Here's a thought...
Topic: thought provoking
I heard on the radio earlier today that a petition has been started to convince Ashley Simpson to stop singing altogether. So far they had gathered over 275,800+ signatures begging her to stop singing...

Then it hit me. It's obvious that her family (and specifically her famous singer sister, Jessica), not her talent, got her foot in the door and got her a record deal.

And then another thought crossed my mind. How much better off our whole world would have been...how much less pain and suffering would exist in this world...if only Simon Cowell was her brother or dad.

* smiles and dreams about what "could have been" *

What does that tell you?
Mood:  a-ok
Topic: ramblings
I happened to notice on the television today that there were three infomercials on, all at the same time, and all selling the same thing: the "Little Giant" ladder. What exactly is the benefit of overloading the few non-cable channels (6, 8 and 54) with the same product?

Steaming pile of cow dung...
Topic: ramblings
As Dr. Ian Malcolm (played by Jeff Goldblum) said in Jurassic Park, "That is one big pile of shit..."

***************************************************

Massive Manure Fire Burns Into Third Month

Jan 28, 8:15 AM (ET)

By KEVIN O'HANLON

MILFORD, Neb. (AP) - Urban dwellers who enjoy dining on filet mignon at five-star restaurants would probably just as soon not know about David Dickinson's dilemma.

Bad for the appetite, you know.

But Dickinson, who makes his living in the cattle business, has an environmental problem on his hands that is vexing state officials: a 2,000-ton pile of burning cow manure.

Dickinson owns and manages Midwest Feeding Co. about 20 miles west of Lincoln, which takes in as many as 12,000 cows at a time from farmers and ranchers and fattens them for market.

Byproducts from the massive operation resulted in a dung pile measuring 100 feet long, 30 feet high and 50 feet wide that began burning about two months ago and continues to smolder despite Herculean attempts to douse it.

While city folks might have trouble imagining a dung pile of such proportions, they are common sites in rural states.

In July, crews fighting a blaze in a three-acre manure lagoon at a dairy farm in Washington smothered the flames with more of the same - a blanket of wet cow manure.

In December, Montana officials ordered the owner of a horse feedlot to extinguish a large manure fire that sent a stench over a nearby town.

The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality has informed Dickinson that his smoldering dung pile violates clean-air laws and is working with him to find the best solution to extinguish it, said agency spokesman Rich Webster.

Simply dumping water on the heap is not the answer, Webster said, because of concerns about runoff to any nearby water source.

Dickinson first tried using heavy equipment to spread out the smoldering pile and extinguish the fire.

"But the problem was, it started in another spot," he said. "We've also had the fire department out a couple of times."

And still it burns.

No one is sure how the fire started, but a common theory is that heat from the decomposing manure deep inside the pile eventually ignited the manure.

Wilma Roth, who manages a restaurant along Interstate 80 about a mile north of the feedlot, said her customers have complained about the smoke, which wafts for miles.

"I'd just as soon forget about it," she said.

Dickinson said the smoke is not particularly malodorous - although that comes from a man who works full-time around manure.

"I guess it's just all perspective," he said. "To me, it just smells like smoke. I really don't know how to describe it."

Decades ago, most farmers and ranchers kept their own cows and pigs until they were shipped to market and slaughtered into filet mignon, hamburger, pork chops and bacon.

And with all those animals spread far apart at thousands of farms, it was easier to dispose of the manure.

But huge feedlots - where animals are shipped to fatten on a high-grain diet for their last several months - have become commonplace.

Dickinson has an average of 12,000 animals on hand, each eating about 25 pounds of feed daily, resulting in as much as nine pounds of manure a day per animal - some 54 tons every 24 hours.

Most big feedlots spread the manure over farm fields or compost it to spread later or sell commercially to gardeners.

Farmers in several states are experimenting with using the methane gas from livestock manure to produce electricity. The manure is heated and produces methane gas as it breaks down. The gas is collected and used to power a generator, which sends electricity onto a power grid.

Dickinson acknowledged that while some folks see the humor in his predicament, he takes the fire seriously.

"It's a nuisance, and obviously we are trying to get it resolved," he said. "Everybody's been really patient."

11 killed in suicide attempt gone wrong...
Mood:  sad
I personally don't think he should be given the death penalty. I mean the guy is obviously suicidal and almost ended his own life. To give him the death penalty would make no sense since death is exactly what he wants! For that reason alone he should be forced to live a long long life in prison so he can remember every day what he did. I mean if he is going to get death, they might as well just remove the "suicide watch" from his cell so he can finish what he wanted.

My heart goes out to all of those affected by this. Such a horrible and senseless tragedy. :(

************************************************

LA train crash suspect charged with murder

11 killed, two dozen in critical condition

NBC, MSNBC and news services
Updated: 10:41 a.m. ET Jan. 27, 2005

GLENDALE, Calif. - The suicidal man who authorities say caused the chain-reaction train derailment that killed 11 people has been charged with multiple counts of murder and could face the death penalty, the district attorney said Thursday.

Juan Manuel Alvarez, 25, left his sport utility vehicle on a railroad track Wednesday after changing his mind about committing suicide, authorities said. He was held without bail at a hospital's jail ward after apparently slitting his own wrists and stabbing himself in the chest.

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said prosecutors filed charges for 10 counts of murder with "special circumstances" of committing murder through a train derailment. Under state law, special circumstances allegations can make a defendant eligible for the death penalty.

Cooley said the complaint would be amended to add another count to refer to the 11th victim, found in the wreckage late Wednesday night.

Alvarez is cooperating in the investigation, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca told NBC News earlier on Thursday.

Eleven bodies have been recovered from the wreckage site. Some 180 people were injured.

Baca said Alvarez went beyond leaving his car at a train crossing, instead driving it off the road and onto a railbed where the vehicle became trapped between two tracks.

Investigators say Alvarez stood by and watched the gruesome collision, which scattered wreckage and bodies over a quarter-mile of track.

'Deranged individual'
"This whole incident was started by a deranged individual that was suicidal," Glendale police Chief Randy Adams said Wednesday. "I think his intent at that time was to take his own life but changed his mind prior to the train actually striking this vehicle."


Alvarez was arrested at the scene shortly after the crash.

The crash was the worst U.S. rail tragedy since March 15, 1999, when an Amtrak train hit a truck and derailed near Bourbonnais, Ill., killing 11 people and injuring more than 100.

"I hope that we're able to assess this in a way that we can figure out: Is there a way that we can stop one crazed individual from creating this kind of carnage?" Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn told reporters.

Two dozen in critical shape
Among the two women and nine men killed was a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy on his way to work. About two dozen people were hospitalized in critical condition.

Alvarez's estranged wife, Carmelita Alvarez, had ordered him out of her home months ago, her family said, and in November she went to court seeking a temporary restraining order keeping him away from herself, their 3-year-old son, her mother, brother and other family members.

"He is using drugs and has been in and out of rehab twice," she said in asking for the restraining order, which was granted Dec. 14. "He threatened to take our kid away and to hurt my family members," she added. "He is planning on selling his vehicle to buy a gun and threatened to use it."

Alvarez, who lived in a converted garage behind her sister's home in suburban Compton, told the court her husband had damaged her family's property and threatened to seek revenge on people he suspected of introducing her to another man. She said his drug use was triggering hallucinations.

She went into seclusion shortly after the crash.

"Whether we make any comment right now depends on my sister," her brother, Ruben Ochoa, told The Associated Press outside the family home on Wednesday. "We're not commenting right now."

The victims of Wednesday's crash included several public employees who worked in or around Los Angeles.

Among them was Los Angeles County sheriff's Deputy James Tutino, 47, whose flag-draped body was saluted by law enforcement officers and firefighters as it was carried from the wreckage.

Metrolink, the Southern California commuter rail service that operates the train tracks, said it was the worst accident in its 13-year history.

Metrolink chief executive David Solow said the severity of the wreck was due to the car having been wedged tightly into the tracks, creating an "immovable object."

'The train tilted'
The force of the collision hurled passengers down the trains' aisles.

"It's like we went from 55 to 60 (mph) to zero in two seconds flat," one injured man told reporters.

"I heard a noise. It got louder and louder," said passenger Diane Brady, 56, of Simi Valley. "And next thing I knew the train tilted, everyone was screaming and I held onto a pole for dear life. I held on for what seemed like a week and a half it seemed. It was a complete nightmare."

First on the scene were workers at a Costco store next to the tracks. They helped take some of the injured away in shopping carts. Uninjured passengers also joined the rescue effort. As a light rain fell, more than 300 firefighters climbed ladders into windows of battered train cars to rescue scores of injured.

Costco employee Hugo Moran said an elderly man covered in blood and soot and with apparent broken arms and legs was pulled out of the wreckage but died soon after. Before he died, he thanked his rescuers and asked them to pray for him.

Another trapped man had used his own blood to write a note on a seat bottom. Using the heart symbol, he wrote "I love my kids" and "I love Leslie."

The man's identity wasn't known, but Los Angeles Fire Department spokesman Capt. Rex Vilaubi said he was removed from the wreckage alive.

The commuter trains also struck a parked freight train, sparking a brief fire.

Costco employee Jenny Doll said trapped passengers -- some severely injured -- screamed for help as flames raced toward the front of a train car and smoke and diesel fumes filled the air. Forklift operators, truck drivers and stock clerks worked side-by-side to pull victims out, using store shopping carts to wheel some of the most severely injured to safety.

"There were people stuck in the front. Everything was mangled," Doll said. "You could not even tell that it was a train cab at all."

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Crazy people...
Mood:  irritated
Topic: people who need help
One can only hope that she had "drug use" as an excuse for this much stupidity...

Lindsay Blackledge mugshot

Meet Lindsey Blackledge. The 19-year-old California gal was arrested in July 2002 for possession of a stolen, 14-ounce tri-tip steak. According to the Calaveras County sheriff, the beef was swiped from the outdoor grill of Katherine King, a 38-year-old San Andreas woman who called cops after discovering her meat was missing. When police arrived at the crime scene, they discovered a trail of "meat juice" leading from King's grill to an upstairs apartment. Inside the apartment, investigators followed the meat drippings to a bathroom, where they found the purloined sirloin hidden in a cabinet below the sink. Blackledge--who was found in the apartment--was charged with a felony.

Click here for TSG's extensive mug shot collection.

Pet peeves at work...
Mood:  irritated
Topic: people who need help
So I'm at work this morning...just thinking about how frustrating people can be! Working for a financial institution you meet all sorts of people: people who have hundreds of thousands of dollars or more and know how to manage money, and others who wish they could even have a hundred dollars because they do not know how to manage money.

And interspersed in there are the people who don't bother to balance their checkbooks. I'll be the first to admit I don't sit down with my statement every month and "crunch numbers" to make sure everything balances in the traditional sense. I don't expect everyone to do that either. But they should at least do what I do: check their accounts periodically (every couple of days online if they're like me, but at the very least once a month via the statement they receive in the mail) and make sure that everything on there is legitimate.

Not to mention people who try to spend money before they have it! Like it's my fault you went out and wrote checks and they cleared before your direct deposit came in?! Wait until you get paid to spend your money jackass! If you decide to illegally float checks in the assumption your direct deposit will come in, then that's your risk and you should only kick yourself; don't take it out on the financial institution!

Last Monday I spoke with two people in particular that drove me absolutely nutty up the wall! The first guy said, (and I quote) "I think you guys need to double check your figures." I suppose that is to imply that we made a mistake. It's possible, I mean the computers most likely didn't make mistakes, but human error might have caused a mistake to occur. Nonetheless, he didn't say "I notice a mistake is made" he just simply noticed his checkbook balance didn't match what we showed and he was calling to have me just fork the money over to him I guess.

So basically he calls to say his records don't match ours. He says our balance is $34.07 less than what he shows on his checkbook (and continually hinted towards me just putting money into his account to correct the "error" made by us). I asked him when the last time he balanced his checkbook.

"Well, on Jan 2 you were only off by $1.93" he said...then after a little mumbling he mentions "but a check for $36 hadn't cleared yet." I did some calculations and informed him, "that means there was a difference of $34.07 then as well." When I asked when he balanced before that, he just mumbled a little more and changed subjects well enough that I forgot to go back. To me, that shows he doesn't balance his checkbook (often, if even at all). This also means he's been $34.07 out of balance for at least 3 weeks. He mentioned he had access to online banking (where he could check his balances/transactions online) but still couldn't find where the discrepancy was. This to me means he has been out of balance at least 3 weeks and would most likely he's been out of balance at least a month, if not two or more. Since I wasn't about to go over each transaction from the last 3 or 4 months I suggested he come into one of our branches and have someone double check his checkbook with the transactions we show on his account. Needless to say, he didn't like that and he just wanted me to "fix it" for him. Yeah right.

Then later in the day I get a woman who needs just as much, if not more, help. Long story short on this lady, she had some minor issues on her Visa I cleared up for her and then she asked me about why she received a notice of a late fee in the mail for her Visa card. I mentioned how her minimum payment hadn't been received because the bill payment we received electronically was split between her Visa and her savings account. She mentioned at that point that the bill pay should always go all to her Visa, yet I noticed that only $60 every time would go to Visa and the rest (usually between 20 and 40 dollars) went to savings. How long had this been happening? Since July of 2003! Meaning, over 18 months! Does this woman NEVER check the statements we mail to her?

That's just the beginning of the craziness we get here daily in the call center...

More about me...
Mood:  happy
Topic: informative
I filled out one like this not too long ago, but this one I found had even different questions...enjoy :)

LAYER ONE:
-- name :: Bryan Lawrence Dehler
-- birthdate :: June 8, 1982
-- birthplace :: Mather AFB, CA
-- current location :: Portland, OR
-- eye color :: blue
-- hair color :: brown
-- height :: 6'0"
-- righty or lefty :: ambidextrous: write left, throw ball right, most everything else is both
-- zodiac sign :: Gemini

LAYER TWO:
-- your heritage :: German on my father's side, part Native American from mother's side
-- the shoes you wore today :: black slip on dress shoes
-- your weakness :: Mountain Dew and chocolate
-- your fears :: dying too young,
-- your perfect pizza :: hawaiian (Canadian bacon/pinneapple)
-- goal you'd like to achieve :: retire by the age of 55

LAYER THREE:
-- your most overused phrase online ::
-- your thoughts first waking up :: "are you sure it's time to wake up?"
-- your best physical feature :: smile?
-- your bedtime :: preferably never, realistically usually between 11pm and 1am
-- your most missed memory ::

LAYER FOUR:
-- smoke :: nope
-- cuss :: sometimes (when the occasion calls for it)
-- sing :: sometimes (when there's no one around to suffer bleeding ears)
-- take a shower everyday :: try to
-- have a crush :: nope
-- like(d) high school :: for the most part
-- want to get married :: yep
-- believe in yourself :: usually
-- get motion sickness :: nope
-- think you're attractive :: not really, but a sense of humor is more important right? lol
-- think you're a health freak :: not in the least
-- get along with your parent(s) :: definitely
-- like thunderstorms :: oh yeah
-- play an instrument :: I have a guitar does that count?

LAYER FIVE:
in the past month...
-- drank alcohol :: oh yeah
-- smoked :: nope
-- done a drug:: *thinks to himself* nope
-- made out :: nope :(
-- gone on a date :: nope
-- gone to the mall :: yeah
-- eaten an entire box of oreos :: never done that actually lol
-- eaten sushi :: not in the last month, but sushi is pretty good
-- been on stage :: not since sophomore year of college
-- been dumped :: nope
-- gone skating :: nope.

LAYER SEVEN:
ever...
-- played a game that required removal of clothing :: nah
-- been caught "doing something" :: yeah
-- been called a tease :: no, cause I think being a tease is just wrong!
-- gotten beaten up :: yeah, it was called "childhood" :P
-- shoplifted :: yeah
-- changed who you were to fit in :: not that I can remember

LAYER EIGHT:
-- age you hope to be married :: *shrugs* whenever
-- numbers and names of children :: I'd like to have at least 2 or 3. For girls I want Marie, Candace, Adelaide. My wife can pick the boys' names.
-- how do you want to die :: "peacefully, not like the 5 other people in the car." No seriously, though, I'd want to die in a manner in which I can be assured that I've done a fair share for this group of people we call "humans."
-- what do you want to be when you grow up :: so you're saying I have to grow up? I think a "consultant" would be the best job: just getting paid to share your knowledge.

LAYER NINE:
in a guy/girl..
-- best eye color :: no preference
-- best hair color :: no preference
-- short or long hair :: not too short, then again not too long. Let's say "middle" :)
-- best weight :: no preference
-- best articles of clothing :: jeans, overalls, shirts
-- best first date location :: sitting at a coffee shop just talking. If she can't handle that, it won't last lol
-- best first kiss location :: lips, definitely the lips

LAYER TEN:
-- # of drugs taken illegally :: none
-- # of people I could trust with my life :: I can name a good dozen
-- # of CDs that I own :: an actual number? We're talking upwards of 200 - 300 including all my Pearl Jam CDs
-- # of DVDs that I own :: without an official count, I'd say close to 20
-- # of records that I own :: 3 or 4 (all Pearl Jam)
-- # of piercings :: none
-- # of tattoos :: none
-- # of scars on my body :: ummm...biggest one would be the horseshoe shaped one that "surrounds" my left ear (craniotomy). I have one on my chin from when it split open while resting my chin on the side of the public pool, the one on my right index finger from when an industrial sized tape measure sliced through my finger (I really should have had stitches, thank God I still have movement in that finger). I also have on my forearm right near the elbow from when I accidentally stabbed myself while holding a mechanical pencil and attempting to put on backpack on my back. Two chunks of lead (actually graphite) lodged in my skin from a pencil: one in my right thumb, the other in my left palm. I think that's about it...
-- # of things in my past that I regret :: not spending more time with my grandma and uncle Mike before they passed away. Getting mad enough at my friend, Kevin, from Utah and not talking to him for 2 years, then finding out he died of a drug OD.

EXTRAS:
-- favorite color :: blue
-- favorite animal :: chimpanzee
-- favorite subject :: politics/religion/economics (three way tie)
-- favorite food :: Italian
-- favorite drink :: non-alcoholic: Mountain Dew; alcoholic: brain hemorrhage
-- favorite meal :: Chicken, green beans, and new potatoes in a dill gravy...mmmmmmmm
-- what are you doing right this second :: "working" at the Credit Union, and filling this out of course
-- listening to music :: nope, wish I could be though

Men's odd place in the abortion debate...
Mood:  blue
Topic: informative
The only reason I chose "blue" as my mood is because of the recent posts that I've received in the yahoo group I am a member of. It has recently had a constant flow of strong thoughts/attitudes back and forth on the abortion debate. Some people have shown how strictly they believe in a woman's "right to choose" regardless of whether the unborn child in her is considered alive or not. It is a little sad to see how strongly people can disagree on such an obviously heated topic.

One member, who goes by the name Jenna, has been on the pro-life side (and the only one to help keep my sanity). She posted this link so that others may read this article. I thought it was very well done...

*************************************************

Aborting Equality: Men's odd place in the abortion debate

By Cathy Young

REASON April 2003

The 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in January evoked the usual rhetoric from the usual suspects: anti-abortion activists lamenting the slaughter of fetuses, feminists lamenting the threat to women's rights, cautious language from the president about respect for life. But in all the commentary, little attention was paid to one crucial aspect of the issue: how the availability of abortion affects relations between men and women.

Pro-choicers see legal abortion as essential to gender equality, a guarantee that a woman can enjoy sexual freedom just like a man, without an unwanted pregnancy disrupting her career or education. As one Planned Parenthood pamphlet puts it, the basic issue is, "Should women make their own decisions about family, career and how to live their lives?" Men are rarely mentioned in pro-choice commentary, except to celebrate women's freedom from male control over their reproductive lives -- though supportive partners of women who have abortions may sometimes be acknowledged as well.

On the pro-life side, abortion is depicted as the epitome of several purported feminist evils: selfish and unwomanly careerism, the decline of motherly qualities, and the liberation of women from "natural distinctions" between the sexes. At the same time, in keeping with the popular conservative theme that women are oppressed by liberation, anti-abortion activists have increasingly depicted women who have abortions as victims of a society that undervalues motherhood -- and of selfish, irresponsible boyfriends. Their rhetoric occasionally refers to bereaved fathers of aborted "babies" but more often invokes evil males for whom legal abortion makes it easy to seduce and abandon women.

A few maverick activists and commentators have argued that, in fact, the current legal situation puts men and women on a footing that is far from equal -- and is blatantly stacked in favor of women. Women have reproductive rights, and men have reproductive responsibilities.

If a woman gets pregnant and does not want to be a mother, she can end the pregnancy with or without her partner's knowledge. If she wants to have the baby, she can force the father to pay child support -- so that, as lawyer Melanie McCulley pointed out in a 1998 article for The Journal of Law and Policy, he "does not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he is not ready for fatherhood."

Once, biology colluded with male privilege to ensure that women were largely the ones who paid the price (often a heavy one) for illicit sex. Scientific and social progress has changed that: Even as reliable contraception and legal abortion allowed women to control reproduction, their ability to hold absentee fathers financially liable was enhanced by new methods of establishing paternity and by friendlier laws.

The issue of men's reproductive rights occasionally surfaces in largely symbolic legal cases. In August 2002 a Philadelphia man, John Stachokus, obtained a temporary court injunction barring his former girlfriend Tanya Meyers from having an abortion -- much to the dismay of feminists and pro-choicers, who called the decision "an abuse of the legal system" and "a disgrace." A few days later, the judge dissolved the order. Had he not, it undoubtedly would have been reversed on emergency appeal, like a handful of other such court orders issued in the past 30 years.

Meanwhile, a few men fighting paternity suits have argued, so far unsuccessfully, that "forced parenthood" denies men equal protection. Peter Wallis, a New Mexico real estate broker, made headlines in 1998 when he sued ex-girlfriend Kellie Smith for "intentionally acquiring and misusing" his bodily fluids by getting pregnant against his wishes. The case was quickly tossed out. Even victories by men whose child support obligations resulted from deception -- when the woman lied about using birth control or even, in one bizarre case, used a syringe to inseminate herself with semen collected in a condom -- have been struck down on appeal.

Public opinion has been generally unsympathetic to men in such cases. Men who want to stop their partners from having abortions are seen as domineering patriarchs. Men who want to avoid paying child support are seen as irresponsible playboys. But it's not always so simple.

Very few studies have looked at the men implicated in unwanted pregnancies. Drexel University sociologist Arthur Shostak and journalist Gary McLouth surveyed 1,000 men in abortion clinic waiting rooms and did some in-depth interviews for the 1984 book Men and Abortion: Lessons, Losses, and Love. They found that in most cases ending the pregnancy was a mutual decision, and only 5 percent of the men didn't want the abortion -- though nearly half of the single and divorced men said that they had suggested getting married and having the baby.

As for the roughly 50 percent of men who don't show up at the clinics, various estimates cited by Shostak and McLouth suggest that while some fit the stereotype of the feckless runaway male, a significant percentage oppose the abortion or are too upset about it to come along. As many as one in six men are never told about the pregnancy or the abortion.

Occasionally, wrenching personal stories appear in articles on the subject, such as one published a few years ago in the Bergen County, New Jersey, Record. One man profiled in the article said he was an emotional wreck for several years after his fianc?e had two abortions without consulting him; the second time, she had assured him she wanted the child, then walked out on him after an argument and terminated the pregnancy.

And the flip side? A girl who gets pregnant in high school can decide that she's not ready for motherhood. If her male classmate gets his partner pregnant, he can spend the next 21 years paying for an unwanted child, to the detriment of his education, his career, and his ability to have a family of his own. Yet if he complains about his predicament, the typical response is "You play, you pay" -- uncannily similar to the attitude of some abortion opponents who say that if women want to exercise "choice" they should just keep their legs together.

Given biological realities, it may be impossible to come up with a solution that wouldn't be unfair to someone. The current situation is indeed inequitable to men. But allowing a paternal veto raises the disturbing specter of giving a man authority over a woman's body. Allowing men to renounce paternity obligations means that a woman who wants to avoid unwanted parenthood has to undergo surgery or drug treatment while a man merely has to fill out some forms. One could argue that 21 years of child support is a greater burden than nine months of pregnancy, but bodily autonomy is generally seen as a more fundamental value than the financial kind.

One can argue for some legal reforms -- for instance, requiring that the prospective father be notified of an abortion (with exemptions for cases of domestic violence or rape), though any such measure would require the Supreme Court to reverse its 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling. Limiting a mother's ability to collect child support when the pregnancy results from deceit, or to sue for retroactive support after waiting years to let the man know he has fathered a child, should be feasible as well.

The most important change may be cultural. Abortion can create a radical imbalance rather than equality between the sexes, giving women unilateral power over a reproductive process that involves two people. Can men be expected to be full partners in child rearing but mere bystanders in pregnancy?

In the feminist classic Backlash, Susan Faludi cites a 1990 poll in which nearly 40 percent of women said that "in making a decision about whether to have an abortion, the man involved should not even be consulted" as welcome evidence of women's embrace of reproductive freedom. She also chided men for not shouldering their load as fathers. But if men's parental role is to be taken seriously, we need, at the very least, a cultural consensus that women have a moral obligation to involve their partners in their reproductive decisions.

The good ol' abortion debate...
Mood:  cool
The following is an email I posted to a yahoo group I belong to (the one I mentioned a few days ago)...the topic was abortion...

*************************************************

Well I have fallen 12 msgs behind just in the last few days. I did read them all but I know I'll miss replying to some things. I know that if I went through and replied to each one we'd all get over loaded with far too many emails. Anyone else agree? Maybe it's just me...

Anyway, I'll attempt to sum up my thoughts on all of the recent emails I have yet to reply to. Just so you all know, I'm going to generalize a little (I know, that is dangerous waters to tread in to begin with) as to what pro-choicers and pro-lifers believe. Feel free to let me know if I was a little off, but keep in mind I mean no harm/insult by any of this :)

I totally understand the point of view you're coming from: a baby isn't considered "human" (i.e. protected by law under the Bill of Rights) until it is fully born. Even partial-birth abortions were legal for a time there, but that's for another discussion. Anyway, those who are pro-choice tend to see fetuses as non-human, so there is no problem with terminating a pregnancy if it is just not the right time for the woman, she can't afford it, etc. A woman's rights are impeded if the gov't tells her what to do with her body. Nobody else should be able to control her body and what she does with it, especially her unborn child. To do so would force her to bear children against her will and, thus, would increase the number of unwanted children in the world, increase the costs of welfare, increases in possible drug use, crack babies, crime, etc.

But, whether pro-choicers like it or not, pro-lifers see things quite differently. (Don't worry though, pro-lifers don't like how pro-choicers see things either, so it's a shared frustration). For pro-lifers (at least the ones I'm referring to), they believe life begins in the womb. Some may disagree as to exactly when life begins exactly (conception, when brain waves are present, when the fetus responds to stimuli, etc), but their point is once life begins, nobody (woman included) should be legally able to terminate it. And, furthermore, the gov't should not support it financially lawfully.

If abortion was illegal would abortions still happen? Of course. Making something illegal doesn't stop it from occurring, it just tells people "Big Brother (gov't) doesn't like that, and you'll get in trouble if you get caught." Laws are passed, of course, to curb people's behaviors away from the "bad" and toward the "good." Laws aren't passed on the assumption that the behavior will stop (just look at how well we all follow speed limit laws). A pro-choicer would most likely believe that laws should support people's rights to their own bodies. If someone infringes on someone else's body, that's one thing, but as long as one doesn't infringe on any one else's body/property, leave it alone. Most pro-lifers, remember, believe life begins in the womb. So, they would argue, an abortion isn't along the same lines as a woman getting a tattoo or piercing, but that abortion is murder.

Everyone I talk to who is pro-choice will say this is a bad analogy, but nonetheless, whenever you hear a pro-life person mention that they think abortion is murder and therefore wrong, remember that they are saying abortion is wrong just like walking down the street and pulling a gun out and shooting someone dead is wrong. Or, to make it a closer analogy, a mother pulling out a gun and shooting their post-birth child dead. Very gruesome and ugly images yes, but so is abortion to them. And you may (and probably do) disagree 100% with either the analogy or with the pro-life stance, but that is nonetheless how they see things. Even though there is an obvious difference in the timing of abortion vs. killing ones own born child, they see little difference as to the injustice to human life done.

But, as with everything else in life, one must analyze the "everything else" of the situation. I realized a long while ago that the most difficult things in arguments are the "other shoe" and "point of view" issues.

As for the "other shoe" issue: there's always the problem of not being able to "walk a mile in the other person's shoe" so to speak. Can a man ever REALLY comprehend the pain involved with childbirth? Can anyone who has not had to live through it ever fully understand or comprehend the mental/emotional anguish of being raped? Or having to outlive your own child? Or (because it's late and i can't think of a better one) the pain of a man being kicked in the groin? Women will never know what that feels like for us (yeah it hurts like hell) just like men will never know what childbirth feels like. A man could survive being tortured in a POW camp and still not know EXACTLY what childbirth feels like. So they'll never be able to argue fully on that scale. The question is, though, does that make their point of view worthless? I argue that it does not, since each one of us have a complexity of "hands" that life has dealt us that NO ONE else ever received. To say "this hasn't happened to you, so you don't really understand what I'm going through" is one thing (and obviously true in the literal sense) but to say "you haven't gone through the exact same thing I have therefore I don't want to hear from you at all" really makes it so that no one can ever critique anything you say or do. Not to mention, it will probably leave you quite friendless.

Aside from the complexity of never being able to physically/mentally "walk in the shoes," there's the reality of everything else involved in decision making. There are a potentially unlimited number of points of view: as an economist I tend to look at the financial aspect of many issues. Because I'm religious/spiritual I tend to look at things from that point of view too. Had I decided to get my degree in psychology instead, I would probably see things MUCH differently. As someone mentioned (I believe it was Matt), had my girlfriend gotten pregnant before either of us were married, our thoughts/concerns would have been much different than if we both were financially/emotionally/physically ready. As my brother (father of 4) would say, "you may think you're ready, but you never are." He told me the same thing goes for marriage as well as kids (and that could be extended to many other things in life of course).

So the question could always arise: what gives you the right to tell this person how they should act if you can't "walk in their shoes" or fully see their "point of view." Very good question, and it's damn tough to answer. The best thing I can offer is, if I (along with others) have no ability to mention my thoughts or opinion on the matter, then who does? If no one does, than what we will get would approach chaos. Just think about it, NO ONE being able to tell ANYONE what to do, say, think, etc. Laws are designed to curb behavior so as to prevent that chaos...

Unfortunately the decision of whether or not to have an abortion means the woman is in the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" category of life decisions. What I mean is, if she has the abortion, there are always the questions in the back of her mind as to "Should I have done this? Could there have been another way? Am I going to regret this later?" And if she doesn't have one, she may always wonder "What if I had one?" Although, I've yet to meet a woman who at first admitted that they were uncertain about wanting another child and then, after having one, said "man I wish I hadn't had a child." Could just be me though...

As for Bob's posting...for the record I don't think it was too harsh at all. I've had conversations with people who didn't spend more than 2 seconds thinking that I might have anything intelligent to say (perhaps they were too busy thinking I was wrong?) So for you to see some of points as "non-crap" means a lot to me; and you seem to have a certain patience/politeness that I hope I convey as well. :) Anyway back to what you were talking about: the whole "what if I'm wrong?" question. Keep in mind, though, it goes both ways.

What if the pro-lifers are wrong and they cause more harm than good by forcing women to carry pregnancies to term? Or...what if pro-choicers are wrong, life does begin at conception, and they are seen as sitting idly by and allowing others to murder their own children?

Both of them have reason to worry; both stances carry with them a burden of possible guilt (and if it truly exists, the possibility of eternal damnation). Now, unfortunately (for my defense) if the pro-choicers are wrong (i.e. abortion really does = murder) then they could easily say "so what?" and the answer to that would be greatly up to debate. What I mean is, they could always argue that even though it may be murder and even though it may be the murder of an innocent person, it would take place before the person ever knew it's own existence and that their death could still be better than being born into a "crappy situation" (insert any negative aspect you'd like to think up: drug addicted, abusive, neglectful, etc). I would argue that this brings up a whole new mess of questions though (is murder ok if the person doesn't know they're dying? could we argue a 2 yr old "doesn't know their own existence" either? how many people alive today say they'd rather be aborted than living in their present state? etc)

And, of course, if the pro-lifers are wrong that means that a woman who is not ready yet to have a child would be forced to bring it to term, either give it up for adoption or raise it herself, which would raise the problems/questions that Bob mentioned in his post. But for many pro-lifers, they don't see abortion as an option. They see it as murder. They would rather gov't funding be used to help the woman (and hopefully man if he is still in the picture) bring the baby to term, get a job, daycare etc than see the child be murdered. Now you don't have to tell me what would cost more, trust me I know. But pro-lifers don't see murder as an option, and would never consider allowing murder to take place in order to "save the gov't money." To us, it would be like a mother who has 5 kids already say "well I can't afford the bills, so I guess I'll have to off one of my kids." I'm not mentioning this to start a fight or get a "who is for/against that?" discussion going. I'm sure we all agree that murdering one of your born children is wrong. But for pro-lifers the fact that the question "should I off my child?" is ridiculously not even logically/ethically comprehendible whether the child is in the womb or out.

I feel I have rambled quite enough. I hope that everyone who read this found something that provoked thought or that they hadn't heard before (in other words, this wasn't a waste of time to read).

Would I be stretching too far if I suggested this:

Perhaps we all can agree, rather we are for or against abortion, that we should work hard to prevent unwanted pregnancies from ever coming about, so as to make abortion (logically) unnecessary to even argue? In other words, could we all possibly somehow work together to "solve" the problems that lead women to even consider abortion?

Ok...*steps off the soapbox*...I'd like to hear from everyone now. And if you asked me something I didn't respond to (I'm sure there is plenty I forgot) feel free to ask again...

Bryan

A Picture Share!
Topic: pictures

Cute huh? :)