Oh Really? God is Pro-life? Prove it.

There are certain things that I hear or read that really rub me the wrong way; things that immediately strike me as being wrong, but are, in my opinion, so obviously wrong that it takes conscious thought to figure out why. One of these statements is, “God is pro-life.”

It seems to me that there are a lot of flaws with this argument even if you are a deeply religious Christian. I'm not terribly familiar with the bible, but I do know that a lot of people die, with God's express approval. I know there are stories where he has demanded the death of innocent people, and in fact the most basic claim of Christianity is that Jesus – an innocent, godly man that we're all supposed to model our behavior after – died for our sins.

This does not argue that God is pro-life, not even for innocent people. He certainly isn't for keeping sinners alive, not if you believe in the bible. It's full of stories of people doing the wrong thing and getting killed for it.

Of course, in the pro-life argument, they're specifically talking about unborn children, who most people agree are innocent (though maybe not the people who believe in original sin - I don't know about that). In many cases that innocence is used as a reason not to “kill” them. So let's talk about innocents in terms of living and dying, and with the concept of God as the all-powerful creator in our minds.

Babies are stillborn or miscarried all the time, even though, today, we have better survival rates than ever before. And this is not limited to human beings, but experienced by every species that gives live birth. In species that lay eggs, some of the eggs never hatch, even when they've been fertilized. The fact that it happens to all species indicates that it is not some kind of punishment for the sins of humans, so that argument is out the window. And God-the-creator is, by definition, the one who made us the way we are. So if he was against pregnancies being terminated prematurely, why would that happen naturally? As an all-powerful deity, he could easily have made that impossible.

But I think the worst part is that those same people are the ones who claim that God is inscrutable; that it is impossible for human beings to understand why God does what he does... and yet claim to know what he wants, without being expressly told. Unless I am mistaken, and somewhere in the bible it says God hates abortions, but I think it would be quoted all over the place it that were the case.

No, I think their best chance is to say that it should be God's decision; that we shouldn't play God. It's a simple opinion (one which has been used to fight all kinds of scientific developments), so it can't really be refuted – that makes it the only tactic that has any chance of success, because anyone who says “God is pro-life” certainly won't argue on pure moral or logical grounds. Even if they could win.

As a final note, let me say that I personally will never have an abortion. But that doesn't matter; it's completely beside the point... because this isn't a pro-choice argument. It's simply a criticism of  the statement “God is pro-life”, because I don't think people should ascribe their own feelings to a deity which is (according to humans) inscrutable by nature.

Wasted Youth... or Not...

I've known what I wanted out of life since I was 16. I wasn't exactly sure how to get there, because my career – which is usually a fairly cut and dry thing to achieve – wasn't important. I didn't care about seeing the world, or partying, or “making the most of my youth” like so many people. No, what I wanted was a husband and children. That's not something you can make a plan for and just follow the steps until you get there.

I knew I wasn't going to get it right away – after all, I was 16 when I figured this out. I decided school and work could take precedence for a while, until I found the right person and we decided the rest of it together. But I was never shy about sharing what I wanted, and I got the same kind of response from almost everyone who heard me.

You've got plenty of time. Don't be in such a hurry!

Have some fun first! Travel; see the world before you settle down.

I love my kids but I wish I had waited longer before having them.

Don't waste your youth like I did!

Those responses always made me angry, because I was sick of people assuming they knew what would make me happy better than I did. It has been 12 years since then, and I am still unmarried and without children – but not because I decided they were right. No, if I had met the right guy at 18, or 21, or any of the other years in between, if we had settled down together and started a family, I wouldn't regret it. I would be thrilled.

The truth is that I don't have those things yet because I've been responsible. I wanted a husband and children, yes, but I wanted to do it right. I still do. I could have slept around, and not used protection, and gotten pregnant when I was a teenager. That's pretty easy for a girl to do, and fun, too. I could have gotten a guy to marry me, if I wasn't picky about finding the right guy.

But when you know what you want, you know how you want it to happen, and I knew I didn't want to marry the wrong person and end up divorced, single parenting all those bundles of joy. I didn't want my kids to all have different fathers. Maybe it works for some people... but it's not for me. And I knew that when I was 16, just as I know it now.

It's been a while since I've heard those platitudes, since I'm now 28. I'm a lot more likely to hear that I shouldn't wait too much longer (which is also stupid, because if I could have had it all by now – the right way – I would have). But I heard that last one – don't waste your youth like I did – in a song I was listening to. It brought back all my old feelings about that statement, and I realized there's a lot more to it than people arrogantly assuming I don't know what I want for my life. The big problem is that those kinds of statements sound incredibly selfish.

People who refer to settling down young as wasting your youth are basically saying that having fun is more important than having a family – at least while you're young and have energy. Don't waste your energy on those tiny human beings, no! They don't need your attention the way Las Vegas does. Or Italy. Or Mexico. Those are much more valuable things to spend your energy on. Not.

It also implies that having a family isn't fun. I know that having children is hard work, and life is certainly simpler without them. But I also know that being with children gives you a special kind of joy that nothing else in the world can equal. I know that tickle fights and story time are fun. And I know this through other people's children, so I can only assume that when you're sharing those moments with a sweet little child who grew inside you, the moments are even more precious.

I'm sure some of those people meant to say, “get settled so you can provide for them better.” Or perhaps, “give yourself time to mature, because parenting is hard work.” But even those kind of irk me – because it's clear that they didn't take who I am into account when making those statements.

I started babysitting when I was 12. Every job I ever had was taking care of children in some form or another, and in all different situations, too; typical children and special needs children, individually or in groups, organized activities and free-for-all parties. By the time I was 18 I had more experience with children, and more knowledge about how to care for them, than most of the parents I meet who are having their first child at 26, 28, or 30. I had been CPR and first aid certified for years. By my early 20s I knew how to install a car seat properly, I was taking my Montessori training, and I was well-read about such topics as breastfeeding and positive discipline. Yet I was still hearing those words.

I know that those pieces of knowledge are exceptional to have at those ages. I know that, to many people, that rarity is reason enough to say those things – because I am the exception, not the rule, when it comes to wanting a family when you're young. But who else are they saying that to? How many other people really do know what they want, and whose self-knowledge is constantly being belittled?

And when did having children become a waste of time, at any age?

This is the exact opposite of what women used to hear, by the way. Having a career was, at that time, a required second to the family – if it even showed up on the radar at all. It was perfectly acceptable to be a homemaker and never get any kind of outside job, and a woman who put her career first or never even had kids was considered very strange. Lesser than those who followed the norm. Now it's the exact opposite. I say, stop telling other people how to live their lives.

No one knows what life path will make someone else happy. It's true that we don't always know, ourselves; that life throws inexplicably wonderful surprises at us, but each individual has a better chance to know what will bring him happiness than any outsider ever could. So instead of trying to control someone's choice, help them see the variables so they can make an informed choice and weather the challenges. That's how you can really help them.

Preface to Future Posts

My horizons have been expanding lately, and so I've started writing about things I've never really considered before. I'm sure that very few, if any, of my arguments are original... but they're new to me and clearly they haven't been said often enough, or to the right people, or something. Because if they had, I wouldn't have encountered the situations that made me think of them. If that makes any sense at all.

So if what I write in the next few posts seems old hat to you, please bear with me. A lot of this is new to me and I'm just figuring out what I think about it all. But you'll be seeing a lot of posts about things that need to change – because if you know me at all, you know I can't shut up when I think something is wrong.

Morals and Religiocentrism

My boyfriend Dylan is an atheist and a skeptic. Since those words define a big part of his life, when I try to describe him those are some of the first words I use. However, I've started to recognize a pattern in the responses of others when they hear those (to me) innocuous words; when I say “atheist”, they often hear “person without morals”. The first few times I heard a response indicating this concern (to one degree or another), I was pretty much just baffled and wanted to defend him... but after hearing it a few times I started to really think about it.

To me, it just seemed kind of jerky and religiocentric at first glance. But the implications are chilling. The fact that this association is so common says something – something bad – about our ability, as a culture, to take personal responsibility. Instead of being willing to make their own decisions, to really think through their actions and be ready to explain or defend them (or make amends) should the need arise, a great many people are content to simply do as they are told. Not only are they content to do so, but they consider it morally superior. While I can intellectually understand that this is based on the belief that God is morally superior to human beings, I think it is an incredibly slippery slope. If people are consciously seeking an outside source for moral correctness, one which they consider infallible (as God is supposed to be, by his very nature), then they are:

a) not practicing small decisions about morality – the results of which inform bigger, more important decisions, and

b) giving up all personal responsibility for their actions.

This means that those people are actively promoting a culture in which individuals are less able to make morally correct decisions, more able to place blame, and more willing to accept the dictates of an authority figure without first judging the merits of said dictates. A strong leader could very easily take that culture and bring ordinary people to do incredibly immoral things under the guise of being moral. They wouldn't know how to judge for themselves.

Is that not terrifying? Especially when you think of how that has played out historically.

I guess the best thing to hope for is that those people are only making logical errors instead of projecting their own flaws on others. If that is the case, then most of them should be able to think for themselves in any extraordinary event, and behave in a moral way... but history doesn't support that hope.

I suppose I have been guilty of believing that our society is more morally advanced than ever before, when the more likely explanation is that technological advances and a strong government have caused our moral decisions to be fewer and easier than they could be.

By the way, Dylan is also a blogger – one who actually writes regularly and takes his blogging responsibilities much more seriously than I do – and you can read his work at www.skeptimusprime.com. 

Birthday "Cake" Tutorial

Recently I was asked to bring a birthday craft to my babysitting job, so we could celebrate the twin boys turning 8 (They also have an older sister). I usually pick up crafting supplies for babysitting at the Dollar Tree, because if I spend a lot on materials I end up basically working for free – and while I love the kids, a girl's gotta make a living.

I've always loved the idea of using a candlestick as a pedestal for a plate or a bowl, and when I hit that section at the Dollar Tree my eyes always pull together all the candle and vase things to see what would look pretty together. This time it occurred to me that a small, flat, round candle holder on top of the pedestal would make a cute cake stand and it hit me – crafty birthday cakes!

Materials:

A candlestick ($1)

A small plate or flat candle holder ($1)

A set of 2 styrofoam circles ($1 – I found these with the floral supplies)

A few birthday candles ($1 or on hand)

Acrylic paint and paintbrushes (on hand)

Hot glue or E-6000 ($2 and up, or on hand. I used hot glue, but I think E-6000 is washable?)

Procedure:

Glue together the two styrofoam disks, and glue the top of the candlestick to the bottom of the plate. I just eyeballed it but you could measure and trace from the center if you want it to be perfect. I didn't take a picture of this part, but I think it's pretty self explanatory.

The styrofoam is already glued, and now we're adding our base coat of "frosting".

 Paint the cake however you like. I went with a base coat of blue paint and some simple pink dots, but the kids did swirly patterns, smiley faces, letters, even a monkey! If you want the “icing” to be 3-dimensional, you can hot glue the pattern and paint over it, or use puffy fabric paint. One of the boys added some sequins to his cake.

Painting the "cakes" and adding candles. Almost done!

 Decide where you want your candles and press them firmly into the styrofoam. We had no trouble, but if you used a lot of paint you might have to poke a hole first with something sharp to get the candles in, or poke them in while the paint is still wet.

The finished "cakes". They look good enough to eat!

Put the cakes on their stands and admire! Aren't they cute?

Easy vs. Right

“I don't understand why anyone wants 'the right' to bear arms.”

“You have to be mentally unstable to want that 'right' anyway, by definition.”

“Why does anyone even want to own a gun in the first place?”

These are all comments that I've seen regarding the right to bear arms. I've written about guns before, a little blurb in my last post, but I feel like I need to write more because it seems that there is a gradually prevailing opinion that gun owners are dangerous and unstable.

Let me start by saying that I completely understand how scary guns can be. As a child, if I was watching TV with my parents and a gun came on the screen, I would get up and leave the room. I did this well into my teenage years – I was terrified by them. I still do not own a gun, and I have never fired one or even held one. But I believe this is something I need to remedy.

See, historically, guns were a way to not only protect oneself, but also to provide food for one's family. Back in the days when people were predominantly self-sufficient, a gun and ammunition could make the difference between surviving the winter and starving – and not just for an individual, but for an entire family. Although this level of dependence on hunting for food has almost disappeared, it still exists for some families in rural areas. Are they “mentally unstable”? I don't think so. Honestly, I respect them for being able to provide for themselves without a grocery store. Not many of us can do that.

I've also read that the average city can only go a few days without the incoming transportation of food. In a situation like that, the size of one's community shrinks rapidly. People don't care about their neighbors anymore – they don't feel like they can afford to be generous, because if it's not freely available then it must be saved for their families. Or taken for their families. The balance of power without weapons is based almost entirely on physical size and strength, or some form of unarmed fighting technique, which most Americans do not have. But if a ninety-pound woman has a firearm, then a two-hundred-pound man can no longer take her food from her, unless she gives it freely. Of course, in order for it to act as an equalizer, she needs to know how to use it confidently. She must have practiced with it in times of peace, when others might consider her “mentally unstable”, so that it is available for her if/when she needs it.

Speaking historically again, we live in the safest time period ever recorded, which is why I don't really understand people who talk about how things are getting “so out of control”. Violent acts only make the news because they are so rare, in terms of percentage. Most people I know have never had a violent act committed against them, and even those that have experienced violence have lived in safety for the vast majority of their lives. Violent seem prevalent simply because there are so very many of us.

I think the thing that bothers me the most is that people don't seem to care about being self sufficient anymore. Their argument is based on fear, but this is contradictory to what they say they want. If we rely on others, i.e., the government, to meet our needs, then we are no longer able to meet our own needs. What would happen if we stepped outside the realm of government protection? What if the government collapsed, or we were invaded by another country and everything were thrown into chaos? What if the government continued to become more powerful and decided we didn't need the things it was supposed to provide? I grant that these scenarios are not likely, but they are possible. And the more we give away our rights, the more we give up our control to others, the more likely they become.

Our forefathers wanted us to be prepared to hold a revolution. They had personally experienced a government with too much control, and they wanted to prepare us to win our freedom again if need be. If they were to see us now, constantly dependent upon others to meet our most basic needs, I think they would be disgusted. They would be disgusted at not only the way we need to be taken care of, as adults, but also the way we are raising our children to do the same.

I believe that even if you choose not to own a gun, you should learn how to properly care for one. Know how to load and unload it, know how to clean it, and know how to fire it. Be able to ascertain that a gun is unloaded. And teach your children proper gun safety, too, even if you think they aren't in contact with guns, because you never know what they will discover at a friend's house. Knowing safe procedures cannot possibly cause worse damage than knowing nothing and doing it anyway.

Believe me, I get it. The guns of today are not the same as the firearms used when the second amendment was written. But when we're talking about using them as an equalizer, and being prepared to revolt if need be (however unlikely it seems right now), why would we want to place all the power in the hands of the very people we might need to defend ourselves against? The only reason I can think of is because we've chosen safety over freedom. That is not the choice I would make, for me or for my future children, and it is not the foundation on which this country was built.

Better to focus on helping people not want to hurt or kill others – because, I'll say it again, criminals don't follow the law. Antisocial behavior is the hallmark of someone who needs help, not a well-adjusted person. Therefore, rather than trying to limit the freedoms of honest, well-meaning citizens, we should be trying to help the mentally-unstable become stable. It's a lot more difficult than just taking away all the guns, but it will lead to a healthier society all the way around.

My experience with children has shown me that the easier way is rarely the right way. For example, spanking a kid might get them to comply with you in the short term, but it also leads to more violent behavior and lack of respect for authority (because fear is not the same as respect). Children who regularly experience corporal punishment tend to follow the rules only when an authority figure is present, or, in more extreme cases, when they are so cowed by fear that they are psychologically damaged. Punishment and reward systems, in general, consistently devalue the very behaviors we wish to encourage. And yet, these are the easier ways to parent (at least in the short term), and so they are commonly implemented. But these methods are only effective in the short term, and cause exactly the opposite of the desired effect, in the long term. Then people wonder why so many adults are in therapy; why people have violent and antisocial behaviors; why people hurt, and why they hurt each other.

And this is the model we are trying to implement with adults? Because it works so well with the children, right?

No. The easy thing is rarely the right thing, and gun control is no exception. In this matter we seem to be a nation of cowards – we need to man up and do it right. And the place to start is by helping people raise this generation of children to be mentally healthy. This happens in homes, yes, but it should be happening in schools, too. We need to provide resources for people who are at their wits' end raising children alone, or while struggling with their own issues. We would need to study “the system” extensively in order to develop such a plan, but I feel confident that it could be done – if we are willing to try. If we are brave enough to give the new system some time to work. If we are willing to take some control of, and some responsibility for, our own protection and defense.

I am, but I can't do it alone. If the majority of Americans would rather be safe than free, at some point our children, or their children, won't be either one.

Sympathy and Outrage Make People a Little Crazy...

I will not deny that the recent shooting at the elementary school in Connecticut was a terrible, terrible tragedy. All shootings are tragedies and doubly so when children are affected – whether it be violence against them, their friends, or those on whom they depend. Nevertheless, some of the things I've seen posted on Facebook, in shared sympathy, are kind of ridiculous.

One person suggested that companies should not launch any funny or lighthearted advertising campaigns this weekend, because “now is not the time”. I understand not wanting to diminish the pain of the people who are trying to deal with what happened, but there really isn't anything we can do to make it better. It's over and done with, and even though they'll be living with the results for a long time, there's nothing we can do to retrospectively prevent it. Taking away anything that could possibly cause laughter would only serve to bring the rest of us down, too. Besides, they'll be depending on the emotional support of people they know and love. The rest of us are strangers and I'm sure they could care less if we go on living our lives. I guarantee they aren't thinking about strangers right now.

And who knows? Maybe some of them will need a little break from all the heartache and a funny commercial could help them get through this horrible time. I believe that we, as strangers, have no right to impede on their personal tragedy. Who are we to say what would make their suffering better or worse?

The other thing I've seen is regarding gun control laws. No one has specified exactly what it is they would like to see changed or tightened, but I personally would ask for caution on this particular topic. The right to bear arms was built into our constitution so that honest citizens could protect themselves from criminals and from overbearing governments – it is the one freedom which guarantees all other freedoms – if we (meaning honest citizens) have the guts to use it when necessary.

This seems like common sense to me, but maybe people don't realize that criminals, by definition, break the law. Any gun control law - any law at all -  can only govern the way honest people act. I don't profess to have a perfect solution, but no action is better than counterproductive action. Making it more difficult for “good” people to get guns will limit their ability to protect other innocents from “bad” people.

I think the best thing we can do to protect ourselves and our children is learn how to identify and neutralize a potential threat. That defense takes many forms. Early identification of mental health issues and providing parenting support to families are incredibly important. (Research showsthat for every tax dollar spent on early childhood education, up to thirteen dollars are saved later, because those children are far less likely to end up in the penal system, or to depend on government assistance.)

Of course, sometimes issues aren't due to a lack in the person's upbringing, but rather an imbalance of chemicals in the brain, or some trauma that caregivers were unable to prevent. It's probable that there are other reasons for mental instability leading to dangerous anti-social behavior.

That's where other forms of defense come into play. Knowledge of self defense techniques and a reasonable amount of vigilance can help us change the odds if a terrible situation comes up. Even if the techniques are never used, the confidence brought by knowing them can help keep people from panicking, and they might be able to make more effective choices. I don't assume that my ideas would prevent every single tragedy from occurring (in fact, I think some tragedies will occur no matter how well we protect ourselves), but I think they would be far more productive than the other ideas that I've seen floating around.