My First Slip-up

[Jeff H]

Well, I had my first minor slip-up since my de-conversion. It's kind of a funny story, so I thought I'd share it. I was out for dinner with three of my closest friends, celebrating my birthday, and we got talking about the US election. (Because who isn't talking about it these days? Sheesh. I don't even live there and I'm talking about it.) My friends aren't that "into" politics, so I was explaining about how Sarah Palin is a complete imbecile, and then my one friend was like, "Yeah she is pretty stupid, but then again...I like her because she's pro-life."

 

Hah! I didn't really know what to say about that, but I let it go. She is incredibly deep into the pro-life movement, and is actually the head of the pro-life club at the university I go to. So I try my best to not argue with her about that (even though I'm not entirely sure about my stand on the issue at this point - not really my highest priority). Anyway, another one of my friends started talking about how it was so cool that she had found that "one issue" that she was passionate about, etc. After that slight detour, we started talking about the upcoming Canadian election (which is sooner and which we can actually vote in, but which makes little difference, since the American one will probably affect us more anyway). The same pro-life friend asked us who we were voting for, and we all just kind of shrugged our shoulders. I said I hadn't decided yet, which was the truth. Then she mentioned that she was voting Conservative, since the MP in our riding was pro-life. She then mentioned that "I can't vote for someone who kills babies". Direct quote. That got a laugh out of me. So, any person who supports abortion, or who even just doesn't explicitly mention which side they are on, automatically is a baby-killer? I said this to her, and I don't think she really responded. But then I turned to my other friend and told her that perhaps she would find her "one cause" as being a baby-killer.

 

My pro-life friend wasn't too happy. She told me it wasn't funny. But I just had to say it

[Guest Net Eng]

Ah yes. The one issue voter.

 

Gee, I'm glad we don't have any of those in the US!!

 

 

See I said made that joke without barfing... but I do wish it was true.

[Llwellyn]

Question -- as a Canadian, why do you think that the results of the US election may be more consequential to you than the Canadian elections? I don't understand... :)

[R. S. Martin]

Question -- as a Canadian, why do you think that the results of the US election may be more consequential to you than the Canadian elections? I don't understand...

 

Why does the bully next door impact your home life more than your own big brother who is living in the same house as you?

[R. S. Martin]

I'm looking at those smilies in your post, LLwellyn. Maybe that wasn't a real question. Sorry if it wasn't.

[Karhoof]

Why does the bully next door impact your home life more than your own big brother who is living in the same house as you?

HEY! You get your nose back over on your own side of the fence! I swear I'll....

Damn Canucks!

 

 

 

 

[Llwellyn]

No... it was a real question. I mean, I guess that US decisions affect people all over the world. Especially economic, military, cultural... Now that I think about it, it makes sense. I think a lot of it is not due to any "bullying" by the US, but simply because the US is so large, populous and productive. It is the third most populous country in the world, after all (following China and India). Culturally, it has a huge influence. The US does bully, but that's not nearly the only reason why people are affected by it.

 

Americans are also affected by the national governments of foreign countries. For example, iit makes a difference to our daily lives who is running China, if only because, like the USA, China is a country with a mammoth population and economy.

[upstarter]

My parents have voted Conservative my whole life. I personally consider this to be voting against their own interest since they are working class people who the Conservatives couldn't care less about. But they are also one issue voters and they vote Conservative because they are the only explicitly pro-life party. Yep. That and of course now that their leader is a blatant fundie, they love the Conservatives even more. *sigh*

 

Heather

[Asimov]

As far as I'm concerned, Harper has done very good things with the Canadian economy considering the status of the global economy. He's also refused to bring up abortion discussion. My only issues with him are that he appears to want to crack down on gun ownership and maintain the war in Afghanistan.

 

I don't think it's adequate to say that he's like George W. He's intelligent and pleases me. I would hate to vote for Dion or for Layton. Dion just whines about Harper without providing any real answers himself and Layton doesn't look at the big picture of the economy.

[Max]

Have you ever noticed that the pr-life camp is mostly pro-life-before-birth? After birth, they're not much interested.

[buffettphan]

It amazes me how many pro-lifers turn away from their sky-daddy's example of murdering innocent babies (and children/adults/entire villages) all throughout their buybull.

 

 

 

 

The christian quest -- to find the impossible by following the illogical.

AtheistToothFairy, Ex-Christian.net

[BiMamaFeminAtheist]

I was adamantly pro-life "everyone else is killing babies" growing up. Fundieism at its purest. I remember crying when Clinton got sworn in (literally).

 

Then we had W for eight years, and during that time I became a divorced poor single mother on food stamps. Now I'm pro-choice. That sounds really harsh. I love my son - I ADORE my son. He is the greatest gift of my life. But having him, and raising him without another parent, and with really crap personal finances for the first two and half years of his life... Here are the reasons I've become pro-choice:

1. I nearly died multiple times during the THIRD trimester
   
2. If I were to become pregnant again, I would risk leaving my son an orphan
   
3. the "entitlement" programs don't cover enough unless you game the system
   
4. While going to school full time and working part time and being a mom 24/7 I had only $112 a month to buy all the food for two people
   
5. For about a year I had to decide which one of us was going to eat that month (I always picked my son)
   
6. Even court-ordered child support isn't aggressively pursued
   
7. It got so bad at one point, my son and I lived in my car
   

 

Now, I'm a smart, hard-worker. My entire goal when I was on food stamps was to earn enough to get OFF of them. The funding for early childhood education (so that I *could* work) is craptastic. Assistance here is a joke, and the wealthy constantly bitch about how the poor are "lazy" and taking advantage of them. Some people certainly are - I've met a few Welfare queens, and told them what I think of them, and how hard they make it for the rest of us, who actually WANT to be tax-paying members of society and support our families without assistance.

 

I've risen above the circumstances, and now my son and I are assistance-free. I pay unholy amounts each week for him to attend preschool while I work 50+ hours a week to pay the bills and try to maybe start saving up for his college fund. But there are a lot of women out there who aren't willing, motivated, able, etc. to do what I do. I am the exception, I think.

 

Living in poverty causes depression. Kids without health insurance (mine got turned down for Medicaid because I make "too much" and John McCain voted against increasing enrollment into the State Children's Health Insurance Plan SCHIP to help kids whose parents can't afford private insurance) are 3 times less likely to go to a doctor in any given year, more likely to miss school due to absence, and have treatable medical conditions go untreated.

 

A lot of women who become pregnant and might consider an abortion if it weren't so demonized have substance abuse problems. I have worked with more than one child with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, or born addicted to cocaine. A lot of these women aren't great mothers. In fact, they're terrible mothers. And growing up poor, with an addict parent, in a project or other low-income area doesn't give someone the necessary tools in life to get out and succeed. It *can* happen, but it isn't exactly automatic or even typical.

 

I believe that until we radically change the Welfare/Medicaid/Food Stamps system in America - so that women are helped the most during the first years, offered birth control counseling and free access to contraception, comprehensive (not abstinence-only) sex education is offered in public schools, and continual monitoring of a Welfare child's health and mental well-being are added, as well as increased assistance with early childhood education, and REQUIREMENTS for work on the part of the parents are all added into the system - we must keep abortion legal.

 

And if Roe v. Wade is overturned and it becomes a "state issue" as suggested by pro-life politicians, it will mean that a wealthy woman with an unwanted pregnancy has the option of traveling out of state to get an abortion, while a low-income woman in the same situation will have no option but to carry the child to term, or carry out a dangerous "house call abortion".

 

When you are not motivated by love for the child, things like quitting smoking, quitting drinking, and being healthy during pregnancy are damn near impossible. Adoption is not an easy thing to arrange. Even if you do want the child to do well in life but don't feel personally able to provide that yourself, putting the child in the hands of the State is so uncertain. Foster home abuse does happen - a lot. Most of the girls in the sexual abuse survivors group I attended as a kid were molested or raped by foster brothers or foster fathers. Very few of us were not in foster care.

 

I love my son. For me, being pregnant and having him was the right thing to do. But I've already come to the conclusion that if I were to become pregnant again, I would have an abortion rather than risk leaving my child an orphan. (I really did face death a lot during my pregnancy with him, and so did he.) For me, this means the 12-year IUD. Some consider this form of contraception to BE a form of abortion - it creates a hostile environment which stops a fertilized egg from implanting into the uterine wall, so that it's flushed out with the monthly cycle. Then you have to get into the whole debate of when life begins, at conception or later. Personally, I think it's later and I'd rather have a monthly "cleanse" than have to have a surgical abortion later during a pregnancy.

 

I know this is a topic people have very strong, visceral, emotional responses to. I just thought I would post my own personal conclusions and experiences regarding the issue, and I hope people can agree or disagree with me respectfully. I am a good mother to my son and love him more than life itself. But my family size is complete. We are as large as we need to be, and I've just in the past few months gotten to the place where I can financially provide for the one child I do have, and really could not afford to have another. This isn't an issue of "wanting more money" but rather not wanting to have a child who goes hungry because mommy can't make enough money to buy food for everyone.

[Max]

BiMama - I really applalud your efforts to improve your life and your willingness to tell your story. Life is much more complicated that the right-to-lifers would like to imagine. If women only got preganant when they weren't using birth control and wanted a child, if the baby daddy was always around and willing to support his child, if society was truly willing to help support children, then they might have a better case.

 

But it's just not that simple. And having a kid is a huge responsibility that a woman (or girl) may not always be ready for.

[Jeff H]

No... it was a real question. I mean, I guess that US decisions affect people all over the world. Especially economic, military, cultural... Now that I think about it, it makes sense. I think a lot of it is not due to any "bullying" by the US, but simply because the US is so large, populous and productive. It is the third most populous country in the world, after all (following China and India). Culturally, it has a huge influence. The US does bully, but that's not nearly the only reason why people are affected by it.

 

Americans are also affected by the national governments of foreign countries. For example, iit makes a difference to our daily lives who is running China, if only because, like the USA, China is a country with a mammoth population and economy.

There ya go, you answered your own question. The US has a massive cultural empire that affects its next-door neighbours very strongly. I don't know that I'd call America a "bully", but at the same time, our prime ministers are very hesitant to do anything that could "endanger" our ties to America. The President doesn't care so much, which is why he had no problems with deciding to force Canadians coming into the country to have passports (although I don't think it's fully implemented yet). I mean, it's a give-and-take relationship, but mostly with the giving on the side of the Canadians and the taking on the side of the Americans. Simply because they can flex their muscles better than we can

 

As far as I'm concerned, Harper has done very good things with the Canadian economy considering the status of the global economy. He's also refused to bring up abortion discussion. My only issues with him are that he appears to want to crack down on gun ownership and maintain the war in Afghanistan.

 

I don't think it's adequate to say that he's like George W. He's intelligent and pleases me. I would hate to vote for Dion or for Layton. Dion just whines about Harper without providing any real answers himself and Layton doesn't look at the big picture of the economy.

I don't have a huge problem with Harper, except that he seems to care approximately 0% for environmental issues. I'm getting sick of the lack of action on the part of the major parties in Canada on this issue, and I briefly considered voting Liberal simply because of Dion's carbon tax plan. I have no idea whether it will work, but at least it's something. However, Harper also plays his cards extremely close to his chest - partially, of course, because of the minority government situation, but I think it's more of his leadership style, and it's very disconcerting to hear that his ministers have to clear things with him first before talking to any journalists about anything. But at any rate, I think I've decided to vote Green. I don't like the Conservatives, and I don't like the Liberals, and I think the NDP are just crazy, so I'm essentially throwing away my vote on Green, but doing so in order to make a statement. I at least want someone to do something about these environmental issues everyone talks about but nobody handles. My prediction is two seats for Green this term. I think it's a step in the right direction. I'd like to see a little more variety in the parliamentary colour scheme

 

Wow. I think that's the longest I've ever spent talking about political issues. Back to being a politics-hater...

 

Wow, that's quite the story you have. You bring up a good point, that most of the women who want/get abortions do so because they are unprepared financially, emotionally, or whatever else to raise a child. You have young teenagers getting pregnant, and they're not ready. You have low-income mothers that aren't prepared financially to raise a child. And yet the pro-life movement's answer is, "Adoption!" Which is a good thing, and I highly recommend adoption, but at the same time, it's not the catch-all solution. It can't be. It can take years for an adoption to happen.

 

The thing I am coming to realize is that the abortion issue is not so black-and-white as I thought it once was. An adaptive strategy is needed to allow women to decide what they need for their specific situation. I am still not sure that I'd say I was "pro-choice", but I do understand that the context is necessary. It's an issue with all sorts of shades of grey. But at least offering it as a proper medical procedure removes the risk for the women who are going to get the abortions one way or another.

 

And I just had a thought: Technically, "life" begins before conception. I mean, if you consider a joined sperm and egg to be a life, then it's reasonable to think that an individual sperm or egg is also a life. So women murder babies every month, and men do it, at the very least, every time they have sex (whether that be self- or full-serve ). We're a rotten bunch of murderers, whether we support abortion or not!

[BiMamaFeminAtheist]

BiMama - I really applalud your efforts to improve your life and your willingness to tell your story. Life is much more complicated that the right-to-lifers would like to imagine. If women only got preganant when they weren't using birth control and wanted a child, if the baby daddy was always around and willing to support his child, if society was truly willing to help support children, then they might have a better case.

 

But it's just not that simple. And having a kid is a huge responsibility that a woman (or girl) may not always be ready for.

Thank you. It's a touchy subject, and I really do understand the differing views out there. My own views just happened to change as I got more information (in my case, very personally applicable info). Sort of like how my view on "gawd" changed as I started to read my buybull more...

 

But on the "baby daddy" front - hell, I was MARRIED and by the time my son was 6 weeks old I was a single parent. I grew up in a black and white world. I remember telling a therapist it was nice to recognize the grays and she said to me, "Someday you'll see all the colors!" Very cool lady

[BiMamaFeminAtheist]

Wow, that's quite the story you have. You bring up a good point, that most of the women who want/get abortions do so because they are unprepared financially, emotionally, or whatever else to raise a child. You have young teenagers getting pregnant, and they're not ready. You have low-income mothers that aren't prepared financially to raise a child. And yet the pro-life movement's answer is, "Adoption!" Which is a good thing, and I highly recommend adoption, but at the same time, it's not the catch-all solution. It can't be. It can take years for an adoption to happen.

 

The thing I am coming to realize is that the abortion issue is not so black-and-white as I thought it once was. An adaptive strategy is needed to allow women to decide what they need for their specific situation. I am still not sure that I'd say I was "pro-choice", but I do understand that the context is necessary. It's an issue with all sorts of shades of grey. But at least offering it as a proper medical procedure removes the risk for the women who are going to get the abortions one way or another.

 

And I just had a thought: Technically, "life" begins before conception. I mean, if you consider a joined sperm and egg to be a life, then it's reasonable to think that an individual sperm or egg is also a life. So women murder babies every month, and men do it, at the very least, every time they have sex (whether that be self- or full-serve ). We're a rotten bunch of murderers, whether we support abortion or not!

I whole-heartedly support adoption - my aunt and uncle adopted two kids and my godmom did as well. It's a good thing to provide a loving home if you are able. It's just not accurate to say there are as many heterosexual couples (eligible for adoption here) wanting to adopt a child as there are unwanted or unintended pregnancies.

 

Also, an interesting stat - abortion is at a 30 year low in the US. But unplanned pregnancies are on the rise. I have to wonder if this is an effect of the "abortion=baby killing" propaganda. I personally know a girl who is 24 and pregnant with her sixth child. The first two are both products of rape, but since she doesn't support abortion, she had them (and cannot be a good mother to them - the state has taken her first five kids). This to me is just a tragedy all around, whatever decision she had made, abortion, adoption, or in her case, having kids and then being a poor provider and using cocaine while pregnant. I just can't see that as better than abortion, personally.

 

And remember - the whole "masturbation is murder" premise was started in the Bible with the sin of onanism! That's why self-pleasuring is a sin and why menstruating women are an abomination. (But why is it a sin for a woman to masturbate, since this won't release any extra eggs????)

[lost in space]

Have you ever noticed that the pr-life camp is mostly pro-life-before-birth? After birth, they're not much interested.

 

So very true!

[Guest quietheart]

I'd have to say I'm ore pro choice than pro life, I'll explain, for me personally I was, until I had my tubes tied, completely pro life, but I don't think it's right for me to force my views on someone else. I feel a woman should have the choice if she's raped or there are health issues, I hate it when women use abortion as birth control though. I myself was raped and became pregnant at a very young age. I loved my son and was going to do everything I could to keep him, he died when I was 4 1/2 months pregnant. I still miss him, 22 years later, I wonder if I'd be a Grandma, etc., but I also realize it was truly better for me not to have him at such a young age. I could never look a woman who's been raped in the eyes and tell her she doesn't have any choice but to have that child. Do to my rape and severe abuse, of multiple types, I had a lot of trouble carrying children to term, I had 7 babies that died. I know people disagree about when they are considered babies, I'm just voicing that they were babies to me so please don't be offended. I'm lucky to have 3 amazing children alive and well. We've all had a rough life, but we love each other and it makes it all worthwhile. I also have a dear friend who would love to have a child but can't, I feel badly for her, but I also know that due to personal issues she would not be able to care for a child either. I think abortion should also possibly be mandatory for drug/alcohol users. I have 2 cousins who were born to my Aunt when she was on drugs. The oldest found out he was adopted when he was 13 and had to have a kidney transplant because of the damage the drugs did. The other cousin was adopted outside the family and we have no idea if he's dead or alive, tbh he is most likely dead because he was born with a lot of health issues also. I hope everyone doesn't mind me voicing my opinion. This is just such a complex personal issue.

Es

[Robbobrob]

I wish there was never another abortion ever again.

 

But banning abortions is not the answer....abortions are the symptom of other issues going on, not the cause.

 

Every conception is different, with a different set of circumstances.

 

I have a tough time explaining what I mean.

 

Until we no longer have a NEED for ending a pregnancy, we should not ban the right to choose.

[florduh]

BMFA - Wow! What a story.

 

You're my new hero.

[Asimov]

I don't have a huge problem with Harper, except that he seems to care approximately 0% for environmental issues. I'm getting sick of the lack of action on the part of the major parties in Canada on this issue, and I briefly considered voting Liberal simply because of Dion's carbon tax plan. I have no idea whether it will work, but at least it's something. However, Harper also plays his cards extremely close to his chest - partially, of course, because of the minority government situation, but I think it's more of his leadership style, and it's very disconcerting to hear that his ministers have to clear things with him first before talking to any journalists about anything. But at any rate, I think I've decided to vote Green. I don't like the Conservatives, and I don't like the Liberals, and I think the NDP are just crazy, so I'm essentially throwing away my vote on Green, but doing so in order to make a statement. I at least want someone to do something about these environmental issues everyone talks about but nobody handles. My prediction is two seats for Green this term. I think it's a step in the right direction. I'd like to see a little more variety in the parliamentary colour scheme

 

Wow. I think that's the longest I've ever spent talking about political issues. Back to being a politics-hater...

 

Dion is an asshole. Anyone who thinks that "more taxation" is going to solve our current environmental issues needs to go fuck themselves. Dion is just pandering to the people who think that looking like you're doing something is the same as doing something. The carbon tax pissed off a lot of people in BC here, there's absolutely no point. If we're going to do something, then it will have to be along the lines of tax breaks for people who use less energy, people who buy more fuel efficient cars, companies who make the biggest effort to reduce emissions and pollute the environment. Punishing people because they have to drive to work every day is retarded. Rewarding people because they take a Corolla to work instead of a Hummer is way more effective.

 

If BC didn't have such a shitty transit system, I'm sure more people would be inclined to take it.

 

The Green party would toss our economy to the gutter and curb-stomp it.

[Jeff H]

Dion is an asshole. Anyone who thinks that "more taxation" is going to solve our current environmental issues needs to go fuck themselves. Dion is just pandering to the people who think that looking like you're doing something is the same as doing something. The carbon tax pissed off a lot of people in BC here, there's absolutely no point. If we're going to do something, then it will have to be along the lines of tax breaks for people who use less energy, people who buy more fuel efficient cars, companies who make the biggest effort to reduce emissions and pollute the environment. Punishing people because they have to drive to work every day is retarded. Rewarding people because they take a Corolla to work instead of a Hummer is way more effective.

 

If BC didn't have such a shitty transit system, I'm sure more people would be inclined to take it.

 

The Green party would toss our economy to the gutter and curb-stomp it.

Lol oh I know. When the carbon tax plan was first put out, I remember hearing that Dion apparently said it might not be totally effective, and that they might need to do a whole cap-and-trade thing on top of it. And I kinda sat there and thought...."Then why not just do that in the first place?" It's ridiculous, and yet at the same time, I still feel it's better than Harper's "committment to reducing greenhouse gases" or whatever BS he's spouting. At least Dion has a plan - perhaps it's a crappy plan, but it at least gets the politicians - and the people - talking about environmental issues. Promising some vague "committment" is stupid.

 

But at any rate, as for the Green party, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I don't want Green to ever be in power. However, seeing as that's not going to happen in this election at any rate, I feel comfortable enough putting my vote in for them, as a way of at least getting the environmental thing nailed down. In my view, both Canada and America have done way too little for way too long, and since I doubt China's going to put a cap-and-trade system on their factories, I think it's probably up to us. Having a couple Green seats in Parliament will at least make sure that the issue stays on the table. After something reasonable is put in place, the Green party can get thrown in the trash (or maybe the recycling bin?).

[Asimov]

At least Dion has a plan - perhaps it's a crappy plan, but it at least gets the politicians - and the people - talking about environmental issues. Promising some vague "committment" is stupid.

 

You're being sucked into the pandering trash spouted by the incoherent Dion. He doesn't have a plan because he doesn't have a clue. Most of the people in politics who SAY they have a plan are all talk, talk, talk until they get elected and then it's bullshit from here on out. Focusing on multiple alternative energy sources to reduce dependency on just one commodity and create competition on a monopolized energy market, reducing overpackaged goods (consumer responsibility), pressuring grocery store companies to stop providing plastic bags at no cost (that or stop providing them at all), improving a fuel-efficient transit system are all viable options. Providing tax-breaks to citizens who DO use fuel-efficient cars, etc.

 

I don't see any politician talking about these. Instead we get "we're gonna tax the fuck out of you".

[Jeff H]

At least Dion has a plan - perhaps it's a crappy plan, but it at least gets the politicians - and the people - talking about environmental issues. Promising some vague "committment" is stupid.

 

You're being sucked into the pandering trash spouted by the incoherent Dion. He doesn't have a plan because he doesn't have a clue. Most of the people in politics who SAY they have a plan are all talk, talk, talk until they get elected and then it's bullshit from here on out. Focusing on multiple alternative energy sources to reduce dependency on just one commodity and create competition on a monopolized energy market, reducing overpackaged goods (consumer responsibility), pressuring grocery store companies to stop providing plastic bags at no cost (that or stop providing them at all), improving a fuel-efficient transit system are all viable options. Providing tax-breaks to citizens who DO use fuel-efficient cars, etc.

 

I don't see any politician talking about these. Instead we get "we're gonna tax the fuck out of you".

Hmmm....any chance you can get in on a ballot or two?

 

Asimov for PM!

[Asimov]

At least Dion has a plan - perhaps it's a crappy plan, but it at least gets the politicians - and the people - talking about environmental issues. Promising some vague "committment" is stupid.

 

You're being sucked into the pandering trash spouted by the incoherent Dion. He doesn't have a plan because he doesn't have a clue. Most of the people in politics who SAY they have a plan are all talk, talk, talk until they get elected and then it's bullshit from here on out. Focusing on multiple alternative energy sources to reduce dependency on just one commodity and create competition on a monopolized energy market, reducing overpackaged goods (consumer responsibility), pressuring grocery store companies to stop providing plastic bags at no cost (that or stop providing them at all), improving a fuel-efficient transit system are all viable options. Providing tax-breaks to citizens who DO use fuel-efficient cars, etc.

 

I don't see any politician talking about these. Instead we get "we're gonna tax the fuck out of you".

Hmmm....any chance you can get in on a ballot or two?

 

Asimov for PM!

 

If only. I'd probably revert Canada to a more libertarian system, if that were even possible.