I had this experience, way back in 7th grade, that I don't know if I've ever told anyone about. It was gym class - which, by the way, is TORTURE for an overweight pre-teen- and we had just come in from whatever we'd been doing out on the field for class. We were getting changed back into our school clothes in the gross locker room.
I'd always hated the locker room to begin with. I wasn't FAT, but I wasn't skinny either. I was right-in-the-middle chubby. I had glasses, and was blind as a bat without them. I wasn't the most athletic of people - I could hold my own, but let's just say I wasn't the most graceful athlete on the field. I hated gym class, and especially the locker room. I had no ounce of self-confidence, at all, when it came to that room.
On that day, as we were getting changed back into our school clothes, I decided to put my glasses down on the bench next to the lockers, so I could change my top more easily. One of the "popular" girls in the class decided it would be funny to kick them across the room. Remember what I said earlier - I was blind as a bat without them. This is not an exaggeration. I could not see past the tip of my nose without my glasses. Even now, I border on legally blind without my contact lenses or glasses in place. (I dream of LASIK surgery sometimes...)
The room erupted into fits of laughter as she continued to kick my glasses out of my reach, and I tried to find them so I could see what was going on. I was still only half-dressed - shorts and a bra (I had been working on getting my shirt on when she did it). It was humiliating. Mortifying. I can honestly put myself right back into that moment, and feel my heart racing the feel the embarrassment and pain I felt at that second. It was a horrible moment, and one that I don't like to think about very often.
Today, however, I was reminded - oh so clearly - of that experience. I thought, maybe naively, that as people age, they lose that mob mentality. Bullying becomes less of an issue as people age and mature, I assumed. And, I think for a time at least, it was that way. It seemed that while drama reared its ugly head occasionally, there weren't as many outlets for it as there were in places like school or the bus stop.
And then a virtual school playground was created.
That playground, otherwise known as Facebook, became the gathering place for all the adults in my life. Family, friends, acquaintances; it didn't matter, they all gathered in the little blue and white virtual school playground. I realized today that, while we all may be older, we never really lose that middle school mentality. As a group, we always seem to seek a way to make ourselves in the majority, and the create an "other" out of someone around us. Back in middle school, it was the fat kid, or the kid with glasses. As an adult on Facebook...it's the person who is affiliated with another religion, another political party - it doesn't matter what, just whatever you are NOT becomes the "other."
As soon as the "other" is identified by the group, the attacks start. Just like with the school yard bully, it's okay for the bully to use tactics such as name-calling or below-the-belt punches.....but it can never be okay for someone to fight back. The group will always find a way to allow the bully to continue to form the "other" into whatever he/she wants them to be. The group almost never contains someone that will stand up for the person being attacked. No one wants to become the next focus of the name-calling.
With election season ramping up again, and the plethora of "hot-button" topics that get flung around every day, I feel like this virtual playground is getting more and more out of control every day. The bullies can use every taunt in the book ... and no one stands up for the victim. It doesn't matter if that victim can present well-established articles and research to prove his/her point...if it's not in line with the popular opinion of that group, the bully (or bullies, in some cases) are merciless. Rules of common courtesy are thrown out of the window as accusations fly about the victim's personal morality. Negative assessments and characterizations are thrown around like confetti.
The virtual playground has gotten out of control.
As much as I hate to leave the friend and family that I love, I've made the decision that I will no longer be a part of this chaos. I hope and pray that I will not lose touch with those people that I love, but after seeing friend turn on friend and feelings be hurt left and right --- and having some of my own personal friendships (that I held dear and relied on) fall victim to this mob mentality -- I cannot continue to be a part of it. I couldn't help but be the one to try and speak out against half-truths and slander. I couldn't seem to keep my mouth shut when someone else was being called names or hurt unjustly....and it has caused my own family quite a lot of pain. It has, at times, taken over my days on an emotional level, as I cry in pain for my own hurt feelings, those of my friends, for my relationships, and for those who are being attacked. That emotional pain and anguish has been having a negative effect on my children and family, as I can't seem to put it out of my mind.
The only way for me to repair those effects on my family is to leave the playground.
I truly hope that I can stay in touch with the friends and family that I "saw" on Facebook through more traditional methods. I do care about you, and I worry that I will lose touch with you. I am willing to try and avoid that, at all costs (even if it means keeping the post office afloat financially all on my own).
If you could email me your snail mail addresses and phone numbers, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
It's cookie time!
In our house, at least!
The boys and I decided that today was a "We need cookies" kind of day, so we hiked on down to the grocery store (the boys even walked the 3 mile trek to and from - with a quick stop at the park in the middle!), to get the few extra items we needed for our cookie extravaganza.
We only had time to make one recipe, so we decided that oatmeal raisin it would be: they still were SUPER sweet and yummy....and Mommy didn't feel as guilty. After all, they had oatmeal in them, so they were healthy, right? Pretty much a meal on their own? (If you couldn't tell, the right answers to these questions would be a resounding YES!).
Anywho, the recipe turned out fantastically delicious. I would highly recommend these with a hot cup of coffee....or a cold glass of milk. They could go either way, depending on what you had the need for. I might just squeeze one in tomorrow morning with my cup of coffee..........when the boys aren't looking, of course!
Enjoy your cookies!
Whole Wheat Oatmeal Raisin Cookies:
3/4 cup butter
1 cup packed brown sugar
1/2 cup cane sugar
1 tsp baking powder
1/4 tsp baking soda
1/2 tsp ground cinnamon
1/4 tsp ground cloves
2 eggs
1 tsp vanilla
1 and 3/4 cups whole wheat flour
2 cups rolled oats
1 cup raisins
Preheat your oven to 375 degrees. In a large mixing bowl, beat the butter with an electric mixer on medium to high speed for 30 seconds. Add both sugars, baking powder, baking soda, and spices. Beat until combined, scraping the sides of the bowl occasionally. Beat in the eggs and the vanilla until combined. Beat in as much of the flour as you can with the mixer, and then stir in the remaining flour by hand. Stir in the rolled oats, then the raisins.
Drop by rounded teaspoonfuls on an ungreased baking sheet, 2 inches apart. Bake for 10-12 minutes (I did 10) or until the edges are golden. Cook on a wire rack.
Makes about 4 dozen cookies.
The boys and I decided that today was a "We need cookies" kind of day, so we hiked on down to the grocery store (the boys even walked the 3 mile trek to and from - with a quick stop at the park in the middle!), to get the few extra items we needed for our cookie extravaganza.
We only had time to make one recipe, so we decided that oatmeal raisin it would be: they still were SUPER sweet and yummy....and Mommy didn't feel as guilty. After all, they had oatmeal in them, so they were healthy, right? Pretty much a meal on their own? (If you couldn't tell, the right answers to these questions would be a resounding YES!).
Anywho, the recipe turned out fantastically delicious. I would highly recommend these with a hot cup of coffee....or a cold glass of milk. They could go either way, depending on what you had the need for. I might just squeeze one in tomorrow morning with my cup of coffee..........when the boys aren't looking, of course!
Enjoy your cookies!
Whole Wheat Oatmeal Raisin Cookies:
3/4 cup butter
1 cup packed brown sugar
1/2 cup cane sugar
1 tsp baking powder
1/4 tsp baking soda
1/2 tsp ground cinnamon
1/4 tsp ground cloves
2 eggs
1 tsp vanilla
1 and 3/4 cups whole wheat flour
2 cups rolled oats
1 cup raisins
Preheat your oven to 375 degrees. In a large mixing bowl, beat the butter with an electric mixer on medium to high speed for 30 seconds. Add both sugars, baking powder, baking soda, and spices. Beat until combined, scraping the sides of the bowl occasionally. Beat in the eggs and the vanilla until combined. Beat in as much of the flour as you can with the mixer, and then stir in the remaining flour by hand. Stir in the rolled oats, then the raisins.
Drop by rounded teaspoonfuls on an ungreased baking sheet, 2 inches apart. Bake for 10-12 minutes (I did 10) or until the edges are golden. Cook on a wire rack.
Makes about 4 dozen cookies.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Remember the days?
When all you had to worry about was how high you were being pushed on the swing?
I miss those days.
I miss those days.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Dear older gentleman at Mass today...
(posted a few days late - sorry! This was written on Tuesday, November 1)
Dear older gentleman at Mass today,
I don't think we've met before, but if we have, please accept my sincere apology. You see, I'm often alone at Mass with my three young, energetic boys, and to be quite honest, I'm usually quite flustered by the time we leave the church. I don't usually remember the faces - much less the names - of those who introduce themselves to me on holy days, like today.
I know it is hard to sit around my children during the most important time of our week. They fidget. They ask questions (loudly), and sometimes...they loudly announce their need to visit the bathroom.
I try hard to keep these interruptions to a minimum. We don't bring in toys (except for the 2 year old's illustrated Mass book). We don't bring in food or drinks. I try hard to focus their attention on proper behaviour during this holy time.
Some days are better than others, as I'm sure you can imagine.
You might be wondering just why I'm writing you this note. After all, you spent plenty of time with us earlier today, as we tried to celebrate All Saints Day together. I'm sure you're wondering just why I'm choosing to continue our interaction.
I'm choosing to write you this letter because of an incredible sense of gratitude I feel for you. You see, believe it or not, I didn't intend to rush into the sanctuary as the gathering hymn was drawing to a close. I'd actually left my house 15 minutes earlier than I needed to, so I could ensure a prime spot in the pews (next to the bathroom). You see, I've done this going-to-Mass-on-my-own thing with the kids many times before. There is only one of me.....and three of them. Basic math skills prove that I don't have enough arms to corral all them on my own.
But God had other plans for us this morning, as we tried to get to church on time for the holy day. He put a traffic jam of some sort - there didn't appear to be an accident - right smack dab in our path, causing us to rush in at the very last minute. That prime pew right next to the bathroom was already taken - by another mom, I noticed - and I was left with the only empty pew in sight: the one right behind you and some of our other elderly parishioners.
I sat down, terrified, and extremely anxious as to how this Mass might go. I was so worried that you and your companions would act just like other elderly Catholics that I've come into contact with. My children might be "shushed." I'd be treated to dirty glances and "tsk-tsk" noises if the 2 year old asked a question......or even worse......decided to fill his diaper during the homily.
I'm writing to thank you for proving me wrong. I'm writing to say "I am blessed to have been late for Mass" today. God put that traffic jam in my path to bless me with your smile as we sat down to listen to the readings. Your comment about my "well-behaved little gentlemen" caused my little rascals to sit up taller, to pay attention more closely, and to participate more fully in today's celebration.
What may have seemed inconsequential to you was monumental for my children. Your warm smile, your two-handed sign of peace to my kindergartener, and your clearly expressed approval at their (enthusiastic) singing made a huge difference in their participation at Mass today. You affirmed their presence....and they felt the love that was radiating from your pew, and showed it with their behaviour.
I thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for helping to make today's Mass to be a beautiful celebration of All Saints Day. I walked into church, apprehensive and worried about my children's behaviour....and walked out feeling drenched in God's grace.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Heidi
Dear older gentleman at Mass today,
I don't think we've met before, but if we have, please accept my sincere apology. You see, I'm often alone at Mass with my three young, energetic boys, and to be quite honest, I'm usually quite flustered by the time we leave the church. I don't usually remember the faces - much less the names - of those who introduce themselves to me on holy days, like today.
I know it is hard to sit around my children during the most important time of our week. They fidget. They ask questions (loudly), and sometimes...they loudly announce their need to visit the bathroom.
I try hard to keep these interruptions to a minimum. We don't bring in toys (except for the 2 year old's illustrated Mass book). We don't bring in food or drinks. I try hard to focus their attention on proper behaviour during this holy time.
Some days are better than others, as I'm sure you can imagine.
You might be wondering just why I'm writing you this note. After all, you spent plenty of time with us earlier today, as we tried to celebrate All Saints Day together. I'm sure you're wondering just why I'm choosing to continue our interaction.
I'm choosing to write you this letter because of an incredible sense of gratitude I feel for you. You see, believe it or not, I didn't intend to rush into the sanctuary as the gathering hymn was drawing to a close. I'd actually left my house 15 minutes earlier than I needed to, so I could ensure a prime spot in the pews (next to the bathroom). You see, I've done this going-to-Mass-on-my-own thing with the kids many times before. There is only one of me.....and three of them. Basic math skills prove that I don't have enough arms to corral all them on my own.
But God had other plans for us this morning, as we tried to get to church on time for the holy day. He put a traffic jam of some sort - there didn't appear to be an accident - right smack dab in our path, causing us to rush in at the very last minute. That prime pew right next to the bathroom was already taken - by another mom, I noticed - and I was left with the only empty pew in sight: the one right behind you and some of our other elderly parishioners.
I sat down, terrified, and extremely anxious as to how this Mass might go. I was so worried that you and your companions would act just like other elderly Catholics that I've come into contact with. My children might be "shushed." I'd be treated to dirty glances and "tsk-tsk" noises if the 2 year old asked a question......or even worse......decided to fill his diaper during the homily.
I'm writing to thank you for proving me wrong. I'm writing to say "I am blessed to have been late for Mass" today. God put that traffic jam in my path to bless me with your smile as we sat down to listen to the readings. Your comment about my "well-behaved little gentlemen" caused my little rascals to sit up taller, to pay attention more closely, and to participate more fully in today's celebration.
What may have seemed inconsequential to you was monumental for my children. Your warm smile, your two-handed sign of peace to my kindergartener, and your clearly expressed approval at their (enthusiastic) singing made a huge difference in their participation at Mass today. You affirmed their presence....and they felt the love that was radiating from your pew, and showed it with their behaviour.
I thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for helping to make today's Mass to be a beautiful celebration of All Saints Day. I walked into church, apprehensive and worried about my children's behaviour....and walked out feeling drenched in God's grace.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Heidi
Monday, October 31, 2011
Halloween/All Saints Day
Tonight we tried out a new tradition - and I hope it's one that sticks around. Instead of door-to-door trick or treating and regular Halloween outfits, we attended an All Saints Day party put on by the homeschool co-operative group that we have joined out here.
It was great - the boys had a fabulous time, and it was not decorated with scary, grotesque Halloween decor (Joseph is kind of afraid of that stuff), was well-lit, and the kiddos still got their share of candy. The best part? (for me, at least) The party was FULL of homemade costume awesomeness - no store bought, plastic-y junk, but all homemade, carefully chosen costumes. It was a craft, DIY dream come true for me!
It was great - the boys had a fabulous time, and it was not decorated with scary, grotesque Halloween decor (Joseph is kind of afraid of that stuff), was well-lit, and the kiddos still got their share of candy. The best part? (for me, at least) The party was FULL of homemade costume awesomeness - no store bought, plastic-y junk, but all homemade, carefully chosen costumes. It was a craft, DIY dream come true for me!
Some pictures from the fun:
St. Michael, the archangel
St Francis of Assisi (#1)
St Francis of Assisi (#2)
Enjoying the games and fun:
I think we've successfully started a new tradition!
St Francis of Assisi (#1)
St Francis of Assisi (#2)
Enjoying the games and fun:
I think we've successfully started a new tradition!
School is cool!
I've been told that there haven't been enough pictures or schooling updates, so prepare yourselves for an overload of cuteness.
Homeschooling is still going strong here at our house - we're on week 8 of our 32 week plan for the year, and so far, things are going wonderfully. Sure, there are days when it's harder than others to get started, but we had those when going to a traditional school, too. Overall, we're still enjoying each other's company, and we're still learning a lot about the world around us......and each other.
Enjoy the picture post of our year so far!
Reading/Phonics: A friend told me about this great method for helping little ones learn to spell and read short words. Graham (age 5) is LOVING it! I present to you: sticky-note phonics
Homeschooling is still going strong here at our house - we're on week 8 of our 32 week plan for the year, and so far, things are going wonderfully. Sure, there are days when it's harder than others to get started, but we had those when going to a traditional school, too. Overall, we're still enjoying each other's company, and we're still learning a lot about the world around us......and each other.
Enjoy the picture post of our year so far!
Reading/Phonics: A friend told me about this great method for helping little ones learn to spell and read short words. Graham (age 5) is LOVING it! I present to you: sticky-note phonics
Science has also been a lot of hands-on fun. Joseph designed his own experiment using beans (which he then sprouted), and measuring how quickly the little plants grow. Here he is, building the experiment, after designing it on paper:
Art class has definitely been the most fun so far. We've been able to try out different mediums for creating masterpieces. One of the boys' favourite art projects was drawing with dry erase markers on our sliding glass door. We had a lot of fun with this double-sided activity!
Math: while this one doesn't usually lend itself to very exciting photos, but we've managed to fin a way to have some fun while working on math skills. Games, such as our "Jumping Numbers" game (I call out a math problem, and they have to jump to land on the card that has the right answer on it), and daily activities (such as baking: we worked on fractions while making the cupcakes below) have really helped to solidify math comprehension.
And then there are field trips. We've planned our week to do lessons for 4 and 1/2 days, leaving a half day to go and explore, or work on more intense art projects. We've managed to spend a lot of time seeking out local fun spots or nature reserves. There's so much to see here! Each boy has a field trip journal, and our goal is to have every paged filled by the end of the school year.
And the best part of homeschooling, so far? The relationships we've built as a family. The boys are best of friends now, and I love watching them grow up together. Homeschooling is proving to be the best for our family, on a daily basis.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
40 Days for Life, take 2
Same warning applies: if you continue to read this, there is a chance you might be offended. Please 1) remove emotions and discuss this rationally and 2) be respectful in any comments that you leave, whether here or on Facebook. (this means no name calling, no judgment of PERSONS, and no swear words). Let's continue to keep this "above-board." Thanks.
I posted a link to yesterday's blog post on my Facebook page yesterday morning. While not many comments were left here, there were quite a number of them on my Facebook link (I think it might be the most comments ever received on one link on my page, to be honest). I want to start this post by saying thank you to everyone who commented, and to say a BIG thank you for everyone for remaining respectful throughout the conversation. I am very, very appreciative of that - especially those who did not agree with me - and I want to make sure that you know how grateful I am for that respect.
Amongst the comments, there were a few "themes," for lack of a better word, and I've been pondering those themes for the past 24 hours. Constantly. I think. A lot. It's kind of a personal flaw - I contemplate and analyze a lot. All this thinking has made me realize that I don't quite understand some of the themes. I wanted to discuss each one, and my thought process behind them, and if you recognize yourself in one of them, please elaborate. I am curious behind your thought process, and how you came to that conclusion.
(I'm just going to list these, not in any particular order, just based on my memory. I'm not "ranking" them or anything like that, so don't read into where a theme/comment falls on my list when it comes to the importance of that theme/comment OR how strongly I felt a reaction to it. )
Here goes..
- A lot of people said something along the lines of "While I would never choose abortion myself, I cannot make that decision for someone else." I'll be blatantly honest. This argument doesn't make any sense to me. Don't we do this every day, in all aspects of our lives? I'm pretty sure I would never hear someone say "While I would never rape someone, I cannot make that decision for someone else." No - instead, I'd hear "Rape is wrong, no matter what a woman was wearing, or what they had to drink, or where they were, etc.." Could you imagine someone saying to you, "While I would never kill someone for insurance money, I can't condemn someone who does kill for insurance money, especially if they are struggling financially?" Aren't people prosecuted for these very same things, every single day? I find it very hard to believe that the people who made a comment along those lines would say, "While I would never cheat on my wife/husband, I can't expect my spouse to feel the same way." We make those kind of statements all the time, on a daily basis, do we not? Why is abortion given a special place in our heads? There is a reason that these things disgust us, and why we stand up against them every day: it is written into our very being as natural law. Almost every culture on this earth has a consequence for murder, because it is written in natural law. We are not supposed to kill one of our own. What makes abortion different?
- Along those lines, comments were made about "It's not a baby, it's an embryo, or it's a product of pregnancy." Somehow, changing our word choice changes whether or not it is "alive." The majority of abortions in the United States are performed after 8 weeks gestation. At 6 weeks old, a baby's heart can be seen on ultrasound. Brain activity can be recorded. When a person is injured in some way, how do we determine if they are alive? We check for a pulse (heartbeat) and brain activity. If they have one or the other, they are still considered alive. So....those babies killed after 8 weeks of age meet the requirement that we attach to life at all other ages. Why do we make an exception in this case? Even if we call it an embryo, it has a heartbeat and brain activity, and by all definitions of life, it has a life. Our own Constitution guarantees a right to life....how can we claim that this baby, with a heartbeat and brain activity (a life), does not have that right? The most recent count I can find comes from 2008, when 1.21 million babies were aborted. Using the statistics from the government, we killed 23% of those children before they were even 8 weeks old. That leaves approximately 919,600 babies killed with at least heartbeats and brain activity in that one year, just in our country (USA). When a baby is aborted, the doctor or abortionist has to account for all body parts, to make sure everything has been removed from the womb. That means, even at 10 weeks old, for example, an abortionist has to account for 2 legs, 2 arms, a head, etc. How can we continue to say that an abortion does not kill a baby, when the body parts have to accounted for, and that baby had a heartbeat and brain activity?
- A bunch of people commented (or messaged me) saying that they agreed with my pro-life stance....but did not feel that they had the right to say it out loud or that they did not feel an obligation to try to challenge the abortion movement. Can I ask for an elaboration? Why do you feel that way? Let me put it into perspective: You and I are at a party. You have had too much to drink. It doesn't matter how you got drunk, what you were drinking, whether or not you made a mistake by drinking that much. The fact of the matter is that you are drunk. If you get behind the wheel of your car, there is a very large chance that you will hurt either yourself or someone else, possibly killing them. Am I not morally obligated to take your keys from you? Is it more acceptable to say, "Well, I sympathize with those who will be hurt by your decision, but I can't do anything to stop you?" By saying that we are not willing to stand up for those being hurt by abortion - and by this I mean BOTH the woman and the child - we are doing the same as if I let you get into your car and attempt to drive home. The compounding difference is that, unlike drunk driving, there is more than just a chance that someone will get hurt. By a woman choosing to obtain a abortion, she is guaranteeing the death of one person, and is drastically increasing her chances for mental, emotional, and physical complications. How can we not be morally - or ethically, if you want to remove "morals" from the discussion - obliged to speak out?
- A few people asked "What if the woman's life or health is in danger?" I responded with the principle of double effect. There is a difference between direct and indirect abortion, and it boils down to the intention behind the act. For example, if a woman has a terminal cancer, and the tumour is in her uterus, her uterus needs to be removed. If she is pregnant, removing her uterus has the unintended effect of killing her child. Not once was the intention to kill her child, but to save the mother. If a child was actively killed (not as an unintended consequence), that is a direct abortion. JPII (again, that's Pope John Paul II for non-Catholics) does a MUCH better job explaining it than I do, as he was an incredibly gifted writer and theologian. I highly recommend reading his work on this for a full understanding of direct vs. indirect abortion. Even before Roe vs. Wade even was enacted, this form of abortion was considered legal. It had to be medically necessary, and had to be performed by a physician in a hospital. Statistics of how many abortions were performed, for this reason, are hard to come by on a national level, but anecdotal evidence at individual hospitals leads me to believe that it was very, very small. Truly medically necessary abortions - not even applying the indirect abortion qualifications - are not as common as we are led to believe, especially with the advance of modern medicine and the age of viability drastically dropping.
- a few people mentioned that they would prefer abortions be legal, even if they would not obtain one themselves, in order to keep it "safe" for the mother. This comment also gives me pause to think. Here in Arizona, 7 out of the state's 9 abortion clinics had to close this past year. Why? Because a law was passed requiring them to meet the same safety standards as a surgical facility. They did not meet those standards, and had to close. They were performing a surgical procedure - with very real risks and complications - but were not required to maintain the same level of safety as a hospital or freestanding surgical center. This is happening all around the United States. One could argue that an abortion in one of these clinics is "safer"....but is it really safe? Let's add a little perspective.....I have a two year old. I could decide to give him a knife to play with. It doesn't matter if it is a butcher knife or a paring knife....it is still not safe, is it not? An abortion clinic might be safer than a back-alley somewhere.....but is an abortion really safe? Someone is still losing their life. Someone is facing some pretty serious complications. Is abortion truly safe, no matter where it is performed?
- One commenter told me that she considered her aborted baby similar to a parasite, relying on her for everything. Having been pregnant four times myself, I can understand this feeling, and sympathize with this struggle. However, I'm not sure there is really a difference between an unborn baby and say, the 6 week old that I'm caring for once the baby is born. He still depended on me for everything: food, shelter, health, cleanliness, comfort, etc. Everything he needed...I had to provide. He was still completely and totally dependent on me for everything. A 6 week old, without someone to provide basic needs, will die, will it not? Now imagine if I decided to kill that 6 week old......people would be horrified and I would most likely be prosecuted, no matter what the circumstances (my health, my emotional state, my financial resources, etc). Where is the difference? A baby is still completely dependent on me, and I chose to kill it, yet in one instance it is considered legally and morally acceptable...and in the other, it is not.
- The response that I found most intriguing - and possibly the one with the scariest implications to me - was an argument in favour of legalized abortion............out of concern for the unborn child. To be honest, this one shocked me. With the exception of genetic abnormalities, I have never had someone make an argument for the death of a child out of concern for a healthy child. After I got over my initial shock, I sat back to think about the comment. The quality of life that the child would be living, if born, should be a reason to allow an abortion, I was told. As I pondered it, I realized that this statement stems from the Pandora's Box that was opened with genetic testing. We are led to believe that we are performing an act of compassion, a mercy killing, if you will, by aborting a child with a genetic abnormality or disease. The child's quality of life will be poor, we are told. They will be in misery...and we can compassionately prevent that misery from occurring if we just have the abortion. There are obvious flaws to this argument. There is a HUGE scale of uncertainty with these abnormalities and diseases. The first one that comes to mind is Downs Syndrome (I have 3 friends with DS children, to explain why it came to my mind immediately). DS can be a debilitating struggle, yes. But people with DS can be people who benefit our society. People with DS can - and often do - live independent lives and contribute to our society. Is there any way to tell - with 100% reliability -which end of the spectrum a baby with DS will fall on? No, there isn't. If there isn't...how can we judge their quality of life before their birth? Allowing these exceptions in our view of abortion has led to a general acceptance of other factors/struggles as a valid reason for abortion, all based on the "quality of life" that the child will live. Social, economic, etc...it is all over the place now. Can we really, with 100% certainty, determine that a child born into poverty has a poor quality of life? Can we really, with 100% certainty, determine that a child born into an imperfect social situation (say, to a single or teen mom) will have a poorer quality of life than if he/she had no life at all? If the answer to that was "yes," then my own oldest two children would be considered to have a poor quality of life, as they were born to a mother who lived below the poverty level at the time of their birth. At what point does the "quality of life" argument end? This argument has extremely scary implications to me. I challenge you...how do we determine an acceptable "quality of life?" The choice really boils down to being between having life and having no life at all.....and when you look at it like that, which of the two is the better quality of life? Even if we apply a numerical rating to quality of life, choosing death is choosing a "0," and choosing any other option is choosing the positive.
- the last comment I received (multiple times, mind you) was "How could I be so holier-than-thou or judgmental? How dare I judge a woman who obtained an abortion!" This comment kind of makes me giggle, I will be totally honest. The concept of "judgment" has been warped in our society. We can judge the action, without judging the actor, can we not? I can judge my child to have lied to me, without judging his moral character to be one of a "liar," can I not? I can judge an action to be right or wrong: it is wrong to steal, is it not? Does that mean I automatically judge the person who stole to be characteristically untrustworthy? Not at all. If my teenager breaks curfew, sneaks out, and then lies to cover it up, he has now committed 3 actions that I can judge to be wrong, can I not? Does that make me love my teen any less? Does that make me consider him to be characteristically untrustworthy and a liar? Not at all. It is completely possible to judge someone's action as wrong without judging a person's character to be wrong. If my husband is cooking dinner, and reaches down and picks up a hot pan without an oven mitt, I can judge his action to be stupid. Does that mean that I think he is completely and characteristically stupid? Of course not. We judge actions all the time in our lives......judging the action does not require judgment of the actor.
The majority of the comments I received on yesterday's post fall into one of the "themes" listed above. I ask you, do you see your own point of view in one of the above themes? If you do, I ask that you elaborate. Our discussion yesterday led to a lot of contemplation of my own viewpoints and beliefs, which challenged me to find out just why I believed what I did. I hope to do the same here for others - the more we dialogue about this (respectfully), the more we can learn from each other, and ultimately, the more we can help the women and children who are directly affected by abortion.
I posted a link to yesterday's blog post on my Facebook page yesterday morning. While not many comments were left here, there were quite a number of them on my Facebook link (I think it might be the most comments ever received on one link on my page, to be honest). I want to start this post by saying thank you to everyone who commented, and to say a BIG thank you for everyone for remaining respectful throughout the conversation. I am very, very appreciative of that - especially those who did not agree with me - and I want to make sure that you know how grateful I am for that respect.
Amongst the comments, there were a few "themes," for lack of a better word, and I've been pondering those themes for the past 24 hours. Constantly. I think. A lot. It's kind of a personal flaw - I contemplate and analyze a lot. All this thinking has made me realize that I don't quite understand some of the themes. I wanted to discuss each one, and my thought process behind them, and if you recognize yourself in one of them, please elaborate. I am curious behind your thought process, and how you came to that conclusion.
(I'm just going to list these, not in any particular order, just based on my memory. I'm not "ranking" them or anything like that, so don't read into where a theme/comment falls on my list when it comes to the importance of that theme/comment OR how strongly I felt a reaction to it. )
Here goes..
- A lot of people said something along the lines of "While I would never choose abortion myself, I cannot make that decision for someone else." I'll be blatantly honest. This argument doesn't make any sense to me. Don't we do this every day, in all aspects of our lives? I'm pretty sure I would never hear someone say "While I would never rape someone, I cannot make that decision for someone else." No - instead, I'd hear "Rape is wrong, no matter what a woman was wearing, or what they had to drink, or where they were, etc.." Could you imagine someone saying to you, "While I would never kill someone for insurance money, I can't condemn someone who does kill for insurance money, especially if they are struggling financially?" Aren't people prosecuted for these very same things, every single day? I find it very hard to believe that the people who made a comment along those lines would say, "While I would never cheat on my wife/husband, I can't expect my spouse to feel the same way." We make those kind of statements all the time, on a daily basis, do we not? Why is abortion given a special place in our heads? There is a reason that these things disgust us, and why we stand up against them every day: it is written into our very being as natural law. Almost every culture on this earth has a consequence for murder, because it is written in natural law. We are not supposed to kill one of our own. What makes abortion different?
- Along those lines, comments were made about "It's not a baby, it's an embryo, or it's a product of pregnancy." Somehow, changing our word choice changes whether or not it is "alive." The majority of abortions in the United States are performed after 8 weeks gestation. At 6 weeks old, a baby's heart can be seen on ultrasound. Brain activity can be recorded. When a person is injured in some way, how do we determine if they are alive? We check for a pulse (heartbeat) and brain activity. If they have one or the other, they are still considered alive. So....those babies killed after 8 weeks of age meet the requirement that we attach to life at all other ages. Why do we make an exception in this case? Even if we call it an embryo, it has a heartbeat and brain activity, and by all definitions of life, it has a life. Our own Constitution guarantees a right to life....how can we claim that this baby, with a heartbeat and brain activity (a life), does not have that right? The most recent count I can find comes from 2008, when 1.21 million babies were aborted. Using the statistics from the government, we killed 23% of those children before they were even 8 weeks old. That leaves approximately 919,600 babies killed with at least heartbeats and brain activity in that one year, just in our country (USA). When a baby is aborted, the doctor or abortionist has to account for all body parts, to make sure everything has been removed from the womb. That means, even at 10 weeks old, for example, an abortionist has to account for 2 legs, 2 arms, a head, etc. How can we continue to say that an abortion does not kill a baby, when the body parts have to accounted for, and that baby had a heartbeat and brain activity?
- A bunch of people commented (or messaged me) saying that they agreed with my pro-life stance....but did not feel that they had the right to say it out loud or that they did not feel an obligation to try to challenge the abortion movement. Can I ask for an elaboration? Why do you feel that way? Let me put it into perspective: You and I are at a party. You have had too much to drink. It doesn't matter how you got drunk, what you were drinking, whether or not you made a mistake by drinking that much. The fact of the matter is that you are drunk. If you get behind the wheel of your car, there is a very large chance that you will hurt either yourself or someone else, possibly killing them. Am I not morally obligated to take your keys from you? Is it more acceptable to say, "Well, I sympathize with those who will be hurt by your decision, but I can't do anything to stop you?" By saying that we are not willing to stand up for those being hurt by abortion - and by this I mean BOTH the woman and the child - we are doing the same as if I let you get into your car and attempt to drive home. The compounding difference is that, unlike drunk driving, there is more than just a chance that someone will get hurt. By a woman choosing to obtain a abortion, she is guaranteeing the death of one person, and is drastically increasing her chances for mental, emotional, and physical complications. How can we not be morally - or ethically, if you want to remove "morals" from the discussion - obliged to speak out?
- A few people asked "What if the woman's life or health is in danger?" I responded with the principle of double effect. There is a difference between direct and indirect abortion, and it boils down to the intention behind the act. For example, if a woman has a terminal cancer, and the tumour is in her uterus, her uterus needs to be removed. If she is pregnant, removing her uterus has the unintended effect of killing her child. Not once was the intention to kill her child, but to save the mother. If a child was actively killed (not as an unintended consequence), that is a direct abortion. JPII (again, that's Pope John Paul II for non-Catholics) does a MUCH better job explaining it than I do, as he was an incredibly gifted writer and theologian. I highly recommend reading his work on this for a full understanding of direct vs. indirect abortion. Even before Roe vs. Wade even was enacted, this form of abortion was considered legal. It had to be medically necessary, and had to be performed by a physician in a hospital. Statistics of how many abortions were performed, for this reason, are hard to come by on a national level, but anecdotal evidence at individual hospitals leads me to believe that it was very, very small. Truly medically necessary abortions - not even applying the indirect abortion qualifications - are not as common as we are led to believe, especially with the advance of modern medicine and the age of viability drastically dropping.
- a few people mentioned that they would prefer abortions be legal, even if they would not obtain one themselves, in order to keep it "safe" for the mother. This comment also gives me pause to think. Here in Arizona, 7 out of the state's 9 abortion clinics had to close this past year. Why? Because a law was passed requiring them to meet the same safety standards as a surgical facility. They did not meet those standards, and had to close. They were performing a surgical procedure - with very real risks and complications - but were not required to maintain the same level of safety as a hospital or freestanding surgical center. This is happening all around the United States. One could argue that an abortion in one of these clinics is "safer"....but is it really safe? Let's add a little perspective.....I have a two year old. I could decide to give him a knife to play with. It doesn't matter if it is a butcher knife or a paring knife....it is still not safe, is it not? An abortion clinic might be safer than a back-alley somewhere.....but is an abortion really safe? Someone is still losing their life. Someone is facing some pretty serious complications. Is abortion truly safe, no matter where it is performed?
- One commenter told me that she considered her aborted baby similar to a parasite, relying on her for everything. Having been pregnant four times myself, I can understand this feeling, and sympathize with this struggle. However, I'm not sure there is really a difference between an unborn baby and say, the 6 week old that I'm caring for once the baby is born. He still depended on me for everything: food, shelter, health, cleanliness, comfort, etc. Everything he needed...I had to provide. He was still completely and totally dependent on me for everything. A 6 week old, without someone to provide basic needs, will die, will it not? Now imagine if I decided to kill that 6 week old......people would be horrified and I would most likely be prosecuted, no matter what the circumstances (my health, my emotional state, my financial resources, etc). Where is the difference? A baby is still completely dependent on me, and I chose to kill it, yet in one instance it is considered legally and morally acceptable...and in the other, it is not.
- The response that I found most intriguing - and possibly the one with the scariest implications to me - was an argument in favour of legalized abortion............out of concern for the unborn child. To be honest, this one shocked me. With the exception of genetic abnormalities, I have never had someone make an argument for the death of a child out of concern for a healthy child. After I got over my initial shock, I sat back to think about the comment. The quality of life that the child would be living, if born, should be a reason to allow an abortion, I was told. As I pondered it, I realized that this statement stems from the Pandora's Box that was opened with genetic testing. We are led to believe that we are performing an act of compassion, a mercy killing, if you will, by aborting a child with a genetic abnormality or disease. The child's quality of life will be poor, we are told. They will be in misery...and we can compassionately prevent that misery from occurring if we just have the abortion. There are obvious flaws to this argument. There is a HUGE scale of uncertainty with these abnormalities and diseases. The first one that comes to mind is Downs Syndrome (I have 3 friends with DS children, to explain why it came to my mind immediately). DS can be a debilitating struggle, yes. But people with DS can be people who benefit our society. People with DS can - and often do - live independent lives and contribute to our society. Is there any way to tell - with 100% reliability -which end of the spectrum a baby with DS will fall on? No, there isn't. If there isn't...how can we judge their quality of life before their birth? Allowing these exceptions in our view of abortion has led to a general acceptance of other factors/struggles as a valid reason for abortion, all based on the "quality of life" that the child will live. Social, economic, etc...it is all over the place now. Can we really, with 100% certainty, determine that a child born into poverty has a poor quality of life? Can we really, with 100% certainty, determine that a child born into an imperfect social situation (say, to a single or teen mom) will have a poorer quality of life than if he/she had no life at all? If the answer to that was "yes," then my own oldest two children would be considered to have a poor quality of life, as they were born to a mother who lived below the poverty level at the time of their birth. At what point does the "quality of life" argument end? This argument has extremely scary implications to me. I challenge you...how do we determine an acceptable "quality of life?" The choice really boils down to being between having life and having no life at all.....and when you look at it like that, which of the two is the better quality of life? Even if we apply a numerical rating to quality of life, choosing death is choosing a "0," and choosing any other option is choosing the positive.
- the last comment I received (multiple times, mind you) was "How could I be so holier-than-thou or judgmental? How dare I judge a woman who obtained an abortion!" This comment kind of makes me giggle, I will be totally honest. The concept of "judgment" has been warped in our society. We can judge the action, without judging the actor, can we not? I can judge my child to have lied to me, without judging his moral character to be one of a "liar," can I not? I can judge an action to be right or wrong: it is wrong to steal, is it not? Does that mean I automatically judge the person who stole to be characteristically untrustworthy? Not at all. If my teenager breaks curfew, sneaks out, and then lies to cover it up, he has now committed 3 actions that I can judge to be wrong, can I not? Does that make me love my teen any less? Does that make me consider him to be characteristically untrustworthy and a liar? Not at all. It is completely possible to judge someone's action as wrong without judging a person's character to be wrong. If my husband is cooking dinner, and reaches down and picks up a hot pan without an oven mitt, I can judge his action to be stupid. Does that mean that I think he is completely and characteristically stupid? Of course not. We judge actions all the time in our lives......judging the action does not require judgment of the actor.
The majority of the comments I received on yesterday's post fall into one of the "themes" listed above. I ask you, do you see your own point of view in one of the above themes? If you do, I ask that you elaborate. Our discussion yesterday led to a lot of contemplation of my own viewpoints and beliefs, which challenged me to find out just why I believed what I did. I hope to do the same here for others - the more we dialogue about this (respectfully), the more we can learn from each other, and ultimately, the more we can help the women and children who are directly affected by abortion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)