But now the shit’s really going to hit the fan: Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize. I don’t think it’s an appropriate time to give the award, but the commitee made no secret of the fact that they’re aware of his lack of time in office.

I hope hardline Republicans are shitting their pants. I’d love to see the froth on the side of their mouths, spewing in senseless anger. Someone should just remind them that God is responsible for everything, and that he works in mysterious ways, haha.

—

Oklahoma passed a law forcing details of any abortion to be posted publicly, including age, race, marital status, county in which it was performed. I cannot think of a more disgusting law. I’d expect this from a crazy theocracy, not the US. Oh wait, some states are crazy theocracies. I pity what I would guess to be one of very few black women in Guymon, Oklahoma who needed an abortion. The whole town would know.

—

We live in a time of great scientific advance, knowledge and understanding. (Here are three random articles I plucked out in less thanh a minute). But then you have lying, war-mongering, ignorant and very scared God-lovers that are just fucking ruining it for the whole godamned planet. Take these two Republican congressman who say the US should attack Iran first, not Israel. How about realizing that only 1.7% of Americans are Jewish? Nobody seems to care about the 15% that are non-religious…

Haven’t they learn that every single time they have meddled in the affairs of other countries, it has had negative consequences? Israel has nukes, and they’ve proven that they’re very willing to defy every Geneva Convention, every bit of morality, to wage war against Muslims. I understand Iran’s intentions of wanting to defend itself against Israel, although I don’t think anyone should have nukes. Have you noticed that the US is aiding a country that is lining up for a trial at the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity? May we consider, for a moment that US foreign policy has made it “The bad guy”?

Healthcare is but a blip amongst the problems in the US. The economy, and its wars are far more important. But there is such internal struggle between an emotional and ignorant portion of the country and the rest, that even something as blatantly obvious, needed and cost-effective public health care can’t even get through Congress. Fuck me, our Southern neighbours are in a heap of trouble when China comes collecting its debts.

I try to be optimistic when I meet new people like my couchsurfers, when I read about new scientific advance and how we’re discovering new ways of harnessing renewable energy. But it’s things like these that make me very pessimistic indeed.

(Thanks to Luc Archer for the tip!)

My opinion on the debate is a complicated one, that has changed with time. In the past, I have been a staunch supporter of pro-choice. Since then I have given way, albeit not completely, to the pro-life aspect of the debate.

Where The Debate Gets Muddled

There are two key points that make this debate a controversial one: Deciding when life begins, and secondly, putting value to human life.

First, I will address the topic of the value of life. Some people agree with forcing a pregnant woman to bring a child to the world, even if it is to a broken home—while supporting the death penalty, which I feel shows a certain degree of hypocrisy. Some would say a Canadian of any age is “worth more” than a Nicraguan farmer. Throw in age, cultural, income, educational and health differences and you’ll have such a huge pool of varying opinions on the value of life that I could list on for a very long time. I think there are some people who would trade the lives of a dying Somalian they’ve never met to extend the life of their dog—and I can understand, no matter my opinion.

I speak as a secular humanist, therefore my argument hardly stems from a belief in any particular deity, nor from a book written by people who lived in a world without telephones or Google. At the base, my opinion is based on a respect for life. What many may not understand is that this is the same respect I share for any other animal or creature. It is difficult indeed to explain why I think a baby is worth as much as maggot larvae (again, is it not a devaluation of human life, it is rather an appreciation for all life).

Second, the debate also revolves around when life truly begins. Between masturbation and birth, where does one attribute life? Why may one be okay with killing those who hold an extreme opposite opinion, but do not to abort an egg that was fertilized a week prior? Again, you can tie in the appraisal of the value of life.

An Inconvenient Child

A 17-year old high school girl gets pregnant with her first sexual partner, only a month after they met. With my poorly-thought out valuing of human life, I’d say that unless it was very early in the pregnancy, or that the mother’s life was in danger, she should have the child. This is coming, however, from someone who has not lived through an unwanted pregnancy. I therefore consider my opinion to be a weak one.

It is startling to see how completely fired up people can get on either side of the debate once this hypothetical is brought up. It engulfs the debate entirely and leaves out discussions of the prevention of this situation.

Common Ground

I believe there are more important points to be debated, as I believe there is much more common ground between both sides of the argument than meets the eye. Without question, I believe that an abortion should be carried out if there is any danger to the life of the mother to proceed with the birth of the child. It is in my opinion, however, that only fraction of abortions are undertaken for this purpose. This is unfortunate, and I want it to change.

I also believe is that both pro-lifers and pro-choice supporters wish to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. It seems as though much of the focus is on the unwinnable philosophical and ethical grounds, as opposed to discussing actual solutions to the problem. I feel the debates should rather revolve around effective sexual education. It is in the opinion of American Psychological Association,the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the Society for Adolescent Medicine (endorsed by the American College Health Association), the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association, that abstinence-only education does not work, and I would dare think it even makes matters worse. I’ve once read in a conservative blog that research has proven otherwise, according to The Heritage Foundation. Unfortunately, the latter does not cite any of its references, and I openly question the foundation’s agenda, considering the use of terms such as “out-of-wedlock childbearing”.

Positive Change

In other words, let’s cut the bullshit and teach people about the consequences of sex, how to protect oneself during sex and what it means to have a child. The day we set aside out ideological differences is the day we’ll see more positive change.