Welcome to the second installment of pertinent topics that I will be discussing. In this Mytake I'm going to be giving my views on these issues but also opening up the discussion in a way that many may find a rarity on the Internet. You see, when I discuss a topic I find it very dishonest to not present the entirety of the situation in order to bolster an opinion. So, while I do sometimes come to my own conclusions, I never do so without exhibiting both sides or indeed even a whole spectrum of differing positions.
With that said let's look at our first issue: Abortion
Usually I would include a picture relative to the topic, but out of respect for any women here who may have dealt with this kind of situation I chose to forego that, since pictures of fetuses can be particularly triggering for anyone who has undergone an abortion. I would like to ask that anyone reviewing this Take prior to promotion observe the same respect.
(note) if there is a picture obviously they chose not to listen to me.
Abortion is currently legal in America at the level of the Supreme Court, courtesy of Row v Wade. It was an extremely controversial ruling in its day and continues to be fuel for heated debate half a century later in today's battle between religious liberty and women's rights.
As a former Catholic, and by extension formerly a member of the largest pro life organization on earth, I can speak from personal experience the views and beliefs of this side of the argument.
it is Catholic doctrine that life begins at the instant of conception. When the winning sperm breaches the egg in the uterus, they believe there is an individual human soul present inside the mother, and so they equate termination of pregnancy at any stage to be murder the same as any adult. This is about as far to one side you can be on the spectrum of opinion.
Conversely, there are those who see abortion as an absolute necessity. As for myself, I find the most reasonable position to be somewhere in the middle, rationalizing each situation independently and removed from dogmatic, unapologetic belief of both types. Perhaps you can judge my position best from my explanation of the science relative to abortion.
For starters, science dismisses the idea of a soul altogether and loosely defines consciousness as information processing. I say loosely because there is still much to discover about the nature of consciousness itself, but basically our brains are demonstrably the source of all thought, sensation, and emotion. When one part of the brain is damaged, so is the part of our function that corresponds to that area whether it be the hippocampus (memory), the cerebellum(breathing and heartbeat), or the pre-frontal cortex(executive skills and critical thinking)
My point is, where there is no brain, there is no sentient human life. i say this because some consider the plan b medication as a form of abortion, rather than a contraceptive. I disagree with that position because you're supposed to take the pill no later than a few days after the deed, at which point the zygote that could potentially reside in the uterus is still a few weeks removed from the beginning stages of brain formation. Plan B is literally no different that having any benign growth of cells removed from your body as far as science is concerned.
Anything beyond this instance in terms of abortion is different in every single situation. Why? Because the details matter when you analyze someone's ethics.
For example: suppose there's a very ignorant teenager who willfully engaged in unprotected sex with reckless abandon, who now hates the idea of stretch marks and looking fat, and thus wants to have an abortion even though she's waited 3 full months already.
I think it's safe to say that this person would be more at home in a mental asylum, getting treated for sociopathy.
Now let's look at a different situation: suppose there's another teenage girl, but instead of having lots of unprotected sex, She was stalked, then brutally attacked and raped and as a result has just been found to be pregnant 2 weeks after the incident. After discussing the situation with a counselor, her parents, and doctors, it is the consensus of all involved that this 15 year old is incapable of dealing with the pregnancy itself, let alone caring for a child, given the severe physical and mental trauma she's already enduring. And so the decision is made to abort the pregnancy.
Between these two scenarios hopefully you can see what I mean when I say that specific circumstances matter.
Final judgment:
The gray area of abortion is always going to fluctuate depending on how you define and value life itself, how much emphasis you place on freedom of the body, the integrity of motivation behind the course of action a person takes, and the presence of remorse.
Wait, presence of remorse? But frenchy if I make a "right" decision, couldn't I not feel guilty?
Not if a person actually goes through with an abortion. Just hear me out. whether or not an abortion is the road of least suffering, such as in some medical cases, is for the mother and father to discuss and ultimately for the mother to decide. BUT, to not acknowledge that a life, or potential life if you'd rather, is being lost in this process, or to have an abortion and feel as though a great weight has been lifted off your shoulders is to be disgustingly callous in my opinion. I view abortion as a deeply regrettable, but sometimes necessary and understandable decision.
As always when you talk about these kinds of issues it's hard not to offend. So let's move on to a topic more people will agree on.
Depending on the seriousness of a case of childhood obesity, the line can definitely blur between child abuse and just being an uninvested parent. before we delve into my opinion however, I'd like to share a fact on the subject that I find interesting.
**Nothing is too sweet in a child's perspective until their bones harden.** I found this fascinating. The sensation one gets when beginning to chug a bottle of maple syrup, or eating a bowl of lucky charms consisting of all marshmallows, in essence the phrase "sickeningly sweet", is incomprehensible to a child until about the age of 3 or 4. As far as I understood the evolutionary reason behind this, it's a survival mechanism to insure that an infant does not tire of sweet breast milk and refuse to suckle.
And since the condition persists a year or so after weaning, this means that giving a baby our modern refined sugars can in some cases foster a sugar addiction in those formative years.
This isn't to say that a parents responsibility is in any way diminished, after all giving a 3-year-old donuts and candy I can safely say is an atrocious thing to do according to any health professional you ask and there's no excuse for it. But what I will suggest is that it can be a little harder in today's supermarkets to discern what foods are actually healthy and what foods are masquerading as healthy when in fact they are laden with sugar.
Final judgement:
At the end of the day, I understand it can be difficult to manage a diet free of blemish for oneself, let alone someone else. But none one said parenting was supposed to be a cakewalk either did they? It is the duty of parents to insure their children's health in all aspects including their diet, and failing to do so is essentially failing as a parent.
Not only that, but a case could be made that failing to mange your personal diet, is equally as harmful as it sets a bad example for your children.
With that out of the way let's move on to our last topic, Evolution.
Evolution you say? But why? Well ever since I visited the creation museum and the Noah's ark museum, I realized the following: PEOPLE ACTULLY BELIVE THIS SHIT!!! im sorry, but you're about to feel the full force of my condemnation as I inform you why I, and everyone who's not an idiot, am right, and ken ham is wrong.
As I'm running out of space however, I can't detail the mechanics of evolution in word form. Daddy YouTube to the rescue.
This is what's in the science books. This is what's demonstrably true every time they make next years flu shot. Because viruses reproduce at extraordinary rates, you can literally see hundreds of generations pass by in half a day. You can literally see evolution happen on the micro scale. Religion is the only barrier in thought that prevents people like ken ham from applying it to animals, like us, over much longer periods of time. The laws of physics certainly aren't any different for microbes than they are for humans.
On top of this, the stratigraphically categorized fossil record and radiocarbon dating confirm that sequential life forms are found sequentially in rock layers. What I mean by that is that you don't find rabbit bones fossilized in Cretaceous rock. If they did evolution would clearly be false.
So this concludes this myTake. thank you and as always let me know what you think.
Most Helpful Opinions