The other day someone asked me if I was Pro-Choice or Pro-Life and my response was simple: I’m pro-condom. I mean even though the question was fair enough when in context, it reminded me of when people ask your blood type or government party or something. After a couple of rounds of “no, come on, really” prodding, I defended my opinion by stating a simple fact: in Connecticut, I have no say in the matter. As a male, I have no legal recourse to force or prevent an abortion, as women have complete control this decision. In fact, the only thing I can do – and by law, I am required to – is pay a minimum of $75 each month for child support, regardless of marriage, common law marriage, living situations, or employment status. This of course completely side steps the whole issue of abortion but that’s part of the point, actually, and it’s still the best possible argument to this quandary which is something I wish more people paid attention too: to me there’s nothing worse than listening to someone incorrectly argue their correct point.
The abortion example above is a rather convenient way to prove a point – I could have just as easily used the Red Sox shmucky fans that keep pointing to the Yankees and crying “they have a high payroll!” as to why the Yankees are so successful. That’s a piss poor attempt to win an argument. High payroll does help with championships but it’s hardly a guarantee or a requirement. Some teams have won with low payrolls (i.e. Angels, Marlins) and some high payroll teams haven’t won (i.e. Yankees). Besides, the Red Sox have only been a notch or two below the Yankees over the past few years with regards to the amount spent for players, yet they are still sucking wind and are almost second hat to the Bronx boys. Red Sox fans, get a clue: You have the same lame argument every year and it doesn’t work nor does it convince anyone to support your cause. Get some better facts and then you can combat other people in this area.
See what I mean? The wrong tactics can undermine your argument instead of supporting it. The abortion issue is a very good example of this: it’s a complicated question on many levels and certainly one of the muddiest dilemma of our age in both an ethical and moral way. The problem is that most of the advocates for both sides of this divide argue their point incorrectly and unsuccessfully.
OK, lets take a further step back: what in the hell are people still doing, protesting this whole thing for anyway? It’s their right to, obviously, but have ya ever wondered why? I mean, I can protest the fact that the grass is greener in the spring than it is in the fall because that is my right, but would that make sense to? We will all have our own opinions, obviously, but it’s quite another thing to be driven out of your house, screaming your opinion at rallies. Let’s look at that the whole point of publicly supporting either side of this, shall we? Where’s the protesters against murder of any living human when someone gets kill in a drive-by shooting? Where’s the protesters that rally against mothers that are too fuckin’ stupid to raise their own children and can’t drive a mini-van through rush hour traffic? Where’s the supporters for the families that refuse to use birth control and are an ever growing part of government debt and larger deductions of my paychecks? Where are the protesters that should be helping to promote birth control or abstinence rather than “post-sexual-clean-up is wrong”? Why does this argument even exist? Both sides should learn to live their lives and let other people find their own way.
There are people that have dedicated their entire lives to arguing either side of this argument. To these people I say get a real fuckin’ job and stop wasting your days away trying to get other people to live their lives in your image. That’s really what you’re doing: you’re trying to mold other people’s lives by your own beliefs or didn’t you realize that? One group is convinced that the right for a woman to rid herself of a fetus must be protected by the state and the other group is convinced that a woman is killing a human life but who’s to say that either is right or wrong? It’s just a difference of opinion. And what are the arguments supporting either side? Fucked if I know, but it’s all pretty moot to me. One wants a communist police state and the other wants… the same thing – both declare themselves as “just” and “right” because of their personal moral beliefs but they are both victims of the same crime.
Lets attack the Pro-Life’rs, because they’re easier for me to find flaw with. You state that the fetus is an innocent living creature and is being murdered, right? How much time have dedicated to supporting organizations that protect innocent animals from brutality? Animals act out of instinct and that makes them innocent by definition. None, I’m sure and why not? Aren’t you against killing innocent living creatures? OK, maybe it’s just humans. What have you done to combat crime, which kills infinitely more humans than abortions do? Too hard to do, eh? Also, if you’re Catholic, how does that play into this? After all, humans are by definition guilty of original sin until they are baptized so you aren’t saving innocent beings either. Further more, when was the last time you helped someone in a charity that wasn’t a part of your church? Stopped by the local Temple to drop off some good will? Not likely. And then there’s the de-facto anti-argument for the Pro-Life’rs: the protesters that are so blind in their cause that they go out and shoot doctors that perform abortions. Here’s a message to you fuck-wits: you’re guilty of the same crime that you’re protesting and no, your sniper shots and anonymous bombings are not righteous crimes – they are shameful acts of a coward and far worse than the acts of the doctor.
And the Pro-Choice’rs have just as many issues as the Pro-Life’rs; the rabid Pro-Choice’r are so wrapped up in the rights of the one that they’d give a reformed addict a fresh needle and some smack for old times sake because they believe the right exists. These shmo’s are just as guilty of imposing their lifestyle on others – they just don’t have a religion to back it up so they think they are more logical and secular. They’re just as deluded at the other side but they’ll never see it that way.
The point? Neither side can argue their case with the proper arguments because there will never be a way to properly settle this debate. If either side wins absolutely, we end up with the government having a bit too much power over life than it should: it either allows or prevents women from having the right to live their lives as they see fit to an end that cannot be determined by mortals. And in a world where resources are stretching pretty thin, there are far better things to invest time in. Amazing that a person will foam at the mouth in angst and fury to fight for what he cannot prove is so.
And they say that duality doesn’t have it’s place in today’s world. I’ll let you all know if I ever run for office.