Sunday, November 30, 2008
Harper's Mag blurbs
I like Harper's, and this month on line there are a lot of interesting blurbs, too may to cut and paste. And you might be interested in something I am not. So check it out.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
My Friend Richard
bunch of short Richard Dawkins interviews & discussions.
As most of you know who read this, I think he is a wonderful scientist and spokesman for the non-religious among us. Hope you find it interesting and enjoyable.
As most of you know who read this, I think he is a wonderful scientist and spokesman for the non-religious among us. Hope you find it interesting and enjoyable.
So. CAL fundamentalism
November 21, 2008
Atheism Only Lasts a Few Days in Rancho Cucamonga
A billboard in Rancho Cucamonga asking viewers to "imagine no religion" was taken down this week after residents and the city complained about its message. The Freedom From Religion Foundation advertisement was first installed last week causing local conversation and complaints. The pressure quickly built up and the General Outdoor sign company took it down.
The foundation's co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor was not so happy, as expressed in a statement they sent out: "Are religionists so thin-skinned they must squelch free debate? One small freethought billboard in the immense state of California is such a threat to insecure religious egos that it must be censored? With local freethinkers' help, the Freedom From Religion Foundation would love to plaster the valley with our message. Let's fight back!"
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Catholic Convert on Abortion
Thoughtful post about how a woman came to an anti-abortion position after going from atheism to Catholicism. It is an interesting blog to roam through.
What about the women ?
This forwarded by Kathy from Alabama. Ann Lamott is a CA based writer and excellent speaker.
The rights of the born
By Anne Lamott
February 10, 2006
EVERYTHING WAS going swimmingly on the panel. The subject was politics and faith, and I was on stage with two clergymen with progressive spiritual leanings, and a moderator who is liberal and Catholic. We were having a discussion with the audience of 1,300 people in Washington about many of the social justice topics on which we agree – the immorality of the federal budget, the wrongness of the president’s war in Iraq. Then an older man came to the mike and raised the issue of abortion, and everyone just lost his or her mind.
Or, at any rate, I did.
Maybe it was the way in which the man couched the question, which was about how we should reconcile our progressive stances on peace and justice with the “murder of a million babies every year in America.” The man who asked the question was soft-spoken, neatly and casually dressed.
First Richard, a Franciscan priest, answered that this is indeed a painful issue but that it is not the only “pro-life” issue that progressives – even Catholics – should concern themselves with during elections. There are also the matters of capital punishment and the war in Iraq, and of HIV. Then Jim, an evangelical, spoke about the need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and the need to diffuse abortion as a political issue, by welcoming pro-choice and pro-life supporters to the discussion, with equal respect for their positions. He spoke gently about how “morally ambiguous” the issue is.
I sat there simmering, like a samovar; nice Jesusy me. The moderator turned to me and asked quietly if I would like to respond. I did: I wanted to respond by pushing over our table.
Instead, I shook my head. I love and respect the Franciscan and the evangelical, and agree with them 90-plus percent of the time. So I did not say anything, at first.
Then, when I was asked to answer the next question, I paused, and returned to the topic of abortion. There was a loud buzzing in my head, the voice of reason that says, “You have the right to remain silent,” but the voice of my conscience was insistent. I wanted to express calmly, eloquently, that pro-choice people understand that there are two lives involved in an abortion – one born (the pregnant woman) and one not (the fetus) – but that the born person must be allowed to decide what is right.
Also, I wanted to wave a gun around, to show what a real murder looks like. This tipped me off that I should hold my tongue, until further notice. And I tried.
But then I announced that I needed to speak out on behalf of the many women present in the crowd, including myself, who had had abortions, and the women whose daughters might need one in the not-too-distant future – people who must know that teenage girls will have abortions, whether in clinics or dirty backrooms. Women whose lives had been righted and redeemed by Roe vs. Wade. My answer was met with some applause but mostly a shocked silence.
Pall is a good word. And it did not feel good to be the cause of that pall. I knew what I was supposed to have said, as a progressive Christian: that it’s all very complicated and painful, and that Jim was right in saying that the abortion rate in America is way too high for a caring and compassionate society.
But I did the only thing I could think to do: plunge on, and tell my truth. I said that this is the most intimate decision a woman makes, and she makes it all alone, in her deepest heart of hearts, sometimes with the man by whom she is pregnant, with her dearest friends or with her doctor – but without the personal opinion of say, Tom DeLay or Karl Rove.
I said I could not believe that men committed to equality and civil rights were still challenging the basic rights of women. I thought about all the photo-ops at which President Bush had signed legislation limiting abortion rights, surrounded by 10 or so white, self-righteous married men, who have forced God knows how many girlfriends into doing God knows what. I thought of the time Bush appeared on stage with children born from frozen embryos, children he calls “snowflake babies,” and of the embryos themselves, which he calls the youngest and most vulnerable Americans.
And somehow, as I was answering, I got louder and maybe even more emphatic than I actually felt, and said it was not a morally ambiguous issue for me at all. I said that fetuses are not babies yet; that there was actually a real difference between pro-abortion people, like me, and Klaus Barbie.
Then I said that a woman’s right to choose was nobody else’s goddamn business. This got their attention.
A cloud of misery fell over the room, and the stage. Finally, Jim said something unifying enough for us to proceed – that liberals must not treat people with opposing opinions on abortion with contempt and exclusion, partly because it’s tough material, and partly because it is so critical that we win these next big elections.
It was not until the reception that I finally realized part of the problem – no one had told me that the crowd was made up largely of Catholics.
I had flown in at dawn on a red-eye, and, in my exhaustion, had somehow missed this one tiny bit of information. I was mortified: I had to eat my body weight in chocolate just to calm myself.
But then I asked myself: Would I, should I, have given a calmer answer? Wouldn’t it have been more useful and harder to dismiss me if I had sounded more reasonable, less – what is the word – spewy?
Maybe I could have presented my position in a less strident, divisive manner. But the questioner’s use of the words “murder” and “babies” had put me on the defensive. Plus I am so confused about why we are still having to argue with patriarchal sentimentality about teeny weenie so-called babies – some microscopic, some no bigger than the sea monkeys we used to send away for – when real, live, already born women, many of them desperately poor, get such short shrift from the current administration.
Most women like me would much rather use our time and energy fighting to make the world safe and just and fair for the children we do have, and do love – and for the children of New Orleans and the children of Darfur. I am old and tired and menopausal and would mostly like to be left alone: I have had my abortions, and I have had a child.
But as a Christian and a feminist, the most important message I can carry and fight for is the sacredness of each human life, and reproductive rights for all women is a crucial part of that: It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present. We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society.
During the reception, an old woman came up to me, and said, “If you hadn’t spoken out, I would have spit,” and then she raised her fist in the power salute. We huddled together for awhile, and ate M&Ms to give us strength. It was a kind of communion, for those of us who still believe that civil rights and equality and even common sense will somehow be sovereign, some day.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another article found by Kathy in Alabama.
22nd child abandoned at Neb. hospital under law
Published: 10/28/08, 10:25 PM EDT
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - A 15-year-old girl was abandoned by her father Tuesday night
at an Omaha hospital, bringing to 22 the number of children left under the
state's unique safe-haven law since it took effect in July.
The girl left Tuesday at Omaha's Immanuel Medical Center is a state resident,
said Children and Family Services division director Todd Landry in a statement.
State officials declined to answer questions about the case until Wednesday,
when more information could be gathered.
On Monday evening, a 15-year-old girl from Nebraska was left at Creighton
University Medical Center. She has been placed in a residential shelter while
authorities continue to investigate her case, Landry said.
Nebraska's safe-haven law, which took effect in July, is the only one in the
country that lets caregivers leave children as old as 18 at a state-licensed
hospital without fear of prosecution. The youngest child abandoned so far was
only a year old; 12 of the 22 were teenagers. Three children were from other
states, including Iowa, Michigan and Georgia.
Lancaster County officials said Tuesday that the boy from Georgia will be turned
over to a child protective worker in Cobb County, Ga., to return to his home
state and to attend a court hearing Wednesday. The boy will remain in Georgia
custody at least until a judge decides who should take care of him.
Nebraska's law was intended to protect infants, but it did not define "child" in
its wording. Most state lawmakers have agreed to amend the law when the
Legislature reconvenes in January so that it applies only to infants up to 3
days old.
The rights of the born
By Anne Lamott
February 10, 2006
EVERYTHING WAS going swimmingly on the panel. The subject was politics and faith, and I was on stage with two clergymen with progressive spiritual leanings, and a moderator who is liberal and Catholic. We were having a discussion with the audience of 1,300 people in Washington about many of the social justice topics on which we agree – the immorality of the federal budget, the wrongness of the president’s war in Iraq. Then an older man came to the mike and raised the issue of abortion, and everyone just lost his or her mind.
Or, at any rate, I did.
Maybe it was the way in which the man couched the question, which was about how we should reconcile our progressive stances on peace and justice with the “murder of a million babies every year in America.” The man who asked the question was soft-spoken, neatly and casually dressed.
First Richard, a Franciscan priest, answered that this is indeed a painful issue but that it is not the only “pro-life” issue that progressives – even Catholics – should concern themselves with during elections. There are also the matters of capital punishment and the war in Iraq, and of HIV. Then Jim, an evangelical, spoke about the need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and the need to diffuse abortion as a political issue, by welcoming pro-choice and pro-life supporters to the discussion, with equal respect for their positions. He spoke gently about how “morally ambiguous” the issue is.
I sat there simmering, like a samovar; nice Jesusy me. The moderator turned to me and asked quietly if I would like to respond. I did: I wanted to respond by pushing over our table.
Instead, I shook my head. I love and respect the Franciscan and the evangelical, and agree with them 90-plus percent of the time. So I did not say anything, at first.
Then, when I was asked to answer the next question, I paused, and returned to the topic of abortion. There was a loud buzzing in my head, the voice of reason that says, “You have the right to remain silent,” but the voice of my conscience was insistent. I wanted to express calmly, eloquently, that pro-choice people understand that there are two lives involved in an abortion – one born (the pregnant woman) and one not (the fetus) – but that the born person must be allowed to decide what is right.
Also, I wanted to wave a gun around, to show what a real murder looks like. This tipped me off that I should hold my tongue, until further notice. And I tried.
But then I announced that I needed to speak out on behalf of the many women present in the crowd, including myself, who had had abortions, and the women whose daughters might need one in the not-too-distant future – people who must know that teenage girls will have abortions, whether in clinics or dirty backrooms. Women whose lives had been righted and redeemed by Roe vs. Wade. My answer was met with some applause but mostly a shocked silence.
Pall is a good word. And it did not feel good to be the cause of that pall. I knew what I was supposed to have said, as a progressive Christian: that it’s all very complicated and painful, and that Jim was right in saying that the abortion rate in America is way too high for a caring and compassionate society.
But I did the only thing I could think to do: plunge on, and tell my truth. I said that this is the most intimate decision a woman makes, and she makes it all alone, in her deepest heart of hearts, sometimes with the man by whom she is pregnant, with her dearest friends or with her doctor – but without the personal opinion of say, Tom DeLay or Karl Rove.
I said I could not believe that men committed to equality and civil rights were still challenging the basic rights of women. I thought about all the photo-ops at which President Bush had signed legislation limiting abortion rights, surrounded by 10 or so white, self-righteous married men, who have forced God knows how many girlfriends into doing God knows what. I thought of the time Bush appeared on stage with children born from frozen embryos, children he calls “snowflake babies,” and of the embryos themselves, which he calls the youngest and most vulnerable Americans.
And somehow, as I was answering, I got louder and maybe even more emphatic than I actually felt, and said it was not a morally ambiguous issue for me at all. I said that fetuses are not babies yet; that there was actually a real difference between pro-abortion people, like me, and Klaus Barbie.
Then I said that a woman’s right to choose was nobody else’s goddamn business. This got their attention.
A cloud of misery fell over the room, and the stage. Finally, Jim said something unifying enough for us to proceed – that liberals must not treat people with opposing opinions on abortion with contempt and exclusion, partly because it’s tough material, and partly because it is so critical that we win these next big elections.
It was not until the reception that I finally realized part of the problem – no one had told me that the crowd was made up largely of Catholics.
I had flown in at dawn on a red-eye, and, in my exhaustion, had somehow missed this one tiny bit of information. I was mortified: I had to eat my body weight in chocolate just to calm myself.
But then I asked myself: Would I, should I, have given a calmer answer? Wouldn’t it have been more useful and harder to dismiss me if I had sounded more reasonable, less – what is the word – spewy?
Maybe I could have presented my position in a less strident, divisive manner. But the questioner’s use of the words “murder” and “babies” had put me on the defensive. Plus I am so confused about why we are still having to argue with patriarchal sentimentality about teeny weenie so-called babies – some microscopic, some no bigger than the sea monkeys we used to send away for – when real, live, already born women, many of them desperately poor, get such short shrift from the current administration.
Most women like me would much rather use our time and energy fighting to make the world safe and just and fair for the children we do have, and do love – and for the children of New Orleans and the children of Darfur. I am old and tired and menopausal and would mostly like to be left alone: I have had my abortions, and I have had a child.
But as a Christian and a feminist, the most important message I can carry and fight for is the sacredness of each human life, and reproductive rights for all women is a crucial part of that: It is a moral necessity that we not be forced to bring children into the world for whom we cannot be responsible and adoring and present. We must not inflict life on children who will be resented; we must not inflict unwanted children on society.
During the reception, an old woman came up to me, and said, “If you hadn’t spoken out, I would have spit,” and then she raised her fist in the power salute. We huddled together for awhile, and ate M&Ms to give us strength. It was a kind of communion, for those of us who still believe that civil rights and equality and even common sense will somehow be sovereign, some day.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Another article found by Kathy in Alabama.
22nd child abandoned at Neb. hospital under law
Published: 10/28/08, 10:25 PM EDT
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) - A 15-year-old girl was abandoned by her father Tuesday night
at an Omaha hospital, bringing to 22 the number of children left under the
state's unique safe-haven law since it took effect in July.
The girl left Tuesday at Omaha's Immanuel Medical Center is a state resident,
said Children and Family Services division director Todd Landry in a statement.
State officials declined to answer questions about the case until Wednesday,
when more information could be gathered.
On Monday evening, a 15-year-old girl from Nebraska was left at Creighton
University Medical Center. She has been placed in a residential shelter while
authorities continue to investigate her case, Landry said.
Nebraska's safe-haven law, which took effect in July, is the only one in the
country that lets caregivers leave children as old as 18 at a state-licensed
hospital without fear of prosecution. The youngest child abandoned so far was
only a year old; 12 of the 22 were teenagers. Three children were from other
states, including Iowa, Michigan and Georgia.
Lancaster County officials said Tuesday that the boy from Georgia will be turned
over to a child protective worker in Cobb County, Ga., to return to his home
state and to attend a court hearing Wednesday. The boy will remain in Georgia
custody at least until a judge decides who should take care of him.
Nebraska's law was intended to protect infants, but it did not define "child" in
its wording. Most state lawmakers have agreed to amend the law when the
Legislature reconvenes in January so that it applies only to infants up to 3
days old.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Should pro-lifers worry about Obama?
[Dakota Bill gave me this to post. Thanks, Bill!]
I don't know the person who wrote this, since it came to me in a group email. It was written in response to a post-election email from an unhappy pro-lifer regarding the election of Barack Obama. The letter, obviously written by a Catholic, does as good a job as I have seen in exploding the myth of pro-life as just an abortion issue.
Dakota Bill
Here's the letter:
-----------------------------
Let me just say that I am sure this e-mail was sent to my wife, but as my name is also on this account, I opened and read it. Here are my thoughts: We have elected a man from one of the first states(Illinois) to put a moratorium on the death penalty (a pro-life issue). I believe George W Bush presided over more than 130 executions while Governor of Texas...9 who were
later proven to be innocent of their "crimes."
Barak Obama is anti-war, a pro- life issue . Nearly 4200 U.S. troops and countless Iraqis have died in a war that both the current president and vp have stated, has nothing to do with 9-11. John McCain wished to continue that war.
President-elect Obama is for econmic policies that will help poor women...if those women see financial hope, and programs that can help them, perhaps they will choose not to terminate a pregnancy.
There are certainly a lot of issues that we, as Catholics, can disagree with President-elect Barak Obama, but there are many ideals we share. Please do not be so busy lamenting the results of the election, that you miss opportunities ahead to work with the new administration and do God's work.
There are many great opportunities with Big Brothers and Sisters, Foster Care, or adoption that are available to those of you who wish to make unwanted children the focus of your Pro-life faith.
Also,when you are doing your pro- Life prayers, I encourage you to include those on death row, children tossed into foster care and those who face the cruel reality of war.
After those prayers, please stand up, look to the sky and LISTEN....Perhaps with the election of Barak Obama...God is trying to tell you something.
Mark Griffin
I don't know the person who wrote this, since it came to me in a group email. It was written in response to a post-election email from an unhappy pro-lifer regarding the election of Barack Obama. The letter, obviously written by a Catholic, does as good a job as I have seen in exploding the myth of pro-life as just an abortion issue.
Dakota Bill
Here's the letter:
-----------------------------
Let me just say that I am sure this e-mail was sent to my wife, but as my name is also on this account, I opened and read it. Here are my thoughts: We have elected a man from one of the first states(Illinois) to put a moratorium on the death penalty (a pro-life issue). I believe George W Bush presided over more than 130 executions while Governor of Texas...9 who were
later proven to be innocent of their "crimes."
Barak Obama is anti-war, a pro- life issue . Nearly 4200 U.S. troops and countless Iraqis have died in a war that both the current president and vp have stated, has nothing to do with 9-11. John McCain wished to continue that war.
President-elect Obama is for econmic policies that will help poor women...if those women see financial hope, and programs that can help them, perhaps they will choose not to terminate a pregnancy.
There are certainly a lot of issues that we, as Catholics, can disagree with President-elect Barak Obama, but there are many ideals we share. Please do not be so busy lamenting the results of the election, that you miss opportunities ahead to work with the new administration and do God's work.
There are many great opportunities with Big Brothers and Sisters, Foster Care, or adoption that are available to those of you who wish to make unwanted children the focus of your Pro-life faith.
Also,when you are doing your pro- Life prayers, I encourage you to include those on death row, children tossed into foster care and those who face the cruel reality of war.
After those prayers, please stand up, look to the sky and LISTEN....Perhaps with the election of Barak Obama...God is trying to tell you something.
Mark Griffin
Republicans going to move out of the country?
My brother, a McCain supporter, says (and I post it on his behalf):
It could happen – but I don’t think that Canada is a better choice. They already have a socialist government!
I’m thinking that I should sell our house and everything that is not needed, and move to an eastern Caribbean island. If Obama and his congressional cronies want to take America down the road to socialism, it will be with my sincere resistance, or my absence! Many democrats promised that they would leave the country if Bush was elected…They LIED! Of course, they have been doing that for years. Too bad – we would have been a lot better off if they HAD GONE!
If Obama, Pelosi, and Reed, get their way and do everything that they have said they will do…those of you who voted for them will be equally affected by their actions and laws! I hope that you enjoy what you asked for, and voted for! I’m still convinced that I WON’T!
So… It’s Too Late…Obama (and our “responsible media” {non-biased of course} Ha Ha !) has convinced the mind numb masses to elect him president. This is sent your way to make sure that you know what you voted for…you may want to take some more time to research the candidates next time!
Also – has anyone bothered to remind you that the tax cuts put in place by the Bush administration (all of us have appreciated them) will automatically disappear in 2010!? I can guarantee that the congress and the senate (democratically controlled) will not be voting to make them permanent! They think that HIGHER TAXES are the way to repair and grow our economic system. Welcome to Socialism! That IS what it IS, no matter what spin the media tries to use!
If you voted for this group of “Anti-American” Marxist / Socialist people – You WILL feel the pain as much as the Conservative Republican people who didn’t!
GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!! You’re going to need it!
My response:
This is way too much doom and gloom. All this socialist stuff is way over the top. The most socialist thing we have done lately is to get the gov't involved in private banking (altho it is hopefully only temporary) after letting them run amok.
As to taxes, we can't predict what will happen - it takes 2 houses of congress to make those changes and they are far from a rubber stamp for any president's program. Even w/ a majority the Dems have been known to splinter. There is no use worrying about it until bills are written - then send your comments. Also, I suspect that everyone you personally know will NOT have a tax increase, and will likely have a decrease of some sort. Most of us aren't paling around w/ the over $250K income crowd.
It is true that every election people threaten to leave the country if their candidate isn't elected. They are free to go, but most don't. Somehow we survive the bad politicians, too. Witness the last 8 yrs. The 49% of us that didn't vote for Bush in '04 still can't believe he got re-elected - but you had your chance to rejoice then. Too bad Bush didn't put whatever mandate he thought he had then to better use.
So, I am tremendously optimistic. We now have a smart guy, elected by a wide margin (widest in decades), who really does have a mandate - especially electorally. He has good advisers and will start turning this ship around and repairing our reputation internationally. It'll take time. We need to be patient. It is not magic and no one will get all they hope for, or at least not quickly.
Think Positive! Give the new guy a chance!
Friday, November 7, 2008
Encourage adoption - Excellent idea
Uncle Tom’s idea to make adoption easier and cheaper is a great way to give pregnant women another option. There are many kind of adoption, private, international, domestic, open adoption, thru a gov’t agency, from foster care, etc.
The adoption option already exists, of course, but right now the costs are pretty high - $5 – 40,000. Not encouraging for the wanna be parents. Also, there should be good counseling for the woman so she will 1) want to carry the baby to term (if she didn’t get an early abortion or doesn’t want one) and 2) be willing to give it up after birth. More money required either from the gov’t, an agency, or the adoptive parents.
It seems that there are lots of couples that want a child and are willing, but all the ones I know that adopted were definitely upper middle class and spend considerable sums to do it. It seems to be less expensive to become a foster parent and then adopt someone you have been a foster parent to. But that’s a long process, too. Not to mention going overseas to adopt – that just shows how hard it must be here if you have to leave the country to find a child.
So, streamline the process, reduce the costs, provide affordable counseling for all parties, and hopefully more kids will get into good homes quicker, and more pregnancies will result in adoptions rather than abortions.
Excellent, Tom. Any way we can encourage that through our efforts?
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Abortion compromise?
A family member and I were discussing abortion, and this is what I came up with. He, even being anti-abortion, thinks it is a reasonable middle point. Most Christians will not agree.
I certainly am as concerned about abortions as you are. It is unfortunate there have to be any, but so long as there is limited sex education in the schools (and at home) there will be young pregnant girls. And there will be pregnant women who don’t want any more kids. And the rare rape case. And those who are economically unable to support a kid (or more kids).
Sex education should be at home, but all too often it isn’t, so it is needed in the schools. If parents or schools don’t teach birth control (at the appropriate age) those youngsters raging hormones will overcome “just say no”, as you know!
Then there is the issue of when is a pregnancy a life that should be protected? Here is where the differences are problematic. I know the Christian perspective is when the sperm hits the egg – that’s a human. Some of the most aggressive pro-choice folks say abortion is OK anytime before the woman is dilated 10 cm. Neither position seems to make sense.
But there is a fuzzy middle ground (isn’t there always?).
Most scientists would say it is not a human life at conception, or even at the early stages of growth as an embryo. The courts say when it is “viable” to live outside the womb maybe it is a human life, but Drs. can always justify abortion to “save the mother”. Viability, of course, keeps getting earlier and earlier as medical procedures get better. I don’t know how early a preemie can be kept alive and has a chance at a healthy life, but I think it is now somewhere around 6 mo. of development.
I, being a devotee of science, certainly think an early abortion, morning after pill, etc., is OK. (Did you know that a fertilized egg takes about 4-5 days to implant in the wall of the uterus? And that something like ½ never implant and are just flushed out even after a certain number of cell divisions? Therefore, is God / nature the biggest abortionist according to the Christian definition of when life begins?) And abortion is fine with me during the early months when it is a tiny ball of cells, or even a fetus, that has no chance of survival outside the womb. It may sound callous, but to me that is just a group of cells no bigger than a wart or a boil – not human life worthy of being preserved.
So maybe a compromise can be made, and has been tried, where an early abortion is OK (of course, you have to define “early”) and after a certain point it is not OK except to save the mother. Then encourage birth control for all, start early for teens who are going to have sex anyway, make birth control easy, cheap, and not stigmatized, so the number of pregnancies is way reduced. As a back up encourage pregnant teens / women to come in early to get a preg test, find out the genetics of the fetus if they are concerned about some genetic abnormality, and if an abortion is what they choose, do it very early.
As we all know, some women will still be in denial about their pregnancy. Some will get late abortions illegally even if outlawed. Or go to Mexico. Or do it themselves at home. Great risk but the desperate will break the law whatever it is.So, should I be king?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Going Public - new policy
This blog started as a private family blog for my / our family to discuss politics and religion. It started out quite lively but got less and less active until it became dormant. I guess we all stated our positions, mostly as expected, then realized that no one was going to convince anyone to change their mind, so it kind of fizzled.
However, I thought it worth a shot to make it public and see who else chimes in. I have taken out all names and references out of past posts that might disclose people’s identities, but have left the folks who signed up to write with that ability still intact. Now members of the public can read and comment, but cannot write original posts. If a comment is good, I can re-post it for all to see. Let’s see how that works out. I may be the only poster but maybe some public comments will liven things up. We’ll see.
To visitors, feel free to look at old posts and comment. Or just leave your opinions on the current stuff.
However, I thought it worth a shot to make it public and see who else chimes in. I have taken out all names and references out of past posts that might disclose people’s identities, but have left the folks who signed up to write with that ability still intact. Now members of the public can read and comment, but cannot write original posts. If a comment is good, I can re-post it for all to see. Let’s see how that works out. I may be the only poster but maybe some public comments will liven things up. We’ll see.
To visitors, feel free to look at old posts and comment. Or just leave your opinions on the current stuff.
The Morning After
Well, folks. Everybody should be more or less happy, now. We’ve got a good prez in the White House, we presume, and we’ve got a congress that ought to be able to work with him and his programs, and vice versa.
Will it mean an immediate end to the war? Not likely.
Will the economy recover in a few months? No.
Can he undo all the evil that George is leaving behind? Probably not.
But he is a very smart guy with a liberal bent (not really a radical socialist) who the world respects and who might actually BE a “uniter” this time around. If he picks good people as advisors and staff, this really could be one for the history books. He will be challenged, we may have another terror attack, but he is even-tempered enough and smart enough to figure out a response that will not cripple us or piss off half the world’s population. He will likely focus on domestic recovery for everyone, not just the bankers.
So now all the pundits can speculate on what will really be done. That’ll keep their jobs for a while, but we have to wait and see after the inauguration what really happens. In the meantime, let’s hope that GW doesn’t undo too many more environmental regulations, commit to further Iraq entanglements, or issue too many pardons to his henchmen (and himself) as he leaves office.
At least we won’t have a 4 yr. extension of Bush policy. Thank you Sarah Palin! You couldn’t have shown up at a better time.
Will it mean an immediate end to the war? Not likely.
Will the economy recover in a few months? No.
Can he undo all the evil that George is leaving behind? Probably not.
But he is a very smart guy with a liberal bent (not really a radical socialist) who the world respects and who might actually BE a “uniter” this time around. If he picks good people as advisors and staff, this really could be one for the history books. He will be challenged, we may have another terror attack, but he is even-tempered enough and smart enough to figure out a response that will not cripple us or piss off half the world’s population. He will likely focus on domestic recovery for everyone, not just the bankers.
So now all the pundits can speculate on what will really be done. That’ll keep their jobs for a while, but we have to wait and see after the inauguration what really happens. In the meantime, let’s hope that GW doesn’t undo too many more environmental regulations, commit to further Iraq entanglements, or issue too many pardons to his henchmen (and himself) as he leaves office.
At least we won’t have a 4 yr. extension of Bush policy. Thank you Sarah Palin! You couldn’t have shown up at a better time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
