Here is my first post under the blog heading "Raises Hand" -- as in raising one's hand to ask a question.
I think I represent your average educated female (in grad school right now) with a liberal slant. I do not consider myself religious per se, but definitely a sort of agnostic.
With regards to religion and politics I prefer it kept out of my politics. Religion is faith-based. There is no empirical test that can be performed to confirm nor deny faith. Therefore, I believe in using it to guide your life but its merger with the politics of the US is not appreciated.
Politically, I am a non-Republican. That is about as close to a definition as I can give. I am a registered (embarrassed) Democrat only because I want to vote in primaries. I don't vote along party lines if it is not how I feel. I reside in California, participated in the recall election and am very embarrassed to have the Gubernator as our governor. I am also embarrassed to know people who voted for Arnie.
I do not like the Bush Administration and think that they are only harming America. Whether it is our borders, our image, our national security, our progressiveness, our relation to other nations, etc., I feel that what has been occurring these past five-plus years has done nothing positive for our role in the world. I do not lay the blame solely on BushCo, for Congress has also earned my ire.
Hence, "Raises Hand." What are we doing? What is going on? Why is this happening? Why do I feel like one of a handful that is only left with shame in being American, with no pride?
To quote Bill Maher from his "I'm Swiss" stand-up: "...Embarrassed, not unpatriotic. There is a difference..."
Part of my queries derive from the standpoint of being non-religious and with higher education backgrounds in the natural sciences.
For example--
I watch/listen/read the
stem-cell debate and shake my head. It is immoral to kill these "babies" (or whatever term they want to give these frozen embryos) but it is completely moral to create them in a petri dish in a lab? Ri-ight. It is acceptable to inject more embryos than is expected to implant (
those embryos that do not implant do not lose value) but it is wholly unacceptable to allow unused, unimplanted, nondonated, going to be destroyed embryos to be used for a significant potential scientific area.
I cannot believe how little chatter there is regarding
why this debate exists in the first place: people who could not naturally conceive turned to science. This same science enabled them to become pregnant and have a natural, biological child. That same science played the odds-game by injecting more embryos than are expected to implant and there is no outrage at the fact that by virtue of the IVF procedure, embryos are allowed to expire. Yet the second we talk about "destroying" embryos in the name of stem-cell research we are murderers. Yeah, right. Because there is
so much credibility in that position.
So I raise my hand and ask: Why don't we bring to light
why this debate exists? It is just as relevant to the debate as the actual destruction of the embryos in whatever format. Why do we not confront the reason we are having a stem-cell debate in the first place?
Since I am on the subject of murdering innocents -- abortion. I do appreciate the flip of pro-choice to pro-abortion. Thank you. I hope you also appreciate my flip of pro-life to anti-choice. Just so we are on even footing and all...
In the context of today's society, not only is there the strong movement of anti-choice but it is coupled with the strong desire to not educate our children about sex, about STDs, about pregnancy and the like. They want abortion gone. Period. They refuse to acknowledge that a reduction in abortions is due to a reduction in unwanted pregnancies. That a reduction in unwanted pregnancies is related to the availability of birth control in whatever form. Abstinence is a form, but it is not the only form. But these same people do not want birth control available because if it is, it is a license to have sex.
They do not want their children educated because if they know about sex and birth control they will have sex. This current anti-choice culture refuses to concede certain issues to come to the point that they want -- little to no abortions.
Raises Hand: Do you not have faith in the values you have taught your children? Do you not have faith that although sex, education about sex, birth control, peer pressure and the like are out there that your children are so feeble, despite your teachings, that they will fall in line like lemmings and start having sex at the utterance of the word "sex:"?
Further, we allow pharmacists's to have a moral objection to dispensing birth control pills and/or the morning after pill. With regards to not dispensing birth control -- that is completely unacceptable. As a woman, I understand that some women are on the pill not because they are sexually active, but because they have horrible menses. I personally have a friend that would have menses that last 2 - 3 weeks and when all was said and done would be anemic before it was over. Since she has been on the pill, no more weeks-end bleeding or anemia. (Sorry to any male who may be reading but facts are facts).
There was an excellent article on washingtonpost.com from June 4, 2006. It was titled "What Happens When there is No Plan B?" (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/1047998141.html?dids=1047998141:1047998141&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&fmac=&date=Jun+4%2C+2006&author=Dana+L.&desc=What+Happens+When+There+Is+No+Plan+B%3F)
(The above story is now found in their $$ archive pages)
The quick and dirty gist of the story is this: A 42-year old educated woman (a lawyer) from Virginia makes love with her husband, forgets to insert her diaphragm and decides to get the morning after pill (Plan B) to make sure that a pregnancy does not result from their 'whoopsie' moment. She and her husband already have 2 elementary school age children. Guess what? Her doctor does not prescribe Plan B. Neither did her internist. Her midwife could, but not over the phone and there were no appointments she could get. The weekend (the 72-hour window) was approaching. She hoped for the best due to her age and weeks later found herself pregnant. She was on medication for cholesterol which is on the FDA's Pregnancy Category X -- do not take if your are pregnant or trying to get pregnant. She is already in the high-risk category for pregnancies due to her age, she's on a medication that is a no-no and while she tried to prevent a pregnancy in the first place, she was not successful. In the end, she and her husband terminated the pregnancy.
Some people would read this story and wag their fingers at her with all kinds of admonitions. Whatever. The presumption that over-the-counter Plan B is some free license for kids to have sex without consequence is ridiculous. People have sex. Period. People make mistakes. Period. But this woman would not have to get an abortion if Plan B was available over the counter like it is supposed to be. There is no reason for the FDA to hold it up. It has no health risks. It is simply a "moral" issue. This story illustrates the problems with religion/morality and legislature. They do not mix. And the intent of their reasoning led to the one thing they did not want -- an abortion.
It is not that we do not understand that these arenas are not tough. Abortion, stem cell research etc. are hard issues for some people. But you have to put the Bible down and think with your head. You have to compromise in a society to get what you want. You have to put above yourself what is best for others. Most laws (and our own Constitution) is to protect the minority, not the majority.
These same "moral" people want us in this Iraqi war where not only our own troops (children) are dying but innocent Iraqi citizens. Do you think God approves of that? Do you think God wants any of his children to die? Even in the name of "democracy"?
These same "moral" people do not care about the debt the US keeps mounting.
These same "moral" people that were elected did not even seem to care about Americans in the wake of Katrina.
Raises Hand feels that we are on a true moral decline. And not the kind of decline the "moral" people are talking about -- except Jimmy Carter. But there are so many of us who look at America with embarrassment and shame. What are we becoming?
And I hold many people accountable. I hold anyone who voted for GWB in either election accountable. But my strong distaste is for those who voted for him in 2004. We have also enabled the pansies in Congress to do nothing and just say "whatever" to this Administration.
I am so deeply saddened by the state of our country.
And don't even get me started on this whole Israel - Lebanon fiasco...
Or the "axis-of-evil" Iran who is true threat to the Middle East.
Raises Hand is sad, bitter, angry and not too hopeful right now.
Final question: Why can't the Democrats (Democants) get their act together? Why?
RH
