I'm not all that political. I mean, I dabbled in my youth, as many of us do. But then life got in the way. When your day is spent changing diapers, singing lullabies, and getting spit up on, you care a little less who the president is.
This election, however, has gotten me a bit riled up again.
Yes, I am pretty liberal; however, I can understand some conservatives' positions. I agree there's a lot of government waste, though I don't believe the solution is scrapping the programs altogether. I also agree that the--what is it, 50%?--inheritance tax seems like unfair double-dipping.
BUT...I truly believe that universal healthcare is important, and that it will end up paying for itself in the long run. I'm of a let's-get-the-heck-out-of-the-middle-east-and-then-maybe-we'll-have-some-money-left-to-take-care-of-our-own mentality. Do I want to leave the poor Afghani civilians whose country we've helped destroy high and dry? Not really, but it's not as if there's a lack of needy people right here.
My main issue, however--the one that means I'll be a democrat forever--is reproductive rights. There are a million other issues that are more pertinent to this election--oh, the economy, the war(s), jobs, healthcare, education--but as long as republicans make reproductive rights an issue, I can't put it second.
I am totally, 100% pro-choice. Does that mean I'm callously pro-abortion? Of course not. I cry when my cat kills a moth. Trust me, I respect life. (Which is also why I'm pro-gun control.) I understand and respect people who could never, ever have an abortion. I am fortunate never to have had to make that decision. But I know women who have--and it's never something they've taken lightly.
That's what bothers me most with the pro-lifers. They talk about how women getting abortions don't think about or understand the consequences. They want to force women to get ultrasounds beforehand, to undergo counseling, lectures, and waiting periods. It's all so insulting.
I'm sure there are some people who don't think it through; in most cases, I bet they're young girls who aren't mature enough to process the situation fully. Yet conservatives would want a young, naive girl to go through with the pregnancy. And then what? She's going to give the baby up to a childless and loving couple for adoption? More often than not, this poor girl is going to take one look at the infant she just went through hell to birth, fall in love, and want to keep it.
So now there's a 16-year-old girl trying to raise a baby. She probably drops out of school, maybe goes on welfare, maybe doesn't have the maturity necessary to be a good mother. Very possibly the child suffers for it. This costs the country way more than an abortion would.
Yes, I understand that it's a potentially viable life (but not yet--life means being able to survive on one's own). But abortion has been legal for decades, and restrictions are only going to cause problems. It's going to mean delays that result in later-term abortions. If one state passes parental-notification laws, for example? Well, then 14-year-old girls are going to spend time trying to hitch a ride to another, more lenient state, instead of getting it taken care of early in the pregnancy.
Yes, I'm sure there are women who get abortions cavalierly. And that is awful. But in most cases, I'll bet not carrying the baby to term ends up better than the alternative.
All I have to do is think back to my high school years. The notion of getting pregnant scared the hell out of me. Good thing I was a good girl and didn't allow for that chance. Fear kept me on the straight and narrow. But Reagan was president at the time, and the notion of restrictions--like parental notification--becoming law seemed possible. I remember thinking that if I got pregnant and had to tell my parents before being allowed an abortion, I would either run away from home or kill myself.
Melodramatic? Sure...but I was a teenaged girl. Teenaged girls are not known for their straight thinking. Hence why they shouldn't be mothers. Hence why they usually don't give their unplanned babies (that they can't take care of) up for adoption.
And don't even get me started on cases of rape, incest, or mother's health.
I'm sure I'm not the only girl who ever felt that way. Is that what we want? Restrictions aren't the answer. Education is the answer. Teen pregnancy and abortion are already down: we are on the right track. Better access to birth control--along with promoting abstinence (I agree that abstinence is ideal)--is the way to keep on that right track.
Also, can someone please explain to me why condoms are OTC and inexpensive but birth control pills are prescription-only and a fortune? Leave it to the boys? The only demographic less sensible than teenage girls is teenage boys. Great plan, U.S.A.
Please remember to vote, everyone.
Showing posts with label Reagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reagan. Show all posts
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Friday, April 8, 2011
Time Passages
I was in the car the other day, and "Little Miss Can't Be Wrong" by the Spin Doctors came on the radio. When the D.J. informed us listeners that the tune was from 1993, at first I just thought, "Oh, right, that was when I was living in Boston after college, before I moved to Manhattan." But then I did the math: "Holy crap, that was EIGHTEEN years ago!" Because, while it doesn't quite feel like yesterday, it certainly doesn't seem like almost two decades ago.
It got me thinking about how the passage of time feels so much different now that I'm getting older. I remember being, oh, fifteen maybe, and rolling my eyes whenever adults would say something stupid like, "Enjoy it while you can...before you know it, you'll be all grown up with real responsibilities!" Because back then, it seemed like it was taking forever to grow up. And now, of course, the years do seem to be passing by much more quickly.
But that's to be expected so it's no big deal. However, what I am having trouble wrapping my brain around is this:
When I was 15 years old, 18 years earlier was 1967, and the differences between 1985 & 1967 seem SO MUCH more extreme than the differences between 2011 & 1993. The confusing/disturbing/weird part is that I can't figure out why this is the case. Surely it can't only be because I actually experienced the years between '93 and '11, while I was either unborn or else a young child for most of the years between '67 and '85, can it? That just seems crazy. Perhaps it's because the changes in the world in the late 60s and 70s were so huge and important that it makes it feel as though 1967-1985 had to be more than 18 years.
Because think about it....
1967 was the Summer of Love, The Doors, Beatles, hippies, flowers in hair, Vietnam War, and protests.
The following 18 years were incredible: Students were shot at Kent State, the Vietnam War finally ended, the Women's Rights Movement took off, abortion was legalized, Watergate happened, there was the Three Mile Island incident, the arms race with the Soviets escalated, and punk co-existed with disco...just to name a few monumental events.
Now let's look at 1985:
Madonna, Frankie Goes to Hollywood, day-glo, drug cartels, Reaganomics, New Coke, Live Aid, and Miami Vice.
So much changed in the world from the late 60s to 1985!
However, when I think of the 18 years following 1993, sure there were some important events that occurred--most notably the terrorist attacks of 9-11, cell phones, and the Internet--but in 1993, the U.S. was in a recession and we were mired in Middle East nonsense...and well, it's pretty much the same today.
I think what it comes down to is innocence. Back in 1967, it seemed like our country still had an aura of innocence about it. Although I wasn't yet born, everything I've read, watched, and listened to from that era has me believing that people generally felt as if everything would be okay. People were still optimistic about the world and about life.
Innocence was lost shortly thereafter. It was hard to remain optimistic in the face of civilian massacres in Vietnam (and at home), the Charles Manson murders, and numerous rock star O.D.s. By 1985, forget it: Cynicism and pessimism ruled. We'd become a suspicious, untrusting nation.
But in 1993, innocence had already been lost, so there wasn't that same monumental change taking place in the 18 years following. We just went from pessimistic to pessimistic again.
Or maybe it just seems this way because I'm getting old and delusional. Who knows?
It got me thinking about how the passage of time feels so much different now that I'm getting older. I remember being, oh, fifteen maybe, and rolling my eyes whenever adults would say something stupid like, "Enjoy it while you can...before you know it, you'll be all grown up with real responsibilities!" Because back then, it seemed like it was taking forever to grow up. And now, of course, the years do seem to be passing by much more quickly.
But that's to be expected so it's no big deal. However, what I am having trouble wrapping my brain around is this:
When I was 15 years old, 18 years earlier was 1967, and the differences between 1985 & 1967 seem SO MUCH more extreme than the differences between 2011 & 1993. The confusing/disturbing/weird part is that I can't figure out why this is the case. Surely it can't only be because I actually experienced the years between '93 and '11, while I was either unborn or else a young child for most of the years between '67 and '85, can it? That just seems crazy. Perhaps it's because the changes in the world in the late 60s and 70s were so huge and important that it makes it feel as though 1967-1985 had to be more than 18 years.
Because think about it....
1967 was the Summer of Love, The Doors, Beatles, hippies, flowers in hair, Vietnam War, and protests.The following 18 years were incredible: Students were shot at Kent State, the Vietnam War finally ended, the Women's Rights Movement took off, abortion was legalized, Watergate happened, there was the Three Mile Island incident, the arms race with the Soviets escalated, and punk co-existed with disco...just to name a few monumental events.
Now let's look at 1985:
Madonna, Frankie Goes to Hollywood, day-glo, drug cartels, Reaganomics, New Coke, Live Aid, and Miami Vice.
So much changed in the world from the late 60s to 1985!
However, when I think of the 18 years following 1993, sure there were some important events that occurred--most notably the terrorist attacks of 9-11, cell phones, and the Internet--but in 1993, the U.S. was in a recession and we were mired in Middle East nonsense...and well, it's pretty much the same today.
I think what it comes down to is innocence. Back in 1967, it seemed like our country still had an aura of innocence about it. Although I wasn't yet born, everything I've read, watched, and listened to from that era has me believing that people generally felt as if everything would be okay. People were still optimistic about the world and about life.
Innocence was lost shortly thereafter. It was hard to remain optimistic in the face of civilian massacres in Vietnam (and at home), the Charles Manson murders, and numerous rock star O.D.s. By 1985, forget it: Cynicism and pessimism ruled. We'd become a suspicious, untrusting nation.
But in 1993, innocence had already been lost, so there wasn't that same monumental change taking place in the 18 years following. We just went from pessimistic to pessimistic again.
Or maybe it just seems this way because I'm getting old and delusional. Who knows?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)