Of Love and Dictionaries

I am now completely, totally, fed up. There seems to be a vast number of people who have a wide vocabulary, but little comprehension of what their wide vocabulary actually means.

Allow me to give you a definition of a word from OneLook.com:

Hate
noun: the emotion of hate; a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action
verb: dislike intensely; feel antipathy or aversion towards

Now let me give you a quote:

"Guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family -- of the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that."

Unless you have been totally out of the loop this past month, you know exactly who I'm quoting: Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A. Could you please point to the part of this statement that suggests Cathy hates homosexuals? In fact, let me broaden that. Could you please point to any of his statements or actions anytime that suggests Cathy hates homosexuals? (Believe it or not, when Cathy made this statement, he actually wasn't talking about homosexuals; he was talking about people who opposed CFA's support of the traditional family.) If you want, you can say that Cathy is discriminatory/bigoted towards homosexuals. Go ahead. But he (and Chick-fil-A) most definitely do not hate homosexuals! Got it? Chick-fil-A serves homosexuals just like they serve heterosexuals and every other kind of sexual of which you can think.

It's true that CFA donates to organizations that are against gay marriage. (For information on the infamous anti-gay Ugandan bill, please read the last paragraph from this article from Snopes.) If that is the reason you want to boycott CFA, that's fine with me. It's a free country. I'm not mad that you want to boycott CFA. I'm mad that you want to boycott CFA because of something that doesn't exist. You can hate homosexuality without hating homosexuals, just like you can hate premartial sex, abortionists, and every other sin, without hating the person themselves.

Not convinced?

Do you hate cancer?

Most people have lost a family member or a friend through cancer. There are several different kinds of cancer in my family. Most recently, I lost my grandfather. However, I did not hate my grandfather.

We bigoted Christians hate sin because it destroys individuals and society and hurts God. That doesn't mean we want sin to be illegal (this is America), but it does mean that we don't want to be forced to recognize sin as something good. (Though, obviously, there are some sins that have to be illegal, and are illegal because their results are so obvoiusly horrific that even we humans usually won't allow them.)

That being said, there are so-called Christians who do hate homosexuals. They're the people with the "God hates f---" and "Kill the f---" signs. There are also Muslims who hate homosexuals. Look back up at the "hate" definition. SHAME ON THEM.

I am against homosexuality. It is sinful and harmful, especially to the homosexuals themselves. If it isn't a lifestyle choice (like most vehemently say), then it's a disease; the brain thinks it can reproduce with a member of the same sex. I understand why people are offended by that; I mean, it's pretty obvious. I would be offended if someone felt sorry for me because I have the disease of religion. Or the disease of liking red. But that doesn't mean they hate me. And I can choose to brush off the offense. The offender doesn't get to choose what offends people. I can get a thicker skin. Nobody should be so sensitive that a pebble feels like a boulder.

I realize that many people don't give themselves thin skins: if somebody has been told all their life that they are worthless, disgusting, or whatever, then it's perfectly understandable when they conclude that everybody hates them. It's obviously an unreasonable claim, but it's an understandable one. Lots of homosexuals go through bullying. That's wrong. But it doesn't make my support of Chick-fil-A and traditional family wrong because it hurts the homosexuals. I'm more at fault for what I don't do in this case than what I do do. If homosexuals think that all Christians hate them, then clearly the Church has not been showing them love.

That's also what allows the pro-abortion movement to claim that pro-lifers hate women. How many protests have YOU seen this week with "stay locked up in your house", "Stupid ****", "Women are worthless" signs?

Apparently actual acts of hate aren't necessary to elicit claims of hate anymore. The lack of (obvious) love is enough.

There is a solution to that, of course.

Showing obvious love.

Images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.

Voter ID

The cartoon strip "Doonesbury" has taken an interesting topic this past week. Now, I normally enjoy reading "Doonesbury" because of its political jokes, even though the swipe is usually pointed at the right. Because, hey, politics is messy and pretty ridiculous. I enjoy laughing at what I...well, enjoy. (Plus, the illustrations of Donald Trump crack me up.) But I really, truly, do not understand all the fuss over voter ID laws. They are being called anti-American and a tactic used by the right to prevent minorities from going to the polls. Huh?

Okay, first, what's anti-American about being required to have an ID? A political cartoon in my obviously left-tilted local newspaper this morning had a picture of a Nazi labeled "photo ID" welcoming a voter to the land of the free, and asking to see his papers. Um...no. Making sure you are an American citizen before you vote is not being a Nazi, and it's not infringing on freedom. If you're an illegal immigrant/not a citizen of the US of A, you aren't allowed to vote. Sorry. And you're not allowed to vote twice, whether you're a citizen or not. That's cheating. IDs are ways of the government keeping track of the people. I don't mean in a creepy "Shadow Children" way--I mean in a make-sure-you-follow-basic-rules-of-the-republic way. It's like the census; we need the census to calculate how many representatives each state is allowed to have, how to distribute funds, etc. Is it annoying? Sure. But it's a necessary annoying.

...please?

I recently wrote a blog post on racism hype. This is a perfect example of why I'm so exasperated. Me? Racist? Because I want people to follow the rules? It's the left that's being racist. Aren't they insinuating that minorities aren't smart enough to get their own IDs? Getting an ID is not hard. You show up and fill out an application and present proof of your age and identity. This can be: a birth certificate. Your social security card. School documents. Marriage certificate. U.S. government documents. In North Carolina, the fee is $10. That is not a lot of money. If you are living in poverty, of course, then it can be. But most people can afford $10. Most people 'in poverty' have Cable TV, a car, air conditioning, and other modern luxuries, for crying out loud! My family for years could not afford Cable, and there was a point in time where we lived on oatmeal, beans, and the kind of popcorn that you get in a plastic bag and pop yourself on your stove. And yet, had it been necessary, we could have afforded the $10 dollar photo ID fee. I'm not trying to be insensitive to people who really do have money problems--even if they have luxury items. I just want to point out that most do not have a reason they can't get an ID.

It's true that I don't want illegal minorities to vote. But that's not because they're one of the groups most likely to vote for President Obama. It's because they're illegal. I want people to follow the rules. Is that too much to ask?

All images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.

Defining Person (Part 3)

Many people place the definition of "person" on whatever the mother/woman decides. Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics use this tactic all the time. It's a no-no to call the woman's pregnancy a "baby" if she's going to abort--or if she isn't sure. Use "pregnancy". "Fetus". "Products of conception". But not "baby". Only use "baby" if the mother is accepting of her pregnancy and entirely sure she wants to keep it.

It's this way with our culture. We have Facebook pages for unborn babies, complete with ultrasound pictures and development timelines. We have baby showers. We talk all about the baby. Have you ever heard anyone say, "How's the fetus doing?" to a pregnant woman? Yet we don't make a peep (if we're good little politically correct citizens) if a baby--sorry, fetus--is quietly aborted.

Yet when you think about it, this is quite the bizarre mentality. What if a woman aborts, but regrets her decision later (as many do), and wish she had kept her fetus? Does that mean that it's a baby now, but wasn't when it was aborted? Is the woman delusional? Are all pregnant women delusional when they call their pregnancy a "baby"? Can you turn personhood on and off like a switch?

"Maybe not," some may say, "but when a woman faces an unplanned pregnancy, she hasn't accepted responsibility for it." Oh? So personhood relies on dependence? If nobody wants to take care of you, you're now disposable? Sometimes you automatically have responsibility, whether you have "accepted" it or not. What happens if a woman decides to keep her baby, but then later changes her mind and decides she wants to abort him? Is it too late, since she had already accepted responsibility for him earlier? If there's nothing wrong with that, why do we have abortions at all? Let's let all the women carry their fetuses to term, and then simply kill them after their born. It's safer for the woman. Or why stop there? There's no reason she can't order the death of the fetus when it's, say, seventeen, or as long as it's dependant on her.

I suppose maybe this scenario is a little unfair. A seventeen-year-old can take care of himself if he has to. The fetus--and children up to a certain age--certainly can not take care of themselves. The fetus is the most helpless--if it's taken out of its mother's womb before 23 weeks, it'll most likely die.

But wait a minute. Since when does "helpless" make us care less for individuals? Which scnario gives you the strongest feeling of revulsion: a man raping a 30-year-old woman, or a man raping a 3-year-old girl? Both crimes are terrible, but there's more outrage over the 3-year-old girl, because she could not defend herself. The woman could have been threatened with a gun; she could have been killed. But she still had the chance to run away. The 3-year-old physically had no possibility of escape by herself. The child's helplessness makes us more determined to make the criminal take responsibility for his actions--and possibly greater responsibility. The same goes for the elderly and the handicapped.

The weaker someone is, the more we are obligated to take care of them. If a twenty-one-year-old barges into his mother's home and demands that she make him lunch, she can refuse him if she wants. She can even turn him out of the house. However, if a two-year-old askes his mother for food and she refuses him, she will be accused of child abuse. We automatically strive to protect those who are weaker than ourselves. Only with abortion is this supposed to not be the case.

*Images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.

Extreme Bigot...Yup, That's Me

I believe in (mostly) black and white. There's quite a bit of grey area, and there are some places where something could very well be "right" for one person, and "wrong" for someone else. But there's a whole lot of black and white. And I see more and more black and white as I get older and learn more about the world. It's most inconvenient.

Recently, I've been thinking a lot about contraception, primarily because of the HHS mandate. I've been fairly ignorant about it though, since I'm a virgin and, thus, have never used it. Until recently, I've had a fairly "moderate" view of contraception. I come from a large family and I currently have seven siblings (yes, that number will likely go up). We're not Catholic or Mormon. We're just Christians who know that children are a blessing and who don't use contraception. Simple as that.

 

Contraception = Evil?

However, I hadn't ever really considered contraception wrong. I don't plan to use it, because...well, I'm not scared of having a family, I guess. I viewed contraception like a lot of people view abortion: "I don't like it, but you can use it if you want." Or perhaps like drinking a lot of beer or smoking: it isn't a good idea and is bad for your health, but it isn't "wrong".

I still have no problem with the idea behind contraception: preventing conception. You can avoid children if you want. It's none of my business. But, I have now discovered the fine print of contraception, and my nice little un-bigoted viewpoint kind of just exploded. Basically, I can no longer call myself pro-life and support most contraceptives. Because of abortion.

Yes, abortion. The vast majority of the time (ninety-something percent, generally), contraceptives prevent conception. But if you read the fine print on the back of the pill bottle or other packaging, the secondary method is to prevent the embryo from implanting in the uterus. Thus, a very early abortion. This goes for the very common contraceptions, such as IUDs and the Pill, as well as the vast majority of other contraceptives.

This view probably appears extreme, even to other pro-lifers. But, frankly, putting a stop to the loss of human life is never extreme, or bigoted.

"If to be feelingly alive to the sufferings of my fellow creatures
 is to be a fanatic, I am one of the most incurable fanatics
ever permitted to be at large." ~ William Wilburforce

Some people protest this view because contraceptive pills are sometimes used for health purposes, not to prevent conception. This is regrettable, but also kind of silly. Contraceptive pills treat the symptoms of these diseases; they don't treat the disease itself. For example: ovarian cysts are (appropriately) painful cysts that form as a result of ovulation (when a woman's ovaries releases an egg for possible fertilization and pregnancy). Birth control usually prevents ovulation and, thus, prevents ovarian cysts; however, it does not cure the disease. The birth control serves as an extreme kind of pain-killer.

So, unfortunately, a practice that our culture has deemed normal and harmless, is anything but. It's always uncomfortable when we realize we've been wrong. It certainly isn't fun for me (my thought upon discovering this was 'Shoot, another thing I have to oppose.'), but to oppose abortion and not oppose chemicals that cause abortions would simply be hypocritical.

*Images found via Google Images. No copyright infringement intended.

In Which, Were My Blog Better Known, I Would Be Called Many Uncouth Names

Yes, that title is a little sarcastic. This is a bit of an off-key post for this blog, but it's a subject that has been gnawing at my mind for quite a while now. All of this below is my opinion, gained and crafted by my own observations and--to put it fancily--philosophy of the world. 

Racism. Today, being a "racist" is one of the worst smears that can possibly be added to your name. If you're a politician, you have to be extra careful whenever you allude to minority groups (on any subject), because your speech could be twisted into racism.

I wonder, though, what would happen if the world started treating racism like it is. I mean, we all call it horrible, degrading, dangerous, discriminatory, and other such things. And racism IS horrible, degrading, dangerous, discriminatory, and other such things. But there's always one adjective missing from the list of things describing racism. Why don't we ever use it?

Racism is horrible, degrading, dangerous, and discriminatory. It's also really, really...stupid. I can still remember my reaction when I first found out about modern-day racism, which actually was kind of late in my childhood. I'd always thought of racism in terms of slavery and the civil rights movement. I knew that there were still some racist people in the world (there will always be nutters we have to share the Earth with), but I really didn't think about it. I'm a caucasion girl who, for a long time, lived in a wealthy county (though my family certainly was not wealthy), where there weren't many minorities and no racial tension. I don't remember how exactly I found out about prevalent modern-day racism, but it was an accumulation of events, I think: a conversation with my mom about racial tension in the south, a page in a history book, and other things. I didn't feel horror, disgust, anger, or other motions you might expect. I distinctly remember my feeling of surprise when it finally dawned on me: "Well that's...dumb."


Racism exists? Huh?

I shall, predictably, now turn to the recent case of Martin and Zimmerman. I will say right up front that I do not know of what Zimmerman is guilty. A life has been lost, and that is tragic. However, I would like to know how this particular case made the news. Never mind. I do know. The guy who killed was white. The guy killed was black. And our beloved media pounced: obviously, this is a case of RACISM. The public will love it, in all its terrible glory.

Wait, what? A black guy killed a white guy a while back, also claiming self-defense. Why didn't that make the "big news"? In my opinion, there's more evidence supporting Zimmerman's story than the black guy's story. However, I'm not a member of the police force or the judiciary, and I don't have all the facts. It's not my place to decide. What disturbs me is how much people pretend to know about the case, when we don't really know anything. There were people calling for "justice for Trayvon" before the whole story even came out. All that the racism hype is doing is stirring up the possibility for some sort of explosion.

Affirmative action isn't helping anything either. Hey, it was necessary for the short time when there was prevalent racism. However, now all it does is give unfair advantages to people who, many times, do not deserve them. Colleges and workplaces are so frantic to appear modern, anti-sexist, anti-racist, and politically correct, that they bring their own quality of education and products down if they do not hire the best people to fill a government-imposed quotia. Let's say a black woman, of moderate capabilities, applies for a job. A white woman, of bad capabilities, also applies. A white man with excellent capabilities applies as well. Who's going to get the job, if the workplace's female-and-black quotia isn't filled? The company, and subsequently, all of its employees, suffer a loss when the best person is not hired.

I am a great believer in the power of expectations. As long as we, as a society, expect people to be racist, that is exactly what we will get: racism. I'm not saying that we should ignore racism. I'm saying that we need to keep racism in a balanced perspective. For example, calling a murderer racist when there's, you know...actual evidence that it was race-driven. That includes both white AND black killers. Think about it: you are more likely to be called "racist" if you're white, which is racism in itself: setting expectations on somebody because of their race. All of these accusations breed racism and resentment: blacks may think all whites are racist, and whites, annoyed with the unfair handouts minorities recieve because of their race, may brand all minorities as lazy slobs leeching off of their tax-dollars.

And the results are things like this. Seriously? GROW UP, people. Argue that the signs are in bad taste. That our president is awesome. That his policies work. You know, a conversation that is actually logical. But no, clearly, we must jump to the assumption that the man who put up the sign is racist. Obviously, those signs are extremely disrespectful, and I do not approve of them, but where did some of those protestors get the idea that they were race-driven? I don't like our president. I also forget that he's black most of the time.

When it's plausible that one of Julian Smith's make-believe scenarios could take place in the future, there's definitely something wrong.

All images found via Google Imates. Video taken from Julian Smith's YouTube account. No copyright infringement intended.

Defining Person (Part 2)

In part 1, I began examining the differences between this human being

and this human being.

Mere appearance and location does not qualify a human being as a person. The next obvious difference is level of development, and this difference is what most abortion advocates rely on. Abortion clinics tell women that abortion is okay, because the fetus "isn't really a baby", or "it's just a blob of cells", or "it's just a clump of tissue".

I could get into the hard, scientific facts, and list all the "human" characteristics of a very young human embryo, but that would just feed the idea that, as a human being, you have to have certain physical characteristics to be qualified as a person. For example, saying that brain waves are detectable at six weeks and two days, only implies that the fetus is a person at six seeks and two days and beyond, but not necessarily before.

The human brain doesn't finish developing until a young adult's mid-twenties. Obviously, a thirty-year-old isn't more of a person than a newborn, even though his brain may be more developed. After we are born, society doesn't attach our personhood to the level of development in our brains. When someone is completely brain-dead, they are just that--dead. They can physically be kept alive by machines doing every single bodily function for them, but there is no recovery (unlike people in a coma, or false brain death, who can recover).

Obviously, a day-old embryo does not yet have brain waves. However, the brain is developing. When a person's brain dies, the person is officially declared dead, because there's no coming back. However, you can't declare a healthy, growing embryo as not alive. The embryo does not yet have a functioning brain, just as a three-year-old girl does not have a functioning reproductive system. She is still developing that. Development takes time. Not having a functioning body part does not mean you are less than a person. Brand-new embryos have absolutely everything you do. The only thing they lack is time: time to grow into an adult.

"But thinking, rationalizing, being aware that you exist, is what makes a person," it might be argued. (And at this time we can point out unconciousness and NREM sleep as points in everyone's lives where you don't rationalize, think, or be aware that you exist.) In other words, the brain is too important to be simply considered "a body part". This is, in part, true. The ability to rationalize, philosophize, and build civilizations is one aspect that separates human beings from animals. There's a reason humans are at the top of the food chain.

It's what separates human beings from animals. All human beings are included in that category. Embryos, five-year-olds, and adults alike. So tell me this. Sit down with an average five-year-old boy and give him a piece of paper with an algebraic problem written on it. Will he be able to solve it? No, of course not. Why is that? Because he doesn't know how. He isn't yet capable of learning how. Will he be able to solve it eventually? Yes. But he needs time. Time to learn basic arithmatic first, and to understand the basics concepts of mathematics. Stand a newborn baby up and let go. Will he stand and walk? Will he sit down? No, of course not. He topples over. Why is that? Because he doesn't have the motor skills necessary to stand, walk, or sit. He is not ready.

Is there anything wrong with the children described above? No. They are perfectly normal. They are just as developed as they should be. We accept that and care for them. Why do we try to categorize some (or all) of the unborn as less than people, when we don't do so on the born? Human embryos are also perfectly normal. They are just as developed as they should be. Why do we not accept that and care for them? Is it becuase they are unable to protest? Can you imagine trying to expain this to an unborn child? "I'm sorry, three-week-old embryo, I'm aware you're Michael's sister, but as you are not as developed as other human beings, such as a 23-week-old fetus, I don't think you're a person. I also don't want to deal with another child right now, emotionally or financially. Therefore, I shall abort you. Cheers."
We can't logically have this double standard. Either all human beings are persons, or none of us are.

How (Not) To Vote

Here's something fun for today. BlimeyCow is my favorite vlogger--if that's the right word for his videos--and also, the only one I, uh, watch. Unless Julian Smith counts, but I don't think he does.

And by the way, I finally got to go see October Baby (yay!) and it was amazing. Is it the greatest movie ever made? No, it's not. But it's a beautiful story, and the quality was very good, even if it wasn't up to the level of "The Lord of the Rings" or "It's a Wonderful Life" (two of my favorite movies right there). As another indicator, it was a heck of a lot better than the "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" flop (sorry, Narnia). It also was not pushy about abortion or religion; it wasn't saying "Christianity is right and abortion is the most ultimate evil ever!", but rather "Here's a conflicted young woman who needs to re-discover who she is and how to forgive". As a plus, most criticisms of the movie (coming from the Left) aren't about the quality, but screaming about how the movie dares to oppose abortion. Which pretty much guarantees that the movie's going to be good.

Without further ado, here's BlimeyCow and "The TV Tells Me How to Vote".