Who Won?

I have waited until the election was over and the pundits were basically done with the post election analysis to pen another post. Much to my surprise the punditry goes on and on and on. I occasionally wonder if we need to begin riding horses again so the expression about beating a dead horse would actually have some meaning again.

Now, we have secession petitions in all 50 states. I am not surprised as often, after an election, there are always people who are dismayed with the results. Generally life goes on, people calm down and the usual disagreements with the government go along as before. This time, again, it is different.

Recently this writer has felt compelled on Facebook, my usual form of interaction with my friends, to attempt to explain how government works. Apparently some have come to the conclusion that bills magically appear on the Presidents desk in the night like some form of bill fairy places them there while he is sleeping. As wonderful it would be if there was indeed such a fairy that placed well thought out legislation in the Oval Office at night, that is not how it works.

Unfortunately, part of this post will be boring to some and I will attempt to keep this part as brief as possible.

The President of the United States does not write proposals, submit bills, debate them or vote on them. Congress does that. The U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate does those tedious jobs and then, and more aptly put, if they create a piece of legislation, then it goes to the President who either signs it or vetoes it. I am hoping that covers enough of that process for us to go on.

The preceding election campaigns seem to have been long on personal attacks and short on substance. The debates were poorly moderated, questions were framed as softly as pillows and our wars were basically not even discussed.

What was discussed, not by the Presidential candidates but by Congressional hopefuls was far more disturbing to me, personally and on a societal level. Womens rights.

The fact that womens rights were a campaign issue was disturbing to this writer simply because this matter has two clear parts. First, women are people with minds, and intelligence and capable of making their own decisions and attempting to legislate women and how they care for themselves and how they do it, and the means they do it is up to them.

Secondly, the majority of people who wanted to ban abortions, force doctors to lie to their patients and force women to bear unspeakable humiliation and degradation in the doctors office, were men.

The impetus behind every single attack on abortion and birth control, planned parenthood et al is religion. Not one instance on this topic cannot be tied, with little to no research, on the opponents beliefs in God and as such the interpretation of the Bible they read.

This my fellow reader is not government in action or legislation for the good of all, it is the very clear decision by a group of people that their will be done. It has nothing to do with what is right, or fair or best for the country but simply what ones religious beliefs are. I choose not to use moral because morals and religion are not necessarily companions.

Governments set rules and laws for the benefit of all its constituents, not to set ones mind at ease that ones God will be appeased.

This recent election clearly showed one thing to this writer. The future of this nation will not be in the hands of the preachers or the religious zealots, but in the hands of rational people who choose rights over religion, sensibility over zeal and the good of country over good of personal beliefs.

Although this quote is lifted from an old episode of Star Trek, perhaps it is a fictional line that bears tremendous truth and meaning and should be repeated as part of the oath Representatives, Senators, Judges and Presidents take. “ The good of the many outweigh the good of the few”

Why Are We Here?

I had hoped that with the recent poorly worded statements by Todd Akin, U.S. Senate Republican candidate for Missouri, a moment of clarity would wash across the party and bring a sense of realization that, although possibly well intentioned, their statements were wrong, poorly framed and insensitive to women at the very least.  Indeed, I had hoped that my second post on this blog would be about other pressing issues facing our nation, such as welfare reform or fair taxation. Sadly this will not be the case.  Now the debate, which really should not exist, is being turned towards definitions in hopes of salvaging a tremendously poorly thought out statement.

Rape. There are many ways to define it but I will stick with the very base definition. Rape is forced and unwanted sexual intercourse. It is not limited to women, it happens to men as well.  This is not a deep concept. There is no ambiguity or misleading principals involved. Rape is a very clear act of sexual aggression. It is a crime and it is very wrong, regardless of sexual orientation.  Why is there now a seeming desire to delineate forms of rape? Legitimate rape is a phrase I keep hearing and I wonder who or why anyone would even consider deciding that rape has varying degrees.

I can understand a politician, or anyone for that matter, making an error in judgement and attempting to correct it.  But more importantly, why would anyone who made such an egregious error attempt to do anything other than to apologize, and attempt to move on?  Clearly to a civilized human being, rape is a horrid act that should be treated as the sickening crime that it is. What is puzzling to me, though, is that the person who is the criminal in such an act is not necessarily the perpetrator but the victim.  How and why there are people who are willing to punish the victim by forcing them to carry a pregnancy created by this crime utterly escapes me. I cannot find any comprehensible reason why rape is a crime that potentially will punish the victim more harshly than the perpetrator.

Clearly, if one is beaten in a bar brawl and their jaw is broken, there is no discussion as to whether they will be allowed to have the injury treated. If one has been robbed, the courts do not demand that the victim go without the items stolen. Why then should a woman be forced to carry a child conceived as a result of a crime that she did not commit?

From a religious perspective, I can appreciate ones convictions regarding abortion, however, I cannot appreciate the idea that a God of any faith would wish one of his/hers worshipers suffer so greatly at the hands of another.  Perhaps, in this area it would be wise for all parties to pause and reflect on not just what their individual religious beliefs are, but more importantly, how harshly we as a society wish to punish the victims of rape.  That is by far the most telling thing that will determine what kind of country we choose to be, one which chooses compassion over comfort or one who willingly punish victims on the basis of beliefs that are aguably ambiguous and open to interpretation.

Women are the s…

Women are the sole beings who have the ability to create life. It can’t be recreated in a man. Men are needed to provide the seed but it is the woman that conceives and carries the child. The morning sickness, bloating, extra weight and hormonal hell they go through is entirely a woman’s. Men can and often do just walk away, leaving the woman on their own.Then there is the incredible physical ordeal of giving birth. There is a possibility the woman may die or the child may die or be deformed. These things are all on the mother for the most part. Now, if a woman is raped or in some way forced to have sex and she becomes pregnant, that child is not conceived in an atmosphere of love and family but in violence and aberrant behavior.
Some where along the way people, the majority of them men, have decided that a woman does not have the right to choose to carry a child or not. In point of fact, it clearly demonstrates that some feel women are incapable of making the “right” decision based on their individual situations.
Unfortunately, religion and religious beliefs are the core of this issue. Many many people have very strong religious beliefs and I respect that and their beliefs. My beliefs may not be the same as others but that in no way diminishes their or my beliefs.
The troublesome thing is that forcing ones religious beliefs on another is wrong. It is no more moral for me to impose my beliefs on a Christian or a Muslim as it is for them to force their beliefs on me. In the same context, to force religious beliefs on women is also morally wrong.
In all religions that I am aware of, the basic freedom of choice is one of the things God gave to humans and it was up to the individual to follow the “rules or face punishment in the after life. It is not another’s responsibility to prevent them from doing wrong things deemed sinful.
So why we are even having discussions about this very personal issue that pertains only to women is particularly baffling. Men running for office are going to make these choices for women, not women and that is just wrong.
I am hoping that every woman that reads this does two very simple things. Imagine if it was them who was raped and impregnated and then decide if they would want the choice of whether to carry the child or not. We should not allow men to make these decisions. To me it is wrong and it is even worse when they make up things to make their point. Ladies, this is ultimately your decision. You have the right to vote and you can at least choose this, do you want a choice as to how you deal with your life and your reproductive system or do you want to let men decide for you. I can only vote for what I believe is right and fair,but,in the end, I will never know what it is like to bear a child,wanted or unwanted, only a woman can know that. This debate may be dominated by male voices but it is a woman’s decision