Mouths to Feed

The reduction in S.N.A.P. benefits (otherwise know as food stamps), has been all over the news in the past few days. We've been told that in order to keep government spending under control, the best course of action is to make sure hungry people get even less to eat. Seems logical, right?  I mean, people love a free handout, and if you give them food for free, they're just going to abuse your generosity and keep coming back for more.

My atheist group volunteered at the local soup kitchen this week. It was the first time I'd ever done so, and the experience left me with an empty feeling in the pit of my stomach. With all of the political talk about the "takers" just trying to get a free ride, I would have thought I was going to witness all kinds of happy people enjoying their free dinner that they didn't have to work for.

But you know what I saw instead? Quiet people with their heads down, eyes averting ours, clearly embarrassed to be there, quickly eating as much as they could and then promptly leaving.  There wasn't much conversation between the people there, and no one seemed thrilled to be eating dinner at someone else's expense.  Maybe they were just laughing on the inside.

You know what else I saw? Kids. Lots of them. And babies too. Turns out children are totally dependent on whatever their parents can scrounge up for them to eat. Meanwhile, my own child was in the back room watching videos on my iPhone while eating half of what was on his plate and then saying he didn't want the rest because he didn't like it. He wasn't rude about it. He just didn't like it. And he knew that if he was still hungry later, he'd be able to come home to a warm house with a fully-stocked kitchen.

It just about killed me to see all of those kids, and the parents who were doing their best to care for them. I can't imagine not being able to feed my kids. I literally can't. I try, but I start to feel sick and have to stop imagining it.  I'm fortunate. Not because I'm smarter, stronger, better, or more hard-working than everyone else; just because of sheer dumb luck and circumstance. And my kids were fortunate to be born into my family, even though they didn't have any say in the matter. They're not better or more worthy of love than any of the kids at the soup kitchen. They're just luckier.

To suggest that we need to reduce the amount spent on food assistance because the people who are getting it don't "deserve" it is ignorant at best and cruel at worst. I have heard so much venom lately coming out of the mouths of people who've probably never been legitimately hungry a day in their lives.  The poor in this country have become political pawns, and the messaging that "they're just taking your hard-earned money" has been very successful.

You know who I think doesn't deserve my hard-earned tax dollars? Oil companies. Corporations that pay their employees minimum wage. Sports stadium owners. I can think of a thousand other places to cut money that don't literally leave children to starve. But then, hungry children can't vote, so it's easier to just ignore them.

12 Thoughts on "Evolution vs. God"

Okay guys, this one’s a doozy. Undoubtedly my longest post to date. Get settled in and prepare to read.

Last week I was challenged by a Facebook friend of mine to watch a video called “Evolution vs. God.” It’s a You Tube video by Ray Comfort, who is described by Wikipedia as “a New Zealand-born Christian minister and evangelist.  Comfort started Living Waters Publications and The Way of the Master in Bellflower, California and has written a number of books.”  Comfort is a well-known guy in atheist circles, mainly for his assertion that the banana is proof of God, because the banana is so perfectly created to fit into the hand of a human. He is also a close associate of another atheist favorite, Kirk Cameron.

Always up for a good challenge, I watched the video and reported back to my Facebook friend.
I told him that I had so very many thoughts on this video, that I couldn’t possibly put them all into a single Facebook comment, so I decided to make a blog post out of them instead (I’m always looking for good blog material).

If you want to watch the video before reading this, you can find it here. I’ll warn you though, it was very hard for me to not shut it off after about 7 minutes of watching the same thing over and over again, but I muddled through.  However, I just can’t bring myself to watch it again. I’m already dealing with a kid who has pink-eye, so I’ve taken enough grief for one day. Therefore, my writing probably won’t match up chronologically with the video as I’m going on sheer memory here. I’m probably going to be all over the place. With that said, here are my thoughts:

Thought #1: The magic of editing.
This is clearly a carefully edited video. It is essentially a collection of “man-on-the-street” type interviews with people who the audience is supposed to assume are “typical” defenders of evolution (see thought #2). Naturally, we rarely get to see the “intelligent” answers. In fact, many of the answers I desperately wanted to see were cut out.  And I really question why some of the interviewees were given more time than others. However, editing is a common thing and I can’t really fault Comfort for wanting to get his point across by using what he thought were the statements that best proved his point. I can be annoyed by it though.

Thought #2: Not all students of science are evolutionary biologists.
Much of the video is spent randomly interviewing science students at a university (not sure which one – UCLA maybe?). Most of them were studying fields such as chemistry, physics, geology, etc.  Just because someone is in college and is studying science, they do not automatically have a vast and thorough knowledge of evolution, especially since we were never told what year of college these students were in. From the looks of it, most of them were straight out of high school. People study for years to understand this stuff, so to expect people who are not experts to answer your random questions coherently is really pretty naïve. I myself would never claim to be an expert on the subject, as science has just never been my particular forte and I’ve never been interested enough to study evolution in depth.  If he really wanted to prove his point, the video should have relied more heavily on actual experts and less so on first-year students who were plucked off the sidewalk on their way to class.

Thought #3: Atheists do not claim to “know” that there is no God.
At one point, a woman who is interviewed says that she is not an atheist because she can’t be so arrogant as to claim that there definitely is no God.  There is also a famous Neil deGrasse Tyson quote used at some point in which Tyson basically says the same thing. But that is NOT the claim of atheism.  This is a pet peeve of mine. Atheists are simply claiming that we haven’t seen enough evidence to believe that your particular god is real. Christians are making the claim that a very specific god exists, and we aren’t buying it until we see some proof. That’s it. We aren’t claiming that we know for certain there is no god. Sure, anyone can find some crackpot to tell you that there is definitely, without a doubt, no god, but that claim does not represent atheism as a whole or even most atheists.  “Agnosticism” simply means we don’t know if there is a god or not. “Atheism” means we don’t believe there is one. Those are two different things, therefore most atheists, including myself, would classify themselves as “agnostic atheists.”

Thought #4: There is no such thing as “Darwinian Evolution.”
The term “Darwinian evolution” is used constantly throughout this video. It’s a term creationists often use, probably because it limits evolution to Darwin’s research and ideas. Yes, Darwin was the first prominent person to put forth the theory of evolution, but a lot of work has been accomplished in the field since then. So just to deny all of the other research that’s been done and assume that there was this one guy, Charles Darwin, who was solely responsible for “making up” evolution is just nonsense.  Comfort seems to think that “regular evolution” is just adaptation and survival of the fittest, and that “Darwinian evolution” makes the claim that one day a human baby was born to a monkey mother. No one is making that claim. Again, it’s nonsense.

Thought #5: No, you did not “stump” the experts.
There are many shots of biology experts being supposedly “stumped” by Comfort. One notable example is P.Z. Myers, Professor of Biology at the University of Minnesota. I saw Myers speak a couple of weeks ago at the Minnesota Atheists Conference, and I’m pretty sure nothing stumps him. There are several instances in the video where Myers is asked a question and then sits there with a bewildered look on his face. In many of these instances, we don’t get to hear his response, or at least all of it. But from my knowledge of Myers, I would guess that his bewildered look was due to his puzzlement at how such ridiculous questions could seriously be asked of him, and a realization that Comfort was not going to fully understand or accept his answer anyway. You cannot simply say magic words and expect someone to suddenly have a comprehension of biology; especially someone who is not genuinely interested in learning, but is instead just trying to catch you with a stupid look on your face for their own purposes.

Thought #6: Famous atheists have nothing to do with the validity of evolution.
There is a lengthy section in the video that questions the existence of “famous” atheists. The list they give leaves out most of the atheists I’ve ever heard of, and instead focuses on several well-known scientists and historical figures (such as Thomas Jefferson and Albert Einstein) who we speculate may have been atheists. It then takes a single quote from each one and declares them theists, disregarding any other quote they may have ever said about the existence or not of a god. This focus on atheism really has nothing to do with evolutionary biology, and I fail to see how making sure that these guys weren’t really atheists has anything to do with the subject at hand.  The fame level of a person doesn’t make their ideas any more or less valid. Where are all of the “famous” Creationists? I don’t know and I don’t care. It has nothing to do with anything.

Thought #7: I don’t think “evidence” means what you think it means.
Comfort spends a lot of time asking random people for “evidence” of evolution. He explains that the only “evidence” he will accept is something he can personally witness. He doesn’t “believe” in fossil records or really any kind of scientific evidence, so what is he expecting to get? And besides that, why is his burden of proof set so very high for scientific concepts, but not for God? He’s perfectly willing to accept that God is real without any such “evidence.” And he’s willing to accept creationism without witnessing it firsthand. Why the double standard? No, none of us were there a million years ago to “prove” evolution is true, but neither was Comfort there when Adam and Eve popped into existence.

Thought #8: Science is not a “belief system.”
The main argument of this video seems to be that science is just another thing you have to have “faith” in.  After all, aren’t you just having faith in scientists instead of God when you “believe in” evolution? The problem with that oft quoted line is that it is not the scientists themselves we choose to have “faith” in, nor is it the books they write. It is the scientific method itself. When using the scientific method, there are specific guidelines one must follow in order to make a claim. This claim must be tested and then confirmed or refuted by other scientists (what we call the “peer review” process). No single scientist can make a claim and expect people to just take their word for it. Many other scientists have to test and agree on the same claim for it to be considered valid. This is one of the many reasons “Darwinian evolution” is an incorrect term. So when we say we have “faith” in science, what we really mean is that we have “confidence” in the scientific method to tell us what’s true about the world. True “faith” is reading a book written in the Bronze Age and believing everything it says because it’s right there in the book.

Thought #9: You can’t pick & choose which science you like.
At another point during the film, Comfort discusses the appendix and the vestigial tail, claiming that science has actually found a use for them, therefore they are not “pointless” body parts (furthering the idea of an “intelligent designer” – the same one who gave men nipples). That may or may not be true, but what astonishes me is that he looks to science to make that claim.  After spending the entirety of the video knocking science as nothing more than a “belief system,” he uses the very thing he doesn’t believe in to prove his point. What? Christians seem to use this tactic a lot; claiming that science is useless and then using it to back up their already held belief. But that tactic gets to the very heart of the difference between “belief” and “science.” With belief, you start with an answer and look for things to confirm that answer (ie, intelligent design is true, so let’s look for the evidence to prove it). In science, it’s the other way around. You start with a question and look for an answer. There is no “cost” to finding a different answer than the one you started out with. If evolution turns out to be incorrect, then it’s incorrect and we’ll move on and look for a different answer. If creationism is incorrect, well, that’s not really an option is it?

Thought #10: Of course rape is wrong (unless it’s in the Bible).
At some point, the video circles around to objective morality, as all religious discussions must. Although I can’t see what the discussion of rape has to do with evolution, Comfort goes there anyway. He asks several of the people, including P.Z. Myers, if rape is always wrong. Most of the people agree that yes, rape is always wrong, with the exception of Myers who tries to explain rape in the context of culture (which seems pretty pointless to me when you’re talking to Ray Comfort). But of course, what Comfort is trying to point out is that we heathen atheists can’t possibly have any real sense of morality when we seem to think that the whole world is just a product of animal instinct and “survival of the fittest.”  Well, here’s the thing: since atheists don’t have a book to tell them what’s “right” and “wrong,” we tend to live by a simple rule. And that rule is this: don’t cause harm to other people. That’s what “humanism” is. We try to live by a code of ethics which, at its center, prevents us from harming others. What is harm? Something that hurts (physically or otherwise) another person. We can generally judge harm by what other people tell us hurts them, or by what we know hurts ourselves. It’s not a perfect system, but it works for us. The general theory is that (through evolution) we developed a sense of empathy from learning that we survive better as a species when we take care of one another. But that’s a broad topic for another day. The basic answer is that rape being wrong really has nothing to do with the question of evolution. I would however point out that in the Bible, rape is mentioned several times in the context of how to do it correctly (you can rape your slaves for example). Again, another topic for another day.

Thought #11: Just because science can’t answer everything, that doesn’t make it all wrong.
One of the main sticking points creationists seem to have with evolution is the “missing link” conundrum, which I believe is brought up in this video (although it’s been a week since I watched it so now things are getting a little fuzzy. . .). Creationists like to contend that since there are “gaps” in scientific theories, then the whole theory should be thrown out. But science isn’t a static thing. It’s an ongoing process to learn the truth about the world around us. It doesn’t have all of the answers, but it does have a lot of them, and the things that haven’t yet been discovered do not negate all of the things that have been discovered. That’s why scientific research never ends. Scientists are constantly looking for more answers and more refined and specific answers than the ones they had before.

Thought #12: In conclusion
It is simply human nature to wonder why we’re here and what it all means.  Ray Comfort is trying to answer those questions and so are scientists.  My view is that even if our existence here is the product of billions of years of evolution (which is the answer that science currently points to), it doesn’t make life any less amazing and dare I say, “magical.” The Earth is still amazing, love is still amazing, our children are still amazing, and our experiences are still amazing. Atheists don’t suffer from a lack of wonderment simply because we don’t believe there is a god guiding everything.  In fact, I think we see life as even more remarkable because of the fact that it all happened by chance, not in spite of it. And Ray Comfort telling me I’m going to go to hell for using the mind God supposedly gave me doesn’t convince me of his position in the slightest. Sorry Charlie, no sale.

Liberal House at the Fair - Part Two

As I mentioned in "Liberal House at the Fair - Part One," I had a chance to sit at the Democratic Party booth at our local county fair a couple of weeks ago. If you didn't read "Liberal House at the Fair - Part One," then there must be something wrong with you. Rectify the situation immediately by going back and reading "Liberal House at the Fair - Part One,” and then come back and finish up this post. Don't worry; I'll wait. In fact, why don't you just go back and read all of my blog posts from the beginning so that you won't have to pay for the book when it comes out.

So now that they're gone, here's what happened. 

The day that I was at the fair, August 1st, was the day that the new Minnesota marriage equality law went into effect. As you can imagine, the whole state was just falling apart piece by piece, and rampant heterosexual divorce was going on at an alarming rate. 

In the midst of this, an elderly gentleman walked up to the booth and motioned at the "John Ward for State Representative" literature on our table. John Ward is our current State Representative, and despite the fact that the majority of his constituency was against it, he voted "yes" on marriage equality.  A move that may very well cost him his office.

Him: "Ward really missed the boat on this one!"

Me: "What was that? Missed the boat on what?"

Him: "Oh, you know, it has something to do with that thing going on today."

Me: "You mean gay marriage?"

Him: "Yup. You guys really missed the boat on that one."

Me: "Well, I'm still married to my husband. And I'm guessing most other straight people are too."

Him: "Straight?"

Me: "You know, people who aren't gay."

Him: "Well I don't see any of them gay people being able to have babies."

Me: “I didn’t get married just to have babies.”

Him: “So why did you get married?”

Me: “Because I fell in love with someone and wanted to commit to that person and spend my life with him.”

Him (preceding his comment with a condescending chuckle): “Let me tell you something. There’s a whole lot more to marriage than just love!”

Me: “Oh, believe me, I know. This month will be my 12 year anniversary. There is a LOT more to marriage than just love. But we don’t require people to have babies when they get married. People can still get married and just choose not to have kids, right?”

Him (looking a little perplexed): “But the Catholic Churches teaches. . .”

Me (cutting him off rudely): “But I’m not Catholic. Why should I have to follow Catholic teachings when I’m not Catholic?”

Him (probably astonished that a girl less than half his age was getting cheeky with him): “Well that’s their choice to follow the gay lifestyle.  But it doesn't mean they should be able to get married!”

Me: “It’s not a choice.”

Him: “What, do you think they’re born that way or something?”

Me: “Yes. How else would it happen?”

Him: “It’s all about the parents and how they raise their kids.”

Me: “But all of their parents are straight.”

Him: “What?”

Me: “Their parents are straight, you know; not gay.”

Him (shaking his head): “Well, the parents must have done something wrong.”

Me: “Then how do you account for families where one kid grows up to be gay and all of the other siblings are straight?”

Him (probably growing annoyed with my incessant logic): “That kid must have just missed the boat somewhere. You guys definitely lost a lot of votes on this one. You really missed the boat.”

He then walked off realizing that you just can’t reason with pinko, hippie, commie, queer-lovers who have clearly missed the boat. 

Oddly enough, it’s been 14 days and my hetero-marriage has endured.   No one has torn me from the arms of my husband in order to force me into a marriage with a woman, although I’m sure it’s only a matter of time. . . . .

Liberal House at the Fair - Part One

I had the opportunity last week to staff the DFL booth at the county fair (that's "Democrat-Farmer-Labor" party for all you non-Minnesotans out there). There really aren’t tons of our kind in this red county, so I try to step up and help out if I can. We need to stick together.

While I was doing some serious people watching from my chair at the booth, a woman came up to me and initiated a conversation. She told me that while she’s not a Republican, she just can’t get on board with the Democrats because of the “gun issue.”  The rest of the conversation went a little something like this, although this is abridged for length purposes, and probably not verbatim due to me not possessing a photographic memory:

Me: “So what are the policies you see happening that are changing your ability to own or use your guns?”

Her (with a look of sheer astonishment on her face): “Are you kidding me?!”

Me: “No, I’m really not. I’m curious what the policies are because I personally haven’t seen anything change in the past several years. We have guns in our house, my in-laws all have guns in their houses, and no one has had to give anything up. What policies do you mean?”

Her (with a look of sheer astonishment on her face): “Are you KIDDING me?!”

Me: “No, I’m really not. I’m trying to be genuine with you here. I want to know what laws are being changed because I want to be informed as much as you do. Can you give me something more specific?”

Her (with a look of sheer astonishment on her face): “Are you KIDDING me?!”

We went around in circles like this for awhile, until her husband walked up to help her out.

Her (looking at her husband): “She doesn’t even know about what the Democrats are doing to gun rights!”

Her (looking back at me): “I just can’t believe that you have no idea about what your own party is doing!”

Him (shaking his head at me condescendingly): “Listen, the problem with Obama is he thinks the whole country is like Chicago, so he wants to make sure nobody has weapons. But they’ve done studies that show that in the places with the least restrictions on guns, they also have the lowest crime rates. Because when you don’t know who around you has a gun, you’re less likely to commit a crime.”

Me: “Well, honestly, it wouldn’t make me feel any safer to think this entire crowd could be carrying concealed guns.  I mean, I’m sure you’re a perfectly normal guy, but how do I really know if you’re crazy or not? And I’ve heard the complete opposite of that statistic; that the states that have the tightest gun control also have the lowest crime rates.”

Her: “Where did you hear that from?”

Me: “I don’t know, I guess I can’t pinpoint the exact study I read.”

Her: “Well, give me your email address and I’ll email you the correct stories. Because I don’t get all of my news from one place. I watch Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC, and none of them give you the whole story.”

Me (writing my email address on a scrap of paper and handing it her): “Yes, please. I’d love to read it. I think it’s important to revaluate your position based on new evidence, so I’ll be interested to see what you send. Like I said, I know a lot of hunters and even I have guns in my house.”

Him: “Oh, and let me tell you something else. This whole issue has nothing to do with ‘hunting.’ It’s about our freedom to protect ourselves from the government if some crazy dictator takes over the government.”

Me: “Ya, but I mean, we live in a democracy. How likely do you really think it is for a dictator to take over?”

Him: “It happens all the time! What do you think America was like before 1776?!”

Me: “Well, it was a monarchy.”

Him: “What?”

Me: “You know, a monarchy? A king? There was a king in charge of everything but now we have a democracy, so I’m just not sure that we’re facing an inevitable dictatorship. And even if we were, I’m not sure guns would keep us safe. I mean, the government already has drones and nuclear weapons.”

Him: “Exactly! That’s why we need to be able to protect ourselves! I’ll tell you one thing. I’m a Christian, and if you’re a Christian in this country, you’re put on a terrorist watch list. Did you know that? I’m on a terrorist watch list! And if you belong to a pro-life group, you’re considered part of a ‘hate group.’ And you can take that to the bank.”

Me (getting increasingly annoyed because he pulled out the ‘Christian victimization’ card): “How do you know that? I find that a little hard to believe.”

Him: “A friend of mine told me.”

Me (a little worried about what’s going to come out of my mouth right now): “Well, I’m going to share something pretty personal with you here. I’m an atheist, and if I had to guess, I would say that at least 90% of the Democrats I know are Christians. So if anyone is going to be looked at closely or put on a watch list, it’s probably me. It's certainly not as if the atheists have taken over the Democratic party.”

Him (probably horrified to learn that he’s been arguing with the anti-Christ): “Ya well, those other Democrats are probably on a watch list too then. Obama’s keeping an eye on them all to make sure Christians don’t get too much power in this country.”

Me (seeing this conversation going absolutely nowhere): “So let me just ask you this then; do you think private citizens should have the right to own any weapons that the military has? Like drones, grenades, nuclear weapons?”

Him: “Well, there already are limits. You have to have a license to have a blah, blah, blah. . . .”

Me (cutting him off): “No, I mean, in your perfect world, if you got to decide, should we all be able to own any technology that the military has access to? If your concern is protecting yourself from the government, shouldn’t you be able to have all the same stuff the government has?”

Him (looking perplexed): “Well, I don’t know. Probably, ya.”

Her: “We really need to get going. I’ll email you those articles.”

Me: “Yes, please do. I’ll keep an eye out for them. Thanks!”

At one point, I did try to point out that while yes, there is a lot of fear in America right now, that the fear seems to really benefit gun manufacturers the most. All I got in return was an eye roll and an incredulous “that has nothing to do with it.” I brought the gun lobby issue up more than once, but I guess I must have just sounded like a crazy conspiracy theorist to them.

I still haven’t gotten any emails. But I have a whole new understanding of Obama’s plan for his evil empire. Good thing I’m not a Christian or I might be scared and run right out to buy a whole bunch of new guns. That is, if you could even still purchase a gun in America, which you clearly can't.

Abortion Exceptions

There is a lot of newsworthy stuff going on this week, but there is one thing in particular that's been on my mind for awhile now. With all of the hoopla surrounding Congress and various states trying to pass abortion bans with different levels of success, much of the discussion seems to revolve around the issue of exceptions for rape and incest.

And you know what? I think abortion exceptions are bullshit. Yes, you read that correctly: Bull. Shit.

And here's why. I know it seems to be the popular thing for pro-choicers to bring up this issue to show how unreasonable the anti-choicers are being (they don't even want exceptions for rape or incest!!), but I think it only serves to reinforce the idea that some women deserve abortions and others don't.

I mean, if you're against abortion because you think it's murder, then why in the world would you think that any exceptions are okay? Murder is murder, right?  So to me, it seems like what we're really saying when we talk about these exceptions is that, okay, we agree that abortion is bad, but can we at least agree that the "non-slutty" women can get them?

Why don't we just make a law that says you can only get an abortion if you promise that you only had sex once and agree to never do it again? It seems just as ridiculous to me. We shouldn't be conceding that AT LEAST rape and incest victims should have access to safe abortion, we should be arguing that ALL women can decide for themselves if they want to carry a pregnancy to term or not. The manner of conception should have no bearing on the pregnancy itself. A woman who is not raped should have just as much agency over her own body as a woman who is raped. If not, then you've created a situation where a group of people get to decide for you what is "legitimate rape" and what is not (which is exactly what we see happening now).

In the pre-Roe days, it was actually possible in some places to get a legal abortion. But you know what you had to do? Get at least a couple of different doctors (almost always men) to say that you really needed one. That, you know, you weren't just having one for fun. Or, you could go in front of a medical panel (again, male doctors) and convince them of your case.  If they thought you had a convincing argument, then maybe they would let you terminate the pregnancy. If not, you were SOL.

It seems to me that pushing for abortion exceptions only furthers the idea that men need to "regulate" what kind of sex women are having. Once the government determines what kind of sex you had, then they will tell you whether your body belongs to someone else for nine months or not. And if you were having sex just for pleasure, well. . . . .

I know we're trying to make the best out of a bad situation, but the whole thing seems much more damaging in the long run than it is helpful right now.  Or am I being totally unreasonable about this?

Father's Day Redux

My Crohn's disease has been acting up lately, which means my house is now an f-ing disaster. I'm feeling slightly better today, which means I need to catch up on the mountains of laundry and dishes that have been piling up for a week (since I have found that boys don't seem to care as much about filth as I do). So instead of writing another brilliant Father's Day post, I'm just going to be lazy and repost this one from 2 years ago. Enjoy (again)!!!

Since it's Father's Day, I thought it would be a good time to give a little tribute to my dad.

My dad and I have never been your typical father/daughter duo.  We never went to Father/Daughter dances, we don't hug each other and he doesn't have some cutesy pet name for me.  My dad was a teen father and thus was thrown into fatherhood early, only to figure it out for himself. 

The most important thing that my dad has really taught me is that when you have an opinion on something, your opinion better be able to hold up under scrutiny.  As you might imagine, my opinionated beliefs began early in life.  And whenever I would spout off my latest opinion on something, my dad was there to challenge it.  Not in a mean, confrontational way, just in a "Oh ya, well what about this" way.

I remember when I was thirteen and the first gulf war was happening, I told my dad I thought it was horrible that we were sending all those soldiers over there to die.  He said, "Really?  Then what should we do? Let the people in Kuwait die instead?"  He actually made me stop and think about the consequences of what I was saying. 

No matter what opinion I had, my dad always played the Devil's Advocate.  Most of the time, I could tell that he might not really believe what he was saying, but he wanted to make sure that I really believed what I was saying.

I don't think my dad had some master plan for teaching his children how to think; I'm sure it just came naturally to him to question things, as it now comes naturally to my brother and I.  We are better thinkers and better people because of him.  Although we grew up in Minnesota, he was not a hunter or golfer or fisherman.  He taught us through his example to respect animals and other people and respect ourselves.  And although I've never seen him set foot inside of a church, he taught us to be good to people and do what you can for others.

Now, as an adult, I work for my dad at our family-run company, and he continues to challenge me everyday.  Usually it's just to be funny or in an attempt to annoy me, but he still makes me consider my opinions and then hold strong on them.  And I make it my personal mission in life to liberalize him and repent against his Republican ways.

He's simply a good person who's made me a better person and better parent by his example.

"Kermit the Fraud" (horrible title I know, but I couldn't help myself)

If you haven't heard the name "Kermit Gosnell," then you're probably not paying attention to the news. So if that's the case, let me give you a quick summary of this grizzly story.

Gosnell was a "doctor" in Philadelphia who provided late-term abortions for women. Long story short, he occasionally just delivered babies and killed them post-birth (that's called "infanticide" - not "abortion"). He also killed women from lack of appropriate medical care and seemed to have no standards for basic medical hygiene. The whole thing sounds horrific, and it is.

But does this horror exemplify how awful abortion clinics are?

No. Quite the opposite. This case exemplifies everything that is wrong with abortion restrictions.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, this kind of scenario was common. Since abortion wasn't legal, women would resort to illegal abortions that were often performed by incompetent people in filthy conditions.  It would not have been uncommon in these cases for a woman to die from complications of the abortion. Many of these women were already mothers, who left several other children motherless.

When women don't have access to legal, safe abortion, they will instead turn to illegal butchers like Gosnell. And if they are not able to access first-term abortions because of draconian restrictions on their ability to do so, then they will seek out illegal, late-term abortions.  Similarly, if women get no assistance in paying for first-trimester abortions, they will likely wait until they've saved up enough money (if that's even possible) and will be in their 2nd or 3rd trimester before they have their abortion.

If we really and truly want to stop people like Gosnell, and not just make ourselves feel better, we need to ensure that women actually have ACCESS to the full range of reproductive services to begin with. Implying that people like Gosnell are a product of legalized abortion is just false. On the contrary, he and his ilk are products of the severely reduced access to abortion that faces the low-income women of this country. And until we change that, we will continue to see people like Gosnell fill the void.