she ends up locking me in there for 2 weeks. In the dream, I don't remember what I do for 2 weeks, I just know, I can't get out, I've tried. Well, she ends up throwing a party at night, but it seems like there is a huge fire somewhere because there is orange everywhere, like the whole party is on fire, but I can't see the fire. I am able to sneak out. My emotions are very similar to what might be a refugee's. I'm panicking, I'm searching for help, I'm terrified she will find me again. I find a woman and she agrees to help me. Morgan ends up finding me, and my heart is just pounding in my ears, I'm terrified. Then I remember that I'm 5'9" and 260 lbs, a lot of which is muscle. I can't be forced to do anything I don't want to do by this 5'4", 120 lbs woman. She comes at me, and I spin her around and hold her arms crossed over her chest pressed to me in a hold she can't get out of. I try to convey that she isn't in danger of retaliation but that this behavior will stop, but I do not speak.
And that is it.
A little background info. I had a childhood friend, Morgan, who for some reason won't reply to my efforts to contact her. She didn't come to my wedding (although, she may have been out of the country, but I never heard from her), and she has ignored a couple of messages I've sent her over facebook. I really am trying not to be petty, but I feel pretty hurt over it. We were friends for 18 years, and then just not friends after graduation. So, the whole situation nags me, apparently enough to dream about it. Here we go.
Morgan finally calls me after all this time of avoidance, and asks if I want to come over to her apt to hang out. I go, but she ends up locking me in there for 2 weeks. In the dream, I don't remember what I do for 2 weeks, I just know, I can't get out, I've tried. Well, she ends up throwing a party at night, but it seems like there is a huge fire somewhere because there is orange everywhere, like the whole party is on fire, but I can't see the fire. I am able to sneak out. My emotions are very similar to what might be a refugee's. I'm panicking, I'm searching for help, I'm terrified she will find me again. I find a woman and she agrees to help me. Morgan ends up finding me, and my heart is just pounding in my ears, I'm terrified. Then I remember that I'm 5'9" and 260 lbs, a lot of which is muscle. I can't be forced to do anything I don't want to do by this 5'4", 120 lbs woman. She comes at me, and I spin her around and hold her arms crossed over her chest pressed to me in a hold she can't get out of. I try to convey that she isn't in danger of retaliation but that this behavior will stop, but I do not speak.
And that is it.
A Friend's Take
A friend wrote an excellent little blog entry that spoke to me here. It is about being a Christian in this nation and how she feels about President Elect, Barack Obama. I really couldn't find much I didn't agree with personally. I really wanted to expound upon this statement she made.
"As Paul put down, I as a Christian serve two kingdoms; the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of whichever ruler God sees fit to hand the reins."
I think Christian's as a whole are confused about America. We seem to have this overwhelming belief and conviction that this is a Christian nation, and it isn't. Iraq is a Muslim nation. That means their laws are directly affected by what the Koran and other holy texts say. Israel is a Hebrew nation which means its laws are affected and based on what the Torah says. That is what it means to be a religious nation. America is a free nation. We are a nation that stands aside any and all religions, but not within them. So for us, as Christians to make laws because something is a sin under one religion or another is not patriotic. It is persecution. The constitution of this great nation bases all of its laws on the rights of a free man. What is humane? What does every person deserve that is within our power to give? What can we do as a government to protect the people under our umbrella? These are questions for our leaders. What we should never expect our leaders to ask is, "What would the God I serve consider sinful, and how should I legislate that?". Why? Because if that leader were an atheist, I don't want them legislating away my relgious rights. If that leader were a Muslim, I don't want them legislating what they consider to be Allah's will. I don't ever want the tables turned on me. So, no, I don't ever want my leaders to legislate what they think is the Christian right.
What I do want is for anyone of any religion is to take that first question, "What is humane?" and fit that into the context of their religious experience and come up with an answer. Let me use the homosexual marriage issue as an example. I do not want law makers looking at this issue and thinking, "Is this a sin?". That is for religious leaders and God to do. I want them to look at it and ask, "What is humane?". The humane answer that has nothing to do with religion is that homosexuals deserve every social right as heterosexuals. Their lifestyle breaks no federal, state, or city law, so therefore they do not deserve to be condemned under that law and kept from the rights I enjoy as a heterosexual. To do anything else is persecution because I am calling them under the law of my religion when I have no right to do that in this nation. As a Christian, I worry about what their eternity will look like, but as an American, I cannot deny rights I enjoy because I think they are sinning, but really they are breaking no American law. I should also say, I do not think there should be any law written to admonish or ban homosexuality in this country. Their lifestyle falls under the context of humane and should therefore be honored, just like we don't put adulterers (and I do not mean to impune the honor of homosexuals by using this example, just to say that Christians consider both of these actions a sin) under American law because what they do is not considered inhumane. It is terribly rude and insulting, but deserves no punishment outside of the direct consequences that typically follow such an act.
Christians, America is not a Christian nation. It's job it to protect and serve human rights, not Christian rights. Stop projecting your faith into legislature, but rather, let your faith raise you higher to always fight for human rights with a stronger conviction than those around you. Let God's love and acceptance find its way into your policies and speeches. Do not compromise, but do not persecute. Saying homosexuals should enjoy every legal and social right that heterosexuals do is not saying that you condone homosexuality. Stopping acting like a fox cornered. When we can live in peace with those we disagree with, we will enjoy the greatest amount of relgious freedom and expression because those around us who disagree won't feel threatened. Christ never kept sinners acountable, he kept his followers(who still sin too, lest we forget) accountable. It is the Father's job to judge, not ours. Never waiver in your beliefs and convictions, but do start treating everyone with the same love and respect you expect and hope to recieve. Fight with love, disagree with understanding, and stand firm upon human rights. This advice I would give to anyone of any religion or creed. I'll leave you with one thought, Christ followers. Sodom and Gamorah were burnt down to the ground. What was the one condition that God gave Abraham in order to save the cities? He said, "Find me ONE honorable person who fears me and I will spare the entire people." Be the one honorable person who fears the Lord. You do the fearing, and let God do the judging.
"As Paul put down, I as a Christian serve two kingdoms; the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of whichever ruler God sees fit to hand the reins."
I think Christian's as a whole are confused about America. We seem to have this overwhelming belief and conviction that this is a Christian nation, and it isn't. Iraq is a Muslim nation. That means their laws are directly affected by what the Koran and other holy texts say. Israel is a Hebrew nation which means its laws are affected and based on what the Torah says. That is what it means to be a religious nation. America is a free nation. We are a nation that stands aside any and all religions, but not within them. So for us, as Christians to make laws because something is a sin under one religion or another is not patriotic. It is persecution. The constitution of this great nation bases all of its laws on the rights of a free man. What is humane? What does every person deserve that is within our power to give? What can we do as a government to protect the people under our umbrella? These are questions for our leaders. What we should never expect our leaders to ask is, "What would the God I serve consider sinful, and how should I legislate that?". Why? Because if that leader were an atheist, I don't want them legislating away my relgious rights. If that leader were a Muslim, I don't want them legislating what they consider to be Allah's will. I don't ever want the tables turned on me. So, no, I don't ever want my leaders to legislate what they think is the Christian right.
What I do want is for anyone of any religion is to take that first question, "What is humane?" and fit that into the context of their religious experience and come up with an answer. Let me use the homosexual marriage issue as an example. I do not want law makers looking at this issue and thinking, "Is this a sin?". That is for religious leaders and God to do. I want them to look at it and ask, "What is humane?". The humane answer that has nothing to do with religion is that homosexuals deserve every social right as heterosexuals. Their lifestyle breaks no federal, state, or city law, so therefore they do not deserve to be condemned under that law and kept from the rights I enjoy as a heterosexual. To do anything else is persecution because I am calling them under the law of my religion when I have no right to do that in this nation. As a Christian, I worry about what their eternity will look like, but as an American, I cannot deny rights I enjoy because I think they are sinning, but really they are breaking no American law. I should also say, I do not think there should be any law written to admonish or ban homosexuality in this country. Their lifestyle falls under the context of humane and should therefore be honored, just like we don't put adulterers (and I do not mean to impune the honor of homosexuals by using this example, just to say that Christians consider both of these actions a sin) under American law because what they do is not considered inhumane. It is terribly rude and insulting, but deserves no punishment outside of the direct consequences that typically follow such an act.
Christians, America is not a Christian nation. It's job it to protect and serve human rights, not Christian rights. Stop projecting your faith into legislature, but rather, let your faith raise you higher to always fight for human rights with a stronger conviction than those around you. Let God's love and acceptance find its way into your policies and speeches. Do not compromise, but do not persecute. Saying homosexuals should enjoy every legal and social right that heterosexuals do is not saying that you condone homosexuality. Stopping acting like a fox cornered. When we can live in peace with those we disagree with, we will enjoy the greatest amount of relgious freedom and expression because those around us who disagree won't feel threatened. Christ never kept sinners acountable, he kept his followers(who still sin too, lest we forget) accountable. It is the Father's job to judge, not ours. Never waiver in your beliefs and convictions, but do start treating everyone with the same love and respect you expect and hope to recieve. Fight with love, disagree with understanding, and stand firm upon human rights. This advice I would give to anyone of any religion or creed. I'll leave you with one thought, Christ followers. Sodom and Gamorah were burnt down to the ground. What was the one condition that God gave Abraham in order to save the cities? He said, "Find me ONE honorable person who fears me and I will spare the entire people." Be the one honorable person who fears the Lord. You do the fearing, and let God do the judging.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Boo Hoo
Usually I'm all boo hoo over having to drop my son off with his aunt. NOT THIS MORNING!
I definitely wish that I could work less so I could be a bigger part of his life. Definitely. It is mornings like this one though that prove to me that full time mommy is not what I want on my resume. If I were rich and I didn't have to work, I would probably still try and figure out something that gave me a little space from my 19 month old. I love him, I adore him, I want to kiss him every waking moment of the day. Today, I am glad to not have to hear his whining. I am glad to not have to be the parent. I am glad to not have to figure out which hill I want do die on. I am glad he is pitching a fit for someone else at this moment. I will be thrilled to pick him up at 5pm and restore my mantle of "Mother". Until then, I am appreciating that I will go to the grocery store on my lunch break and not have to avoid the bananas for fear of the inevitable "NANA!" screaming that would ensue.
I definitely wish that I could work less so I could be a bigger part of his life. Definitely. It is mornings like this one though that prove to me that full time mommy is not what I want on my resume. If I were rich and I didn't have to work, I would probably still try and figure out something that gave me a little space from my 19 month old. I love him, I adore him, I want to kiss him every waking moment of the day. Today, I am glad to not have to hear his whining. I am glad to not have to be the parent. I am glad to not have to figure out which hill I want do die on. I am glad he is pitching a fit for someone else at this moment. I will be thrilled to pick him up at 5pm and restore my mantle of "Mother". Until then, I am appreciating that I will go to the grocery store on my lunch break and not have to avoid the bananas for fear of the inevitable "NANA!" screaming that would ensue.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Again With The Serious
So, in this recent election, there was a proposition to ban gay marriage in the state of California. It passed. People are pissed. And I can see why. And I am still glad it passed. I watched a clip from MSNBC where the guy just reams us who did or who would have voted for it. He just cries from the heart, "WHY?!" I felt compelled to answer him.
Do I think love is absolutely the most important thing ever? YES. Do I think it counts among sinners? YES! Why? Because we are all sinners. So if I were to discount the love of a gay couple, I undermine my own. We are absolutely no different in that. Do I agree with him that the "sanctity of marriage" is barely upheld by the people working so fervently to protect it. Sure do. He is right on that as well. The marriages we Christians do support only end up working out half the time anyway. That's messed up. It needs to be fixed. Doesn't all of this mean I should be okay with homosexuals getting married? No. Marriage currently is a societal term, but more than that, it is a religious term. My marriage has nothing to do with the state or politics. It is a covenant I made between my husband and God, the God of the Hebrews and Christians. It is clear in scripture that homosexuality is an abomination against God. So you cannot bring your abomination to God and ask him to uphold it. And I don't appreciate you using the same title I use to represent a covenant to represent your state title. It's not that I don't want to sully the title of marriage, it's that what you are doing isn't marriage. I would also go so far as to say what a lot of people do isn't marriage. Basically what I'm saying is that I think there should be two words. One describes the covenant I made with God and my husband (religious), and the other describes my social and legal standing with the person I am committed to (state). They were mixed out of convenience since governments started administrating it and I think now they need to be separated.
For example, I got married by my pastor and then I went to the county courthouse and registered my union with the state. One is a religious designation, one is a legal designation.
I think homosexuals deserve all the legal and social benefits I receive by being married. I just don't think they should use a religious term to describe their union.
Do I think love is absolutely the most important thing ever? YES. Do I think it counts among sinners? YES! Why? Because we are all sinners. So if I were to discount the love of a gay couple, I undermine my own. We are absolutely no different in that. Do I agree with him that the "sanctity of marriage" is barely upheld by the people working so fervently to protect it. Sure do. He is right on that as well. The marriages we Christians do support only end up working out half the time anyway. That's messed up. It needs to be fixed. Doesn't all of this mean I should be okay with homosexuals getting married? No. Marriage currently is a societal term, but more than that, it is a religious term. My marriage has nothing to do with the state or politics. It is a covenant I made between my husband and God, the God of the Hebrews and Christians. It is clear in scripture that homosexuality is an abomination against God. So you cannot bring your abomination to God and ask him to uphold it. And I don't appreciate you using the same title I use to represent a covenant to represent your state title. It's not that I don't want to sully the title of marriage, it's that what you are doing isn't marriage. I would also go so far as to say what a lot of people do isn't marriage. Basically what I'm saying is that I think there should be two words. One describes the covenant I made with God and my husband (religious), and the other describes my social and legal standing with the person I am committed to (state). They were mixed out of convenience since governments started administrating it and I think now they need to be separated.
For example, I got married by my pastor and then I went to the county courthouse and registered my union with the state. One is a religious designation, one is a legal designation.
I think homosexuals deserve all the legal and social benefits I receive by being married. I just don't think they should use a religious term to describe their union.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Abortion Statement #2
Check out my previous post on this.
I just watched an edited video of the Rick Warren question session with Obama and McCain re: Abortion, and his question helped me to figure out a way to sum up my belief.
When does a baby get Human rights?
At the moment of conception
When does a baby get legal rights?
At the moment of birth
What that means to me is that the embryo inside a mother is to be respected, revered, and protected second to the mother. Once it is born, it is a citizen of the US, and it deserves every right and privilege that citizenship has to offer. Then it is equal to it's mother and every other US citizen.
I just watched an edited video of the Rick Warren question session with Obama and McCain re: Abortion, and his question helped me to figure out a way to sum up my belief.
When does a baby get Human rights?
At the moment of conception
When does a baby get legal rights?
At the moment of birth
What that means to me is that the embryo inside a mother is to be respected, revered, and protected second to the mother. Once it is born, it is a citizen of the US, and it deserves every right and privilege that citizenship has to offer. Then it is equal to it's mother and every other US citizen.
Monday, November 3, 2008
The Plunge
First of all, why is it so difficult to write about ANY issue on an anonymous blog? Well let's talk about the power of religion. I am a very very spiritual person. I think Jesus is awesome. I love him, and I would die for him. Almost all of my goals in life are centered around him. I am trying desperately to be closer to him. With that said, I've recently realized (and it was the catalyst for this blog) that it is really really difficult to have your own opinion when you fellowship with a bunch of religious people. Why? Because a differing opinion could mean that I love God and you do not. And a great great great deal of the time that is how it feels.
Hypothetically (HA) there is this leader in the church and they say drinking alcohol is sinful. They had prayed about it, they have studied it in scripture, they are convinced that drinking alcohol is sinful. Because they are a leader, so then must you. It doesn't matter that you studied it and actually found references where it is encouraged (not only Jesus' first miracle of turning water into wine, but my fave is Song of Songs 1:2 insinuating that wine is awesome). It doesn't matter that you've prayed about and feel peace about it. It doesn't matter. That religious leader said no, so therefore you must say no. What this leads to is a bunch of people who only care about a certain issue because someone told them to. Not only does that mean a lot of work for that leader, because re-convincing people something is evil/good can be hard work, but now all these people are judging those around them that disagree for no real reason. Most importantly, their relationship with the Holy Spirit has been hindered, not strengthened (which I believe is the real work of the church leadership - teach people how to have a relationship with God, NOT teach them how they should be living their lives. If they are communing with God, he will take care of that) *stepping off soap box*
So to have opinions on abortion that even slightly differ from ABSOLUTELY NOT can feel daunting. It feels stifling. Basically, all my friends, if they knew how I really felt, would label me a baby killer, which is not what I am. And I hate that. I hate that a lot. I know that no group of people is perfect, and I absolutely love my group of friends, but abortion is a closed book issue. I've never had an abortion and probably never will. Also, I will probably never encourage someone to have an abortion, and I will probably go a step further and beg them not to do it. There are some things about the mega right wing conservative Christian way of looking at this that do bother me, however surprising that may be.
Here is what I understand to be the Pro-life abortion creed. Life starts at conception. Any time you take life is considered murder, and on that premise, abortion should be illegal. I mean, it is pretty straight forward.
Here is what I understand to be the Pro-choice abortion creed. I have the right to make whatever choice I want to make. I do not consider a fetus alive (but that doesn't mean I don't value it) and therefore can with a clear conscience decide whether or not to end my pregnancy based on what is happening in my life at this moment.
I don't agree with either of those statements.
Before I start trying to explain what I do believe. Let me upfront about the fact that MUCH of what I believe lies in the bed of religious conviction. I have both studied this and prayed about it. I am not 100% settled on my opinion, but I am pretty convinced.
I believe a person isn't a person until they are no longer dependent on the mother for life. I believe they are JUST barely not a person. I believe they have a soul and a spirit, and I believe if they die in the uterus they still go before God to be judged. Tricky isn't. (I'm gonna start leaving out the believe part. Its annoying. Ill just state what I think as fact, and you just understand that all this is, is a fact that I believe) Basically, even if you don't believe a person is a person no matter how small, the fact is they will be. And that thing that isn't a person deserves your care and respect.
When conception occurs, biologically, its like hiking Mount Everest. I won't go into it, but ask the millions of women having trouble conceiving. It is difficult. It takes so many factors to line up perfectly to conceive a baby, let alone grow the baby, birth the baby, and then keep the baby alive unprotected by your abdomen. I just can't believe that the thing formed at conception isn't important, vitally important. I mean VITALLY important to the human race.
When you decide to have sex you know two things, 1) it feels great 2) I am doing the only thing I can do to create a baby. Whatever you believe about sex and marriage, it is always true that you can get pregnant having sex. If you are adult enough to have sex. you are adult enough to deal with ALL the consequences that come with it. Abortion as a means of birth control is absolutely 100% ridiculous. It infuriates me. The thought that we can get out of something because a consequence we knew would probably happen happened is disgusting to me. No birth control is 100%. Having an abortion because you were irresponsible and participated in an action that you were not fully ready to embrace the consequences of is childish. Again, if you are not adult enough to deal with the consequences of sex, you should not be having it. So teens that were having sex and WHOOPS got pregnant need to deal with it. Ladies who are on the fast track to their amazing career and WHOOPS get pregnant need to deal with it. Put on your big girl panties. What I am NOT meaning to insinuate is that you should keep the baby. I do not mean to say that sex=motherhood. What I mean to say is that sex=baby, and you need to deal with that. If you are willing to take the risk, fine, be willing to take the consequence. The idea of a people doing something and completely ignoring the natural consequences of it is gross and immoral no matter your religion or lack thereof. There should always be jail for theft. There should always be celebration for successful potty training. There should always be every attempt to keep a baby alive when impregnated.
What about babies with birth defects that will hinder them in life or will cause death immediately outside the womb? Trickier. Because I believe in a God, I believe it is his job to decided when to create someone and when to end their life. From a much less religious perspective, a doctor's job is to save people (or those that will be people). By the nature of their job, they work tirelessly to enhance life, to protect life, and in many many cases, save life. Do no harm. When an abortion is done, there is much harm done. For a doctor or a parent to decide to do harm is a weighty decision that should never be done lightly. Letting a doctor due harm because you are afraid of the course nature might take is not okay. If a baby dies 3 min after birth, I would think as a parent, you would want those 3 min. Death should not be our decision. It isn't a totally un-religious point of view, but it is less so than "Let's leave the dirty work to God." Would you ever look at a blind person and expect them to say, "I wish I had never been born?" I wouldn't, and I think neither would most people. What is most difficult about this aspect of abortion is that because of technology, we can keep people alive that never would have made it otherwise. Because we are immensely blessed we can support the weaker vessels in society where as in the Congo, if you can't run, you lose. I don't think this blessing should mean we are allowed to believe that a life just isn't worth living if it isn't easy and simple.
Okay, so what about Mom's health? Trickiest. Here is where I differ from Pro-lifer's. I don't think fetuses should have equal or more rights than the mom caring for it. I don't think it is wise to make a law saying, "I protect you baby, but not you mom." I don't think it is biblical or godly or morally correct. If a mom is dying, why should she remain pregnant? Obviously I think every option should be looked at to keep mother and baby alive, but in the event that the mom is going to die, the baby needs to come out. If that is at 16 weeks, it will probably die, which is tragic, but not as tragic as losing the mother. If that is at 33 weeks, then there is a good chance everyone is going to be okay. But that isn't considered abortion, it is considered birth and then fetal demise if the baby doesn't survive. I don't really think there should be a difference. The baby comes out, it is born. The baby should come out naturally. The baby should be taken out unnaturally if either the baby or the mother is in danger of death. I also extend this to ectopic pregnancies. It is foolish and bad for the human race to force women to carry babies that will at the very least kill the baby and cause the women to be infertile. At the very worst they both die. Foolish foolish foolish. Babies dependant on their mothers should not have rights equal to their mothers. I do not consider mental health to be covered in this umbrella. Again, if you thought having a baby would unhinge you mentally, you should not have been having sex.
Last but certainly not least, rape. Totally fair question. I also disagree with pro-lifers here. Kinda. :-) To me this is the major infringement of church and state. Having a conviction of the sanctity of life doesn't make you a Christian. It doesn't even make you religious. But telling someone they have to carry a child that is a direct result of abuse is not okay. This is not a consequence of their actions. This is not a selfish decision. This is not the order of nature. As a Christian, I would carry the baby because I believe God put that baby inside of me. But to force a non Christian to do the same, I believe, is persecution because they are not Christian. They believe a child is the biological consequence of sex. Sex they did not agree to. Sex that was probably very damaging. There is absolutely no humane reason a woman that was abused should carry the resulting child. I think I would because of religious reasons and convictions, but to force those on another woman without those convictions is wrong and unAmerican and like I said, I believe, persecution.
So, for the most part, I think abortion is inhumane. I also think to consider an unborn baby to have more rights than a mother is also inhumane. I don't know how I would want that specifically legislated, but I do know that I want abortion highly highly restricted.
There I said it. I would also like to say that I'm not editing this heavily because of the reason I started my blog. I want to respect my opinion. I don't want my opinion to be swayed by fear of anything or anyone but God. I'm afraid that if I re-read this too close I will chicken out, so forgive the grammar and spelling mistakes.
[ETA] I forgot to run the spell check, but didn't change the content. Just trying to stay accountable to myself.
Hypothetically (HA) there is this leader in the church and they say drinking alcohol is sinful. They had prayed about it, they have studied it in scripture, they are convinced that drinking alcohol is sinful. Because they are a leader, so then must you. It doesn't matter that you studied it and actually found references where it is encouraged (not only Jesus' first miracle of turning water into wine, but my fave is Song of Songs 1:2 insinuating that wine is awesome). It doesn't matter that you've prayed about and feel peace about it. It doesn't matter. That religious leader said no, so therefore you must say no. What this leads to is a bunch of people who only care about a certain issue because someone told them to. Not only does that mean a lot of work for that leader, because re-convincing people something is evil/good can be hard work, but now all these people are judging those around them that disagree for no real reason. Most importantly, their relationship with the Holy Spirit has been hindered, not strengthened (which I believe is the real work of the church leadership - teach people how to have a relationship with God, NOT teach them how they should be living their lives. If they are communing with God, he will take care of that) *stepping off soap box*
So to have opinions on abortion that even slightly differ from ABSOLUTELY NOT can feel daunting. It feels stifling. Basically, all my friends, if they knew how I really felt, would label me a baby killer, which is not what I am. And I hate that. I hate that a lot. I know that no group of people is perfect, and I absolutely love my group of friends, but abortion is a closed book issue. I've never had an abortion and probably never will. Also, I will probably never encourage someone to have an abortion, and I will probably go a step further and beg them not to do it. There are some things about the mega right wing conservative Christian way of looking at this that do bother me, however surprising that may be.
Here is what I understand to be the Pro-life abortion creed. Life starts at conception. Any time you take life is considered murder, and on that premise, abortion should be illegal. I mean, it is pretty straight forward.
Here is what I understand to be the Pro-choice abortion creed. I have the right to make whatever choice I want to make. I do not consider a fetus alive (but that doesn't mean I don't value it) and therefore can with a clear conscience decide whether or not to end my pregnancy based on what is happening in my life at this moment.
I don't agree with either of those statements.
Before I start trying to explain what I do believe. Let me upfront about the fact that MUCH of what I believe lies in the bed of religious conviction. I have both studied this and prayed about it. I am not 100% settled on my opinion, but I am pretty convinced.
I believe a person isn't a person until they are no longer dependent on the mother for life. I believe they are JUST barely not a person. I believe they have a soul and a spirit, and I believe if they die in the uterus they still go before God to be judged. Tricky isn't. (I'm gonna start leaving out the believe part. Its annoying. Ill just state what I think as fact, and you just understand that all this is, is a fact that I believe) Basically, even if you don't believe a person is a person no matter how small, the fact is they will be. And that thing that isn't a person deserves your care and respect.
When conception occurs, biologically, its like hiking Mount Everest. I won't go into it, but ask the millions of women having trouble conceiving. It is difficult. It takes so many factors to line up perfectly to conceive a baby, let alone grow the baby, birth the baby, and then keep the baby alive unprotected by your abdomen. I just can't believe that the thing formed at conception isn't important, vitally important. I mean VITALLY important to the human race.
When you decide to have sex you know two things, 1) it feels great 2) I am doing the only thing I can do to create a baby. Whatever you believe about sex and marriage, it is always true that you can get pregnant having sex. If you are adult enough to have sex. you are adult enough to deal with ALL the consequences that come with it. Abortion as a means of birth control is absolutely 100% ridiculous. It infuriates me. The thought that we can get out of something because a consequence we knew would probably happen happened is disgusting to me. No birth control is 100%. Having an abortion because you were irresponsible and participated in an action that you were not fully ready to embrace the consequences of is childish. Again, if you are not adult enough to deal with the consequences of sex, you should not be having it. So teens that were having sex and WHOOPS got pregnant need to deal with it. Ladies who are on the fast track to their amazing career and WHOOPS get pregnant need to deal with it. Put on your big girl panties. What I am NOT meaning to insinuate is that you should keep the baby. I do not mean to say that sex=motherhood. What I mean to say is that sex=baby, and you need to deal with that. If you are willing to take the risk, fine, be willing to take the consequence. The idea of a people doing something and completely ignoring the natural consequences of it is gross and immoral no matter your religion or lack thereof. There should always be jail for theft. There should always be celebration for successful potty training. There should always be every attempt to keep a baby alive when impregnated.
What about babies with birth defects that will hinder them in life or will cause death immediately outside the womb? Trickier. Because I believe in a God, I believe it is his job to decided when to create someone and when to end their life. From a much less religious perspective, a doctor's job is to save people (or those that will be people). By the nature of their job, they work tirelessly to enhance life, to protect life, and in many many cases, save life. Do no harm. When an abortion is done, there is much harm done. For a doctor or a parent to decide to do harm is a weighty decision that should never be done lightly. Letting a doctor due harm because you are afraid of the course nature might take is not okay. If a baby dies 3 min after birth, I would think as a parent, you would want those 3 min. Death should not be our decision. It isn't a totally un-religious point of view, but it is less so than "Let's leave the dirty work to God." Would you ever look at a blind person and expect them to say, "I wish I had never been born?" I wouldn't, and I think neither would most people. What is most difficult about this aspect of abortion is that because of technology, we can keep people alive that never would have made it otherwise. Because we are immensely blessed we can support the weaker vessels in society where as in the Congo, if you can't run, you lose. I don't think this blessing should mean we are allowed to believe that a life just isn't worth living if it isn't easy and simple.
Okay, so what about Mom's health? Trickiest. Here is where I differ from Pro-lifer's. I don't think fetuses should have equal or more rights than the mom caring for it. I don't think it is wise to make a law saying, "I protect you baby, but not you mom." I don't think it is biblical or godly or morally correct. If a mom is dying, why should she remain pregnant? Obviously I think every option should be looked at to keep mother and baby alive, but in the event that the mom is going to die, the baby needs to come out. If that is at 16 weeks, it will probably die, which is tragic, but not as tragic as losing the mother. If that is at 33 weeks, then there is a good chance everyone is going to be okay. But that isn't considered abortion, it is considered birth and then fetal demise if the baby doesn't survive. I don't really think there should be a difference. The baby comes out, it is born. The baby should come out naturally. The baby should be taken out unnaturally if either the baby or the mother is in danger of death. I also extend this to ectopic pregnancies. It is foolish and bad for the human race to force women to carry babies that will at the very least kill the baby and cause the women to be infertile. At the very worst they both die. Foolish foolish foolish. Babies dependant on their mothers should not have rights equal to their mothers. I do not consider mental health to be covered in this umbrella. Again, if you thought having a baby would unhinge you mentally, you should not have been having sex.
Last but certainly not least, rape. Totally fair question. I also disagree with pro-lifers here. Kinda. :-) To me this is the major infringement of church and state. Having a conviction of the sanctity of life doesn't make you a Christian. It doesn't even make you religious. But telling someone they have to carry a child that is a direct result of abuse is not okay. This is not a consequence of their actions. This is not a selfish decision. This is not the order of nature. As a Christian, I would carry the baby because I believe God put that baby inside of me. But to force a non Christian to do the same, I believe, is persecution because they are not Christian. They believe a child is the biological consequence of sex. Sex they did not agree to. Sex that was probably very damaging. There is absolutely no humane reason a woman that was abused should carry the resulting child. I think I would because of religious reasons and convictions, but to force those on another woman without those convictions is wrong and unAmerican and like I said, I believe, persecution.
So, for the most part, I think abortion is inhumane. I also think to consider an unborn baby to have more rights than a mother is also inhumane. I don't know how I would want that specifically legislated, but I do know that I want abortion highly highly restricted.
There I said it. I would also like to say that I'm not editing this heavily because of the reason I started my blog. I want to respect my opinion. I don't want my opinion to be swayed by fear of anything or anyone but God. I'm afraid that if I re-read this too close I will chicken out, so forgive the grammar and spelling mistakes.
[ETA] I forgot to run the spell check, but didn't change the content. Just trying to stay accountable to myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
