Camelbak hydration packs: Worth every penny on a hot summer day.
Bike shoes: About the same price as regular shoes.
Helmets: Cheaper than a closed head injury.
Clif bars: 4 for $1 at Meijer.
Dedicating your bathroom to bike storage: Priceless!
Shall we call this piggy-backing, or leap frog?
I suppose, since I had a hand in fueling all this by responding to Robin’s blog, that I better defend on my position regarding abortion. Let’s take a look at Tim’s comment and my reactions:
T: I come down on Robin's side of this one. While I do agree that people in general should be held responsible for their actions, I think doing so in the case of an unwanted pregnancy causes more harm than good. It's a little trite, but there's been a great line thrown around: How can pro-lifers only care about the fetus UNTIL it's born, and not thereafter?
That’s an over-generalization, Tim, and you know it. Are you trying to tell me that only pro-choicers are educators, counselors, medical professionals, volunteers, etc. etc., many of whom dedicate theirs lives to helping children? I know you know that’s not the case.
T: Forcing a woman to bear a child for which she is emotionally or financially unprepared, or has been thrust upon her (pardon the diction) through rape or incest, is NOT a recipe for a healthy, happy, constructive childhood. Can the child overcome these things to go on and become a productive member of society? Certainly they could...but why should they have to? Shouldn't every child be wanted?
In the case of rape or incest, I want to agree with you. I would find it hard to want and love a child who was the result of something so horrible. If, however, a woman is not emotionally or financial unprepared to care for a child, why not consider adoption? For nine months of difficulty, a woman unable to care for her child can give that child a wonderful life with a family able and thrilled to provide it. I have personal experience with this, as my cousin was the child of an eighteen-year old mother who chose life for her, and chose my aunt and uncle as her parents.
Regarding your statement of, “Why should they have to?” I counter: why should they not have the opportunity? Why should we assume children from challenging backgrounds do not have the ability to fight their way to greater things? How many adults do you know who overcame apparently insurmountable odds to go on and make our world a better place?
T: I don't believe the government (who conservatives DON'T trust to get involved with properly distributing health care funds, administrating education, or making the right decisions regarding the legal status of cigarettes, alcohol, and other drugs) is best positioned to make a decision on behalf of an individual woman.
In the case of abortion, I don’t believe the government would be making a decision on behalf of an individual woman. I believe the government would be making a decision on behalf of a child who cannot make a decision for him or herself. So many laws are designed to protect minors, and while I understand pregnancy is a bit of a gray area because it directly, physically effects the mother, when we’re talking life vs. nine months, I choose to believe an entire life holds more weight.
T: However, I WOULD be willing to entertain the idea of eliminating abortion as a practice IF the government committed to providing full financial support for any child who would have been aborted, but was not because of the government's decree.
Would this be problematic? Hell yes. How do you differentiate between people who WOULD have gotten an abortion, and those who are only CLAIMING they would have for the sake of the "subsidy"? It'd be well-nigh impossible. Would this represent an enormous drain on the economy? Certainly.
But, if you're going to claim, as the government, that you know better than this woman what's right for the life of the child, despite NOT being aware of the financial, familial, and emotional context in which the child will be raised, I think you ought to put your money where your mouth is.
Would you consider, in the alternative, more funds and resources being focused on the adoption process? I’m not intimately familiar with the ins and outs of adoption, but that may be a more healthy option for the children. It would provide not only financial support, but a strong family structure and a sense of being wanted – none of which government funding can replace.
R: I largely agree.
Were you expecting that???? ;)
Seriously though, I have to keep telling people I'm not pro-choice as much as I am pro-individual freedom. As you point out, if I believe the govt. shouldn't get involved with forcing healthcare on everyone, or controlling our retirement funds, or telling us what we can watch on TV (and I do believe those things), then why should they decide what women do with their embryos? And I don't believe it's a "God mandate" that we should keep these people from going to Hell for killing innocent children, because a) I'm not the judge of that and b) What you do with your own unborn children is between you and God; I don't have anything to do with that relationship, nor should I.
Ryan, I like your take on this, but for reasons I covered in my responses to Tim’s comments, I think the issue of abortion is different than just a matter of telling us what to do or not do. I think we as a society do and should have something to do with the relationship between a parent and a child when a child’s well-being is at stake. That’s why we have laws against child abuse, after all.
R: However.
I think there are some reasonable limits that can be placed on when an abortion becomes unacceptable (such as, you know, first trimester in), for the simple reason that it encourages individual responsibility. How did partial-birth abortion come about, anyway? Someone was undecided whether or not to have a baby for nine months and suddenly came to a realization on the hospital bed? Frankly, I think if you haven't made a decision after nine months of pregnancy, well... you really have made a decision, haven't you?
My jury is still out on the idea of “reasonable limits.” While I see the practicality of saying, “Well, early-stage abortion might be OK in the case of rape, incest, or a medical emergency,” I can’t help but wonder if it’s right to exercise ultimate control over a human life: especially the innocent life of an unborn child. Is the mother’s level of comfort with her situation (i.e. rape or incest), or even the mother’s life (i.e. medical emergency) really more important that than of the child? I don’t know.
And now, some moderation: for better or worse, I believe abortion will remain legal in the United States. For me, it's not a huge factor in the political scene, but I would like to see some solid, legal limitations. For instance, partial birth abortion is cruel and wrong - I can't even comprehend a defense for it. Also, minors should not be able to get an abortion without parental consent; in most other legal issues, minors are not considered competent to make life-altering decisions, and I know abortion is life-altering for all involved.
I do believe that while pro-life citizens will probably not be able to change the legality of abortion, maybe they can help change things in a cultural sense. Rather than attacking abortion clinics or railing against the evils of abortion, maybe they can turn their efforts to the promotion of adoption. The impact of a positive, hopeful campaign can be long-lasting, especially when coupled with community education about adoption: the process, its benefits, etc. Maybe there are ways to make the adoption option more real and accessible in areas where abortion rates are highest. I could get behind that, and I daresay many pro-choice citizens could, too.
