So I need to rant here for a minute.
I've been in the hospital twice in the past 2 weeks with my Crohn's disease (hence my lack of riveting new blog posts). Every time I go to the ER, they ask me if I'm pregnant or not. When I reply that I'm not, they ask me if there's a chance I could be pregnant. When I reply that there's not, they ask me how I know that there's no chance that I'm pregnant.
Now, I understand that they need this information. For one thing, I'm presenting with severe abdominal pain. So obviously, it would be good to know if a pregnancy is contributing to or causing the pain. Also, they generally want to do an x-ray, which I've heard is a no-no if you're pregnant (although that didn't stop them from doing one anyway when I was actually pregnant).
My problem is this: How do I know I'm not pregnant? Well, let me see. For one thing, I've been pregnant twice, so I have an idea of what the symptoms are. For another thing, I've been in possession of this female body for 34 years and have some idea of how it functions. Oh, and there's all those birth control pills I take. Which leaves only one matter up for discussion: sexual activity.
Now, I'm married, and I don't think my sexual habits are anybody's business, least of all some nurse I just met. But after I've given them my last menstrual period date and the knowledge that I'm on a strict contraceptive regimen, they still prod me as to how I know I'm not pregnant. If they want to know when the last time I had sex was, why don't they just come out and ask me? Maybe the fact that it's a Catholic hospital makes them squeamish to mention the word "sex;" I really don't know.
But my main beef with this whole process is the fact that they even have to ask me how I know I'm not pregnant in the first place. It implies that most women don't know how one becomes pregnant. If I could just answer them that yes, in fact, I know there's no chance I could be pregnant, and they could trust me at my word, that would mean that women are fully educated about how and when they become pregnant. But sadly, this is not the case in America. Too often, women have very little idea of how the actual reproductive process works.
When I worked at Planned Parenthood, we had many teenagers that would come in for pregnancy tests who had no idea what their period had to do with pregnancy. In some cases, the girls had not yet had their first period, but were scared they might be pregnant. And to me, the problem is plainly that we discourage education about sexuality and reproduction. As if, should we mention it to kids, they will get the idea to do it (because we all know that kids don't think about sex until someone suggests it to them).
Maybe, if we actually let the schools educate the masses about our reproductive systems, then I wouldn't have to answer personal, patronizing questions every time I have to go to the emergency room in excruciating pain. I once had to tell the doctor that I hadn't had sex in "X" number of months, in front of my poor mother! No mom should have to hear that kind of thing.
So America, lets pull our heads up out of the sand about sex, and let me go to the hospital in peace for once.
Rant finished.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Thursday, October 27, 2011
In Which I Singlehandedly Fix the Nation's Economy.
Okay, I'm no economics expert. In fact, I still count on my fingers. Just yesterday, I bought 4 packs of spider pop-up toys that came 4 to a pack because I needed 12 for my son's daycare Halloween party (I was counting by 3's). So I'm the last person you would ever want to trust with your money.
However, I do think I have enough common sense to make some assessments about what would help us get out of this economic mess we're in. With that disclaimer, here is my patented six part plan to fix the economy:
1. Legalize Marijuana
This one seems like a no-brainer to me. By legalizing pot, we would reap the rewards of tax revenue, while eliminating the cost of law enforcement involved in pot-related cases. "But wait!" you say. "Won't everyone start smoking pot then?!" No. I personally would not become a stoner if pot was legalized tomorrow, nor would most people I know. The people who are doing it now will keep doing it, and the people who aren't, won't. I think this same argument applies to all illegal drugs, but we can stick with pot for now.
2. Legalize Prostitution
See my argument above and apply it to this. Also, I think that prostitution is something that will always happen, and women would benefit from having it legalized. They would get better access to healthcare and would be able to operate in a safer environment.
3. Tax Product Imports
If companies are going to ship all of our manufacturing jobs overseas, then we should give them a disincentive to do that by charging them to bring all those products back into the country. Right?
4. Focus on "Green" Jobs
I think we could make up for some of the manufacturing jobs that have been lost over the years by creating new "green" manufacturing jobs. Solar panels, wind farms, etc. I don't know a lot about this industry, so I won't go into detail, but it seems like it would work.
5. Medicare for All
Providing a single-payer insurance plan for all Americans would reduce the costs we are already paying for people who have no insurance and rack up large hospital bills for things that could have been caught early. Think about it, everyone having coverage would mean everyone could go to the doctor and get their prescriptions and medical supplies. What does this mean? Higher demand for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, receptionists, nurse's aids, etc. Sure, a lot of health insurance company employees would lose their jobs, but they could retrain for one of those new green or healthcare jobs. Also, at least they'd have their medical costs covered while they were unemployed.
6. Taxation Fairness
Make the wealthy pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the rest of us do. Seems only fair to me, and it would help us raise a ton of money to train people for all those new green and medical jobs we'll have.
Pretty soon, we'll all have a job and be able to buy stuff, which means more companies can sell stuff, which means more people have jobs, which means more people can buy stuff, etc., etc., etc.
Why don't I rule the world yet?
However, I do think I have enough common sense to make some assessments about what would help us get out of this economic mess we're in. With that disclaimer, here is my patented six part plan to fix the economy:
1. Legalize Marijuana
This one seems like a no-brainer to me. By legalizing pot, we would reap the rewards of tax revenue, while eliminating the cost of law enforcement involved in pot-related cases. "But wait!" you say. "Won't everyone start smoking pot then?!" No. I personally would not become a stoner if pot was legalized tomorrow, nor would most people I know. The people who are doing it now will keep doing it, and the people who aren't, won't. I think this same argument applies to all illegal drugs, but we can stick with pot for now.
2. Legalize Prostitution
See my argument above and apply it to this. Also, I think that prostitution is something that will always happen, and women would benefit from having it legalized. They would get better access to healthcare and would be able to operate in a safer environment.
3. Tax Product Imports
If companies are going to ship all of our manufacturing jobs overseas, then we should give them a disincentive to do that by charging them to bring all those products back into the country. Right?
4. Focus on "Green" Jobs
I think we could make up for some of the manufacturing jobs that have been lost over the years by creating new "green" manufacturing jobs. Solar panels, wind farms, etc. I don't know a lot about this industry, so I won't go into detail, but it seems like it would work.
5. Medicare for All
Providing a single-payer insurance plan for all Americans would reduce the costs we are already paying for people who have no insurance and rack up large hospital bills for things that could have been caught early. Think about it, everyone having coverage would mean everyone could go to the doctor and get their prescriptions and medical supplies. What does this mean? Higher demand for doctors, nurses, pharmacists, receptionists, nurse's aids, etc. Sure, a lot of health insurance company employees would lose their jobs, but they could retrain for one of those new green or healthcare jobs. Also, at least they'd have their medical costs covered while they were unemployed.
6. Taxation Fairness
Make the wealthy pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as the rest of us do. Seems only fair to me, and it would help us raise a ton of money to train people for all those new green and medical jobs we'll have.
Pretty soon, we'll all have a job and be able to buy stuff, which means more companies can sell stuff, which means more people have jobs, which means more people can buy stuff, etc., etc., etc.
Why don't I rule the world yet?
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
The Santa Question
I should back up a little and say that I was listening to the audiobook version of "Parenting Beyond Belief" which is a parenting book for atheists. There were a few different takes on the Santa issue in the book. Some said you should never tell your child that Santa is real to begin with, but since I read the book 7 years into my parenting adventure, that really wasn't an option. Someone else said that you should reveal the secret at the point when they ask you point blank if Santa is real or not, because otherwise you're just lying to them, and when they eventually figure that out they may not trust you on other issues.
This plan of attack made sense to me. Last year, when we were driving home one day, he piped up from the backseat and asked "Mom, is Santa really real?" At that point, I just kind of danced around the issue by saying that some people believe Santa is real, and others don't, and it's really up to you to decide if you believe. I realized later that this was the exact response I gave him when he asked me if God was real.
So a few days ago, I asked him what he was currently thinking about Santa Claus, and he said that he had a plan this year, whereby he would ask Santa for a certain present and not ask anyone else for it, and then when Santa brought it for him, he would know he was real. Smart kid.
You see why I didn't want to have his dreams crushed come Christmas morning.
When we spoke with him last night and told him that we were the ones buying him those "Santa" presents, he smiled. We asked him how long he had suspected it was us, and he said, "since I was 4." Again, smart kid. When we asked him if he was disappointed that Santa wasn't real, he said "no" and then moved on with reading his book.
Christmas at our house is a purely secular/cultural holiday. It's all about food, family, and fun (oh, and presents). I suspect that our son doesn't really care if Santa brings him any presents, as long as someone does and Christmas keeps coming.
And hopefully, this will be a lesson to him in questioning the things that other people say are true, "just because." If I can do anything good as a parent, it would be to instill in my sons the need to question and think for themselves.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Letter to a Bumper Sticker
This article was just so great I had to reprint it here. That, and I'm too lazy to write anything original at the moment. It was written by Cate Odonnell at Drake University and I'm very jealous that I didn't write it. Enjoy.
I would like to take a moment to acknowledge my favorite bumper sticker I used to see in the Goodwin-Kirk parking lot. I’m talking, of course, about the one that asks me, “Aren’t you glad your mother was pro-life?”
Good call, bumper sticker. Yes, all people who give birth are automatically pro-life. But just for argument’s sake, what might it be like to have one of those crazy, baby-eating, pro-choice mothers?
Bumper sticker, it might interest you to know that I personally have one of those baby-eating mothers. “But that’s impossible,” you might say. “You have not been eaten and surely you were once a baby.”
Well played, bumper sticker. One of the choices offered by being pro-choice is giving birth. My baby-eating mother didn’t decide to keep me out of fear, lack of access to a safe, legal abortion or because she saw a creepy pro-life billboard. In fact, it would seem that she kept me because she wanted me. Sometimes baby-eaters do stuff like that.
Pro-life is an interesting term, actually. The men and women who are truly pro-life are awesome. You can tell they’re awesome because they do such things as help pregnant women access prenatal resources and help parents locate health care, childcare and other support they need. Rather than guilting women or taking away their rights, some pro-life organizations also look at more successful ways of lowering the number of abortions, such as educating people about using birth control and preventing unwanted pregnancies. Avoiding unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions, which means everyone wins. Go ahead and give the people who fall into this category a high-five. I like them.
Interestingly enough, though, many people who call themselves pro-life would more appropriately fit under the title of anti-choice. I’ve noticed that a solid chunk of the people who claim to be pro-life actually do more to reduce my autonomy than to increase the chance of life or the quality of life of my future children.
If you’re confused about whether you’re pro-life or anti-choice, here’s a litmus test: Are you forcing your religious convictions on me? Then you are anti-choice. Are you harassing a woman entering Planned Parenthood, intentionally and cruelly making a difficult day harder for her? Anti-choice again. Do you feel that cells in my body have more rights than I do? Anti-choice. Are you holding up a sign that confuses the terms “zygote,” “embryo” or “fetus” with an incorrect term like “baby” or “child?” Well, that doesn’t make you anti-choice as much as scientifically inaccurate and rhetorically misleading. But you still don’t qualify as pro-life. Boom. Roasted.
Moreover, when women are no longer able to get abortions for life-endangering pregnancies, it seems less pro-life and more pro-death. Also falling under pro-death: limiting safe and legal abortions for women, causing an increase in illegal “back alley abortions.” According to the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, 47,000 women worldwide died from unsafe abortions in 2008, not including the women with serious infections and lifelong physical and emotional scars. Don’t limit my right to a safe abortion and tell me you’re pro-life. Just don’t.
I’ll be real with you, pro-life bumper sticker. If I were to have any other kind of medical procedure and you interfered with it, I would judge you hardcore. There is, for instance, no need for you to protest my knee surgery with offensive signs. If you attempted to pass legislature to make knee surgery more difficult to get, then that would be a jerk move. Ditto in trying to ensure that my insurance wouldn’t cover that knee surgery. When it’s all said and done, I feel like you have no business being involved in my knee surgery at all, really. Seeing, you know, as it is a private medical procedure and also not your knee.
So how do we meet in the middle when you think I’m a baby killer and I think you’re laying claim to my uterus? You may be able to tell from aforementioned comments that I have a few opinions on abortion, and I am not free from blame when I say that as students at Drake, we have polarized the issue to the extent that almost all we can do is close our minds. The crosses in Helmick Commons last year signifying “dead babies” was probably not the most persuasive gesture Drake Respect for Life could have imagined (especially since I find it presumptuous that my embryo would have a cross. Are all “dead babies” automatically Christian now?). Likewise, if you’re one of the people who took those crosses or otherwise destroyed that display, you did absolutely nothing but prove your intolerance to other points of view. Good work, kids.
I would like to call a truce of sorts. As pro-choice Drake students, is it possible that we don’t tear down signs that promote Respect for Life and its events? In fact, what if we go to the events and try to understand their members’ perspectives? They had a non-polarizing speaker come to campus last year that said women don’t have access to or knowledge of resources and options besides abortion. What up, compromise? At the same point, it would be nice if the most recent pro-life speaker on campus didn’t lump together homosexuality, abortion, child abuse and the Holocaust. I can’t say those arguments convinced me of anything besides a misunderstanding of every issue, ever.
What if we had conversations around abortion instead of debates? Discussion around the issue of abortion is important, whether it is in classes, in print or in chalk. Perhaps we could see each other as intelligent and opinionated individuals instead of monsters. It would be nice to see collaborative programs educating students about reproductive rights and issues, and it would be great if you stopped assuming things about my mom. I dream of a day when outspoken pro-choice supporters and passionate pro-lifers can walk hand-in-hand and be judged not by their stances on abortion, but by their willingness to open their minds and respect each other’s seriously misguided perspectives.
Boom. Put that on a bumper sticker.
I would like to take a moment to acknowledge my favorite bumper sticker I used to see in the Goodwin-Kirk parking lot. I’m talking, of course, about the one that asks me, “Aren’t you glad your mother was pro-life?”
Good call, bumper sticker. Yes, all people who give birth are automatically pro-life. But just for argument’s sake, what might it be like to have one of those crazy, baby-eating, pro-choice mothers?
Bumper sticker, it might interest you to know that I personally have one of those baby-eating mothers. “But that’s impossible,” you might say. “You have not been eaten and surely you were once a baby.”
Well played, bumper sticker. One of the choices offered by being pro-choice is giving birth. My baby-eating mother didn’t decide to keep me out of fear, lack of access to a safe, legal abortion or because she saw a creepy pro-life billboard. In fact, it would seem that she kept me because she wanted me. Sometimes baby-eaters do stuff like that.
Pro-life is an interesting term, actually. The men and women who are truly pro-life are awesome. You can tell they’re awesome because they do such things as help pregnant women access prenatal resources and help parents locate health care, childcare and other support they need. Rather than guilting women or taking away their rights, some pro-life organizations also look at more successful ways of lowering the number of abortions, such as educating people about using birth control and preventing unwanted pregnancies. Avoiding unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions, which means everyone wins. Go ahead and give the people who fall into this category a high-five. I like them.
Interestingly enough, though, many people who call themselves pro-life would more appropriately fit under the title of anti-choice. I’ve noticed that a solid chunk of the people who claim to be pro-life actually do more to reduce my autonomy than to increase the chance of life or the quality of life of my future children.
If you’re confused about whether you’re pro-life or anti-choice, here’s a litmus test: Are you forcing your religious convictions on me? Then you are anti-choice. Are you harassing a woman entering Planned Parenthood, intentionally and cruelly making a difficult day harder for her? Anti-choice again. Do you feel that cells in my body have more rights than I do? Anti-choice. Are you holding up a sign that confuses the terms “zygote,” “embryo” or “fetus” with an incorrect term like “baby” or “child?” Well, that doesn’t make you anti-choice as much as scientifically inaccurate and rhetorically misleading. But you still don’t qualify as pro-life. Boom. Roasted.
Moreover, when women are no longer able to get abortions for life-endangering pregnancies, it seems less pro-life and more pro-death. Also falling under pro-death: limiting safe and legal abortions for women, causing an increase in illegal “back alley abortions.” According to the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, 47,000 women worldwide died from unsafe abortions in 2008, not including the women with serious infections and lifelong physical and emotional scars. Don’t limit my right to a safe abortion and tell me you’re pro-life. Just don’t.
I’ll be real with you, pro-life bumper sticker. If I were to have any other kind of medical procedure and you interfered with it, I would judge you hardcore. There is, for instance, no need for you to protest my knee surgery with offensive signs. If you attempted to pass legislature to make knee surgery more difficult to get, then that would be a jerk move. Ditto in trying to ensure that my insurance wouldn’t cover that knee surgery. When it’s all said and done, I feel like you have no business being involved in my knee surgery at all, really. Seeing, you know, as it is a private medical procedure and also not your knee.
So how do we meet in the middle when you think I’m a baby killer and I think you’re laying claim to my uterus? You may be able to tell from aforementioned comments that I have a few opinions on abortion, and I am not free from blame when I say that as students at Drake, we have polarized the issue to the extent that almost all we can do is close our minds. The crosses in Helmick Commons last year signifying “dead babies” was probably not the most persuasive gesture Drake Respect for Life could have imagined (especially since I find it presumptuous that my embryo would have a cross. Are all “dead babies” automatically Christian now?). Likewise, if you’re one of the people who took those crosses or otherwise destroyed that display, you did absolutely nothing but prove your intolerance to other points of view. Good work, kids.
I would like to call a truce of sorts. As pro-choice Drake students, is it possible that we don’t tear down signs that promote Respect for Life and its events? In fact, what if we go to the events and try to understand their members’ perspectives? They had a non-polarizing speaker come to campus last year that said women don’t have access to or knowledge of resources and options besides abortion. What up, compromise? At the same point, it would be nice if the most recent pro-life speaker on campus didn’t lump together homosexuality, abortion, child abuse and the Holocaust. I can’t say those arguments convinced me of anything besides a misunderstanding of every issue, ever.
What if we had conversations around abortion instead of debates? Discussion around the issue of abortion is important, whether it is in classes, in print or in chalk. Perhaps we could see each other as intelligent and opinionated individuals instead of monsters. It would be nice to see collaborative programs educating students about reproductive rights and issues, and it would be great if you stopped assuming things about my mom. I dream of a day when outspoken pro-choice supporters and passionate pro-lifers can walk hand-in-hand and be judged not by their stances on abortion, but by their willingness to open their minds and respect each other’s seriously misguided perspectives.
Boom. Put that on a bumper sticker.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
School Vouchers and Homeschooling
Our local paper has an article in it today about the local school board launching an initiative to find out why students have been either leaving the district or not enrolling at all. After skimming the article, I scrolled down to the comments section. You'd think I would have learned by now to quit reading the comments in this paper, since they're populated by trolls, but I let my curiosity get the better of me.
Some of the comments are as follows:
"If you really want the best education you should give vouchers for those that believe another school or homeschool provides a better work environment. Competition is ALWAYS the best for education and business/ thats why walmart rules the world because it has no real competition and its stuff is junk and workers underpaid."
"Ahh, but liberal teachings are so important to the Democrat agenda. What gives parents the right to want their children to learn anything else? Much less, not pay for it (liberal agenda)."
"We choose to homeschool, and I could go on and on about about the reasons: Smaller . . . no negative peer pressure, moral absolutes, less wasted time,. . ."
Personally, I think we have an above-average public school system here. I have many complaints about my time as a student here, but overall, as a parent I've been happy with the level of education my son is getting. He had some problems with reading in Kindergarten and 1st grade, and was quickly enrolled into a one-on-one teaching program that brought him up to grade level. The teachers have been wonderful, and my son loves going to school.
However, year after year our school district asks for more money from the community, and year after year they are denied. Then we have the nerve to complain about the quality of our schools.
I do not understand how anyone can claim that school vouchers are the answer to our public school problems. In case you're unfamiliar with the concept of school vouchers, here's the gist of it: I think my local public school sucks, so the government should give me tuition money to enroll my kids in a private or religious school. How does that solve anything? Our public school system is decaying, so instead of focusing money on them, let's funnel it to private schools? And I won't even get into the problems with using public money to send kids to religious schools. I'm sure you can figure out where I stand on that one.
As for home-schooling, I can understand the impulse to want to provide a better education for your children by providing it at home, but I think home-schooling brings it own set of problems. For one thing, most home-schooling these days seems to be going on for religious reasons, which again, I probably don't have to explain my problem with.
But to me, the biggest issue is the damage that can be done by keeping your children from going through the struggles associated with school. Learning how to survive and thrive and in the social setting of school is an important part of development. Kids need to figure out how to navigate the world full of other people who don't necessarily think or act like them. Kids who are sheltered from that may have problems transitioning into the world of work as an adult.
Anyway, my point is, public schools are important. They educate the next generation of people who will be taking care of us in our old age. Even if you don't have a child in school, don't you want the people who will be your future doctors, business owners and insurance salesmen to be properly educated? Why don't we value our public education system a little more?
Some of the comments are as follows:
"If you really want the best education you should give vouchers for those that believe another school or homeschool provides a better work environment. Competition is ALWAYS the best for education and business/ thats why walmart rules the world because it has no real competition and its stuff is junk and workers underpaid."
"Ahh, but liberal teachings are so important to the Democrat agenda. What gives parents the right to want their children to learn anything else? Much less, not pay for it (liberal agenda)."
"We choose to homeschool, and I could go on and on about about the reasons: Smaller . . . no negative peer pressure, moral absolutes, less wasted time,. . ."
Personally, I think we have an above-average public school system here. I have many complaints about my time as a student here, but overall, as a parent I've been happy with the level of education my son is getting. He had some problems with reading in Kindergarten and 1st grade, and was quickly enrolled into a one-on-one teaching program that brought him up to grade level. The teachers have been wonderful, and my son loves going to school.
However, year after year our school district asks for more money from the community, and year after year they are denied. Then we have the nerve to complain about the quality of our schools.
I do not understand how anyone can claim that school vouchers are the answer to our public school problems. In case you're unfamiliar with the concept of school vouchers, here's the gist of it: I think my local public school sucks, so the government should give me tuition money to enroll my kids in a private or religious school. How does that solve anything? Our public school system is decaying, so instead of focusing money on them, let's funnel it to private schools? And I won't even get into the problems with using public money to send kids to religious schools. I'm sure you can figure out where I stand on that one.
As for home-schooling, I can understand the impulse to want to provide a better education for your children by providing it at home, but I think home-schooling brings it own set of problems. For one thing, most home-schooling these days seems to be going on for religious reasons, which again, I probably don't have to explain my problem with.
But to me, the biggest issue is the damage that can be done by keeping your children from going through the struggles associated with school. Learning how to survive and thrive and in the social setting of school is an important part of development. Kids need to figure out how to navigate the world full of other people who don't necessarily think or act like them. Kids who are sheltered from that may have problems transitioning into the world of work as an adult.
Anyway, my point is, public schools are important. They educate the next generation of people who will be taking care of us in our old age. Even if you don't have a child in school, don't you want the people who will be your future doctors, business owners and insurance salesmen to be properly educated? Why don't we value our public education system a little more?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
The Death Penalty
I used to be "squishy" on the death penalty issue. I was never a hardcore "hang 'em high" type, but I used to think that if you killed someone, you deserved to die. And in a way, I still think that. Many people have that emotional reaction to crime. Many of us think that if someone we love was murdered, we would want the person who did it to die. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that.
Over the years though, my opinion on the issue has evolved. I used to think that from a realistic point of view, it was a whole lot cheaper to just execute someone than to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives. Then I learned that it's actually more expensive to impose the death penalty, because of the legal fees associated with the mandatory appeals process.
I used to think that death was the "ultimate penalty." But after mulling it over for awhile, I think that it's actually more of a punishment to spend the rest of your long life in prison. Just because you're alive, that doesn't mean your life is good. Death can actually be a kind of escape from responsibility.
I used to think that our justice system was more or less right on when convicting people, but after hearing the stories of many people who were either innocent or at the very least had a decent amount of reasonable doubt in their case, I'm convinced we have executed innocent people.
I used to think that the death penalty was reserved for the "worst of the worst," but that is clearly not the case anymore.
I used to think that the family of the victim(s) had the right to see the perpetrator of the crime put to death, but now I think that the family of the victim(s) of a violent crime is probably not in the best place to be deciding anything. And should we leave these kinds of life or death decisions up to people who are in an unimaginable emotional state?
We all look back on the middle ages with all their beheadings and various creative ways to execute people with wonder and a sense of "what were they thinking?" But aren't we really doing the same thing? Just because our method of execution is cleaner and quieter, is it any different?
On it's face, the death penalty seems to make at least some sense. An eye for an eye. But how can we be positive that the eye we're taking is the right one? The justice system is run by people, and people make mistakes. I don't want to take that chance.
Over the years though, my opinion on the issue has evolved. I used to think that from a realistic point of view, it was a whole lot cheaper to just execute someone than to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives. Then I learned that it's actually more expensive to impose the death penalty, because of the legal fees associated with the mandatory appeals process.
I used to think that death was the "ultimate penalty." But after mulling it over for awhile, I think that it's actually more of a punishment to spend the rest of your long life in prison. Just because you're alive, that doesn't mean your life is good. Death can actually be a kind of escape from responsibility.
I used to think that our justice system was more or less right on when convicting people, but after hearing the stories of many people who were either innocent or at the very least had a decent amount of reasonable doubt in their case, I'm convinced we have executed innocent people.
I used to think that the death penalty was reserved for the "worst of the worst," but that is clearly not the case anymore.
I used to think that the family of the victim(s) had the right to see the perpetrator of the crime put to death, but now I think that the family of the victim(s) of a violent crime is probably not in the best place to be deciding anything. And should we leave these kinds of life or death decisions up to people who are in an unimaginable emotional state?
We all look back on the middle ages with all their beheadings and various creative ways to execute people with wonder and a sense of "what were they thinking?" But aren't we really doing the same thing? Just because our method of execution is cleaner and quieter, is it any different?
On it's face, the death penalty seems to make at least some sense. An eye for an eye. But how can we be positive that the eye we're taking is the right one? The justice system is run by people, and people make mistakes. I don't want to take that chance.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Let 'Em Die
With the whole Ron Paul "Let Him Die" brouhaha last week, I had really hoped that the morality of healthcare in America would start to get more attention in the media. Sadly, I was wrong.
There are many financial and political arguments to be made regarding America's healthcare calamity, but no one seems to want to touch the moral argument. For all the talk we hear about Christianity and faith in politics, especially on the side of the GOP, why don't we talk and think more about what the "right" thing to do is rather than what the most cost-effect thing to do is?
Republicans are so willing to make moral arguments on every other issue of the day. Abortion, gay marriage; these things are not argued by the right on their financial impacts, but on the morality. So why are they so squeamish about even the sheer mention of the morality of healthcare.
Recently, a 24-year-old man died from a tooth infection that spread to his brain. Yes, that happened.
Here.
In America.
An easily treatable, preventable thing that in any other western "civilized" country would have been treated quickly through some sort of government directed plan. Was his needless death moral? Is that what Jesus would approve of?
My brother once said that you really can't argue about healthcare reform because it's a moral issue and people refuse to talk about the morality or even see it (or something to that effect - I'm sure I'm misquoting). But he was right. Until this country grapples with the undeniable fact that our healthcare "system" is truly amoral, we will never have significant change.
There are many financial and political arguments to be made regarding America's healthcare calamity, but no one seems to want to touch the moral argument. For all the talk we hear about Christianity and faith in politics, especially on the side of the GOP, why don't we talk and think more about what the "right" thing to do is rather than what the most cost-effect thing to do is?
Republicans are so willing to make moral arguments on every other issue of the day. Abortion, gay marriage; these things are not argued by the right on their financial impacts, but on the morality. So why are they so squeamish about even the sheer mention of the morality of healthcare.
Recently, a 24-year-old man died from a tooth infection that spread to his brain. Yes, that happened.
Here.
In America.
An easily treatable, preventable thing that in any other western "civilized" country would have been treated quickly through some sort of government directed plan. Was his needless death moral? Is that what Jesus would approve of?
My brother once said that you really can't argue about healthcare reform because it's a moral issue and people refuse to talk about the morality or even see it (or something to that effect - I'm sure I'm misquoting). But he was right. Until this country grapples with the undeniable fact that our healthcare "system" is truly amoral, we will never have significant change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)