Thursday, April 30, 2009
In psychology, one of the well-known topics of conversation involves a discussion surrounding nature vs. nurture. This discussion stems from an attempted examination of the main factors we can justly attribute to developmental tendencies, as well as physiological tendencies. Nature refers to natural and unavoidable items such as genes, while nurture tends to slide more towards learning, environment, and experiences. In regard to the context of this investigation, let us use the idea of nurture as the initial primary focus of discussion. Most of our ideals are developed unconsciously in the midst of a journey through nurture leaning expansion. Many of our perceptions of morals stem from what our environment has educated us upon and the occurrences we have experienced. You were not born with the knowledge and awareness of your expectations in regard to morality. You were either told upright, or it was implanted within your psyche through various trial and error happenings. The problem arises when we let our environment dictate the remainder of our existence. Instead of examining different possibilities or attempting to accept dissimilar ideas, we simply perceive our own ideals as the end all be all to a perfect ideal society. This is a very unhealthy psychological lifestyle. Most people fail to come to the realization that these ideals are indeed simply perceived ideals, as opposed to the absolute and undeniable truth. In turn, you reasoning, judgment, and conclusions on subject matters are severely distorted and limited. If you view the world as a black and white picture, then it will never exceed your thought up limitations. If you view the world as an empty canvas, ready to be explored with various colors from diverse easels, than that is what it will become.
While so far these perceived ideals have been depicted in a dark sense that would seem to provoke avoidance, these ideals are not created with the sole purpose of inflaming evil. There are many different circumstances and conditions in which these ideals may serve as an exceptional teammate in this game we call life. For one, ideals are the primary initiator of goals. You create your goals with the mind set of reaching your idea of the ideal position to be, or at least with the mind set of inching closer to your desired destination. They endow you with a backbone of support, as well as an expectation for greatness. Another idea that evolves from perceived ideals is the justification of purpose. You can have a purpose or destination implanted within, but without a justification and a sense of validation, you are essentially progressing in vain. Nobody would desire to grow fond to a feeling of meaningless progression. Without these perceived ideals we have created, we eventually become a stagnant immovable force. We become dead to the world while our mind loses the ability to retain information, because of a reluctance to justify the information that has attempted to arrive formerly.
The fact of the matter is that my ideals are different from your ideals, while my ideal world most likely differs from your depiction of an ideal world. The real ideal world would be a world absent of perceived ideals that undermine expansion and growth. It would be a world in which my ideals are able to coexist with your ideals without a hateful glare from the opposition. The problem is not the ideals; the problem is that way that we become egocentric in relation to our perceptions of the world. Do not let your perceived ideals be a detrimental factor in deciding the development of your ideology. Open your mind and refrain from being content. Humility and humbleness go a long way.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Preoccupied with what is preconceived
That which is believed… initially perceived
Reality is absent… just falsehoods and lies
Wishing for failure… praying for demise
Preoccupied with standards… yet to be met
Because of failure to embrace… failure to accept
Covering our eyes… failure to see
Legally blind… attempting to lead
Preoccupied with morals and ideals
Frightened of deviation… frightened to feel
I understand that you can’t stand me
But I also understand you just don’t understand me
Carrying the closed mindset to their offspring
Repetitiously and tautologically they sing
I want them to understand… I wish they could
I want them to understand… but still I’m misunderstood
Friday, April 17, 2009
photo from: http://channeln.blogspot.com
Lay me back down… close my eyes
It’s like I fall down every time I rise
Every time I open my eyes I regret it
And every time I close my eyes the pain lessens
A place where the resentful refrain to demean
A place where failure is yet to be seen
A place where secrets stand the test of time
No reason to weep… no reason to cry
When I open my eyes… everything is deceitful
Your right hand assaults from the left and deceives you
Instead of repent… and ask forgiveness
I’d rather dream about yesterday and relive it
I’d rather talk to my granddad… or converse with God
Without feeling the wrath of the enemy’s rod
But last night He said to me let there be light
Blind to reality… He gave me sight
Ellen Willis is one of the individuals who believe that abortion should remain legal. One of her primary arguments denies the legitimacy of the antiabortion claim that believes the child’s right to life overrides the mother’s right to do as she pleases with her body. Willis argues that we are unjustly forcing a future mother through nine months of pain and suffering that she may not wish to partake in. Willis says the key question is, “Can it be moral, under any circumstances, to make a woman bear a child against her will?” She goes on to state that antiabortionists deny women the right of “bodily integrity”.
While the grounds for her attempted justification are evident, her argument is a very weak convincer. To start, her argument seems to be based on the assumption that the mother had no say in the creation of this fetus. Unless of course the circumstance is indeed rape, the theory that we are denying some sort of right that the mother has to her own body is purely ludicrous, and an example of rhetorical nonsense. The mothers are simply bearing the responsibilities of the choices they have made. If you invite somebody into your house, you do not have the right to murder them on the grounds that they are becoming an inconvenience towards you. Nobody informed you that it was vital for you to invite the individual into your abode in the first place. In response to Wills’ statement, the notion that the mother is bearing the child against her own will would have to conclude rape, though it is doubtful that this is what she is referring to. If rape is not entered into her equation, then no sympathetic gestures should be put in place to reverse a voluntary action. This is especially true if these gestures involve a government approved form of murder. On the contrary, even in instances of rape, there should not be the option of abortion. There are so many other options available, such as adoption, which allows you to allow your child the right to live.
Another issue that pro-choice advocates frequently convey is the instance in which the woman may be too ailing to give birth. In addition, the claim regarding mothers with STDs is also argued and disputed upon from both angles. So the question remains, should a baby still be born even if it has just the slightest likelihood of developing HIV from birth? These pro-choice advocates sometimes see abortion as a last resort. They tend to view themselves as helping the common cause, and are not always the young teen mother stereotypical abortion supporter, who is simply too lazy and negligent to take on the responsibility that she brought upon herself. These are the individuals with doctorate degrees who are using their research and prior knowledge in order to give an informed and well thought out outlook on the morality and the scientific technicalities of abortion. These are the abortion supporters who most likely still consider themselves pro-life, because they see themselves as valuing the life of the mother, as well as the quality of life that will soon be instilled within this newborn child.
It is very effortless to observe the relevance that this argument holds within our society today, but justifying an act with extreme examples, hardly serves to sway an opinion. First, let us take an in depth look at the STD claim regarding abortion. If we are going to exterminate the lives of babies who have the probability of developing an STD, then what is next? Should we not therefore decimate every child who has the possibility to obtain any type of detrimental disease? How about cancer? Since cancer is in many ways hereditary, let us just silence the lives of these yet to be born fetuses, simply because his mother and grandmother had been afflicted with cancer. While we are at it, why not just kill the potentially slow learning and pre-developed fetuses as well, since their quality of life will be far from that of the ideal human being. One can argue that cancer differs from HIV, because we have cures. However, that claim is easily silenced by the realization that prior to recent times, cancer was the equivalent of a death sentence, but look at the advancements we have made that subsequently followed. The fact of the matter is that the STD claim can not hold up. Where do we draw the line? Where do we differentiate between saving the child from their dreaded life to come, and unjustly depriving the child of a well deserved life that each and every one of us has had the privilege to receive?
One of the other claims deals with women who are too ailing to give birth. What if a woman with a certain heart condition or diabetes does not wish to give birth because of the fatal risks that exist for her? This claim may appear to be warranted at first glance, but the reality is that abortion is not the ‘end all be all’ to motherly survival. Not only are you still putting the mother’s life at risk by going through with an abortion, bur you are blatantly murdering another life in the process. By going through with the pregnancy, we are not only giving the mother a chance to live, but we are giving this innocent embryonic cell, who is ready and willing to be an active member of society, a chance to live. Even in the very unfortunate event that the mother may be deceased at the end of pregnancy while the child lives; the mother has now heroically given her own life for the betterment of her child. Diminishing your own flesh and blood before they even have the opportunity to enter the earth, just to heighten the possibility of life for yourself, is a coldhearted and immoral act that should not be acceptable via the government guidelines.
Clarke Forsythe informs us that another one of the arguments regarding keeping abortion legal is this belief surrounding a necessary evil. Apparently, there is a notion that many supporters of abortion acknowledge the immorality of the act. However, in addition to that assessment, they also believe that it is necessary. The supporters seem to depict abortion as a back alley phenomenon that numerous women are dying from. They support this in saying that legalized abortion is the safe and easy solution of going forward with abortion, while lessening the death total that transpires as a result. The argument goes on to imply that people are going to do it anyway, so why not make it safe and legal?
Forsythe attacks this argument head on by uncovering the myths and exaggerations behind the claim. “In fact, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistics in 1972 show that 39 women died from illegal abortion and 27 died from legal abortion.” So if there are still women dying from legal abortion, then how is the necessary evil a justifiable statement? By depicting abortion in this healthy, legalized, and government approved alternative, we are sending a false message to the mothers thinking about participating in this premeditated slaughter of their very own. The various abortion clinics are hardly deterrents, but they rather just help you avoid letting it occur again. This ‘can’t beat them, join them’ mentality is unhealthy to our society.
Another issue that Clarke Forsythe examines is the misconception that abortion has done the women in our society good and perhaps better off than they were prior to abortion legalization. The argument stems back to the necessary evil claim that it is safer to legalize abortion, then to have your inexperienced everyday Joe performing abortions in the back alleys of his neighborhood. They simply put it that with more outlets to safely and securely partake in the process in which they were bound to participate in anyway, we essentially better the health and longevity of these females in the long run.
One of the main problems with this argument is the fact that it falls victim to confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is when you only bring into consideration the facts and essentials that support your claim, unconsciously ignoring any counter claim that disproves your argument. The fact of the matter is, while blinding their eyes with the back alley phenomenon justification, supporters have yet to realize the many physical and psychological injuries that still plague the women who participate. In addition to that, the number of STDs has skyrocketed, because we unknowingly instill this falsehood in the minds of our youth that the dangers of sexual promiscuity are easily countered with abortion practices. This murder has even moved past the early stages of a last resort or a necessary evil. This is exemplified in “the threefold increase in the repeat-abortion rate, and the increase in hospitalizations from ectopic pregnancies” over the past 30 years. After properly analyzing these variables, it is very difficult to see how you can justify the notion that women are better off with these execution practices available. In many cases, we only observe the direct effects when it comes to this issue, while we ignore the indirect effects that we turn a blind eye towards within our society. In actuality, the indirect effects like sustained deaths, the STD epidemic, and psychological burdens actually have a more potent long term effect, than the direct effects that decrease the back alley abortion practice. Better off? You be the judge.
Instead of looking for safe alternatives, it is essential that we address the problem at the source. In order to cut down on deaths that occur as a result of illegal abortions, the answer is not to legalize it. Legalizing it simply adds fuel to the fire and negates the initial problem. If we want to cut down on deaths that occur as a result of abortion, the way to approach it is to figure out why the future mother feels abortion is warranted. Many times, the abortion is in response to pre-marital sex or teen pregnancy, which are both avoidable. If we address these problems, as well as similar problems, then this evil we call abortion will not be necessary. Maybe we should rename these places where abortions occur and it would serve as a greater deterrent. They should be called human slaughterhouses, because that is essentially what they are. If you support abortion, you are in support of the premeditated slaughter of innocent lives that were never given a chance. Now sit back and ask yourself a question, “What if I was aborted?”
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Last night I heard voices… they called my name
Last night I heard voices… they called… I came
They led me to a place… a placed I’ve never seen
But it was so peaceful… so calm… so serene
A place that remains alien to demise
A place where not even the clouds would cry
I grasp the gate… I’m surrounded by all white
A faceless voice embraces my sight
He looks to the right… He looks to the left
He looks to the right… He looks to the left
Suddenly I’m falling… falling to my death
Not knowing I’ve departed… my body is at rest
I land in fire… unscathed I remain
But still my body is inflicted with pain
Last night I heard voices… the voices of death
I decided to wake up… I knew what was next
Monday, April 6, 2009
photo from: http://www.beyondbooks.org
I’ve lost all my kin… I’ve lost all hope
Confined and restrained… they chain me to a boat
No thought of autonomy… no desire to elope
I’ve been here so long that my consciousness is gone
So I never pondered that maybe they were out of place… in the wrong
Damaging our skin… blinding our eyes
Praying on our downfall… wishing our demise
They ride past in whips…slide down poles
Their pigment reflects kin… but their own they scold
Confined and restrained… they standardize success
Confined and restrained… they begin to regress
Confined and restrained… they chain me to a boat
The name reads ‘give in… we’ve given up hope’
Bearing these chains… blinding our eyes
We are our own master… constructing our demise
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The darkness encompasses her state of presence
Agony greets her… distress is endless
Thrown to the wall… against her will
Thrown to the wall… her preference was killed
Resistance if evident… but still ineffective
Hostility toward oppression… but her fight is reflexive
Held by a man… a demon… a rapist
Who then disappeared… gone… faceless
Three quarters of a year… and a result has emerged
Hostility has vanished… vengeance purged
Vendettas are non-existent… nothing occurred by blunder
But when upbringing quickens… he begins to wonder
Who is the man in which my blood relates?
And she’s forced to say he’s gone… no trace
One day I was held down… by a demon… a rapist
Who then disappeared… gone… faceless