I didn't need the food in my kitchen cabinets rearranged, thanks. I'll admit that I'm a little crazy, a little bit of a control-freak, but you don't go into someone else's home and move things around. I understand that they are basically paying Ronald's bills, and therefore own the place, but as guests, I think they are overstepping their bounds. It would be different if Ronald lived alone and they wanted to parent him. But not me. I pay too much rent to get my things rearranged; I had things where they were comfortable to me, the other one who lives here and pays the other half of the bills. I take it back, I'm not the crazy one, they're crazy! Who in the hell cares that much if the food in our cabinets is arranged "badly" if you don't have to deal with it day in and day out? Why would anyone go out of their way to rearrange the fucking cabinets while on vacation in someone else's house?? Nine days is way too fucking long for a "visit". Either stay for a weekend, which is only slightly inconvenient, or get a damn hotel room. This place was in no way meant for four people. I went to school to study today, and met up with studymates Shane and Rose. Rose had office hours, and Shane and I ended up way off topic and debating about abortion, defense budgets, etc. etc. A little background: Shane is so Republican and Christian. I am...well a registered Independent, because I just don't think Democrats represent what I think is important, but let's just say I lean to the left on most issues. Education, gun control, abortion rights, environment. And I'm agnostic. Anyway, I like discussing things with him, because although it's always amusing and so affirming to hear crazy Republican views, he's a smart guy and we have some good talks. Today, it started with the bloated defense budget. He basically stated a Bush-ism: We have to keep the peace in the world by using force. He didn't seem to understand the blatent hypocrisy of this statement, which surprised me. So we have to stay ahead of everyone with our defense. My mentioning that our defense budget is larger than something like 25 of the next biggest defense budgets combined swayed him not at all. Because we're the "moral" country (where everyone respects everyone else!) we're the best at telling other people what is right. Uh-huh. It got worse when we started talking about abortion. He believes in NO case should a woman be allowed an abortion, unless her life is in danger. So at least he's not 100% crazy, but close. The reason is that he believes life begins at conception (fair enough, I'm not exactly sure what I think). So even if a woman is raped, she has a responsibility to the child, because the child did nothing wrong. Although to some degree I agree (that the fetus did nothing wrong), his view makes the woman, who must carry and feed and give life to the fetus in order for it to leave, powerless and voiceless, and worthless except for her responsibility to the child. I really believe the woman should have some say in what is going on in her body, especially if the conception was against her will. The worst part though was when I presented to him a hypothetical situation: say I was raped tonight, which is horrible in itself, but I pull myself together and get a morning-after pill the next day. Is that wrong? He said, "Well, I think they should have to give you a pregnancy test, and if you're pregnant, that's it, you have to keep it." So if I had a egg that happened to be healthy and ready, and it managed to get fertilized within a few hours, that's it. What the fuck?? Where is the goddamn freedom and liberty Republicans are always espousing. My rebuttal, which I thought of on the busride home: His belief (I want to stress that, because it is not a universally held belief) is that the sanctity of life takes precedence over individual choice in this case and that it should be against the law to get an abortion, a law that would be imposed by the government. So what if my true and sincere belief is that the sanctity of the environment takes precedence over the individual choice of what car to drive (falling under fossil fuel consumption) or how much water you can use, how much energy you are allowed. If this is my true and sincere belief, I should lobby for the government to outlaw all SUV's, or hell, all cars that use fossil fuels. It would be a government imposed restriction that would not take into account individual freedoms or liberties, because they are subservient to the future of the environment. Or hell, gun control! Let's outlaw handguns, because we cannot dear trespass on the sancitity of human life, because we all know that you don't use handguns for hunting. Hey that brings up another one: I believe in animal rights, I believe animals feel pain and have some kind of intelligence, so they would fall under this sanctity of life thing, right?? First law: you are not allowed to kill an animal. Duh. Their life is precious. You cannot eat an animal or use their bi-products. I mean, if you're pro-life, you should get what I'm saying. We can't keep stealing the chickens' young children! God forbid. And the milk and cheese? Nah man, there's no consent their either. You know why this stands?? Because a fetus cannot make any rational choices, and I believe they are on par with an animal that has no choice about their future either. And you know what, I don't eat animals or eggs or cheese, etc. So am I more moral than meat eating pro-lifers? Hell yeah, I need to be the one making the policies here. You'd have the Republicans screaming about freedom and individual rights then. The right to choose an SUV over a more fuel-efficient vehicle, or the right to choose to defend yourself and your property by maiming or killing those who might take it from you, and the right to eat a fucking steak. That's what I hate about the idea of government control of a woman's right to choose. It sounds great and moral to take away a woman's right to choose to defend the sanctity of life, but extend that to every area that some group finds imorral, and there is a law against everything, total government control over your personal choices. And it's why I like the freedom of choice. I would never get an abortion, I can say that with certainty, but I am certainly not going to tell another woman what is right or wrong. And in the same way, I kind of have to just grin and bear the NRA. Because they do have an amendment about an individual's right to back them up. How someone can be so sure they're right and want to make laws governing people's personal choices is beyond me. The supposedly great thing about America that Bush keeps talking about like it's the Second Coming is our freedom. Even if I believed in this almighty sanctity of life, I would still choose freedom over abortion control. Although abortion might be wrong to me, taking away personal freedoms is much much worse and does more for the degradation of a society than most immorality. Listening: The Decemberists |