Moral Laws?

Earlier this morning, I heard the most ridiculous of statements. My philosophy teacher attempted to give us examples of how some governments try and provide us with laws that help us to be moral agents. She could come up with only two examples on the spot.

Laws against homosexuality and the act of making marijuana illegal.

I laughed and she asked why I thought it was funny. I told her that she should think of some different examples because the two she originally gave were really... bad choices. She didn't ask me to explain, but I feel the need to. So, I'll do it here.

Let us start with the easy one.

Homosexuality.

I'll be damned if they made laws against homosexuality because it teaches us to be "moral". Any laws made against homosexuality is only supporting a religion.

Tada.

Marijuana.

Marijuana was made illegal when the cotton industry felt threatened by the advancements hemp was making. You see, hemp can be used for many things. In fact, an acre of hemp can make just as much paper as 2.5 acres of trees. Hemp can be made into clothing. Hemp is also an herbal treatment that has been proven to reduce and even eliminate tumors. Many of the things we are taught in school, on television, and through the internet is that marijuana/hemp/pot makes you stupid and sterile and gives you cancer. Haha... ha. Wrong. It is all just government propaganda. Seriously. Take a look at some of the studies done in our own Virginia University in 1978. The study was shut down because it showed medical use for marijuana.

Like I said, she chose the wrong examples.

Women's Rights

This was brought to my attention a couple weeks ago, but I just got around to really thinking about it. A lot goes on in your mind when you sit through three philosophy classes a week. If you need some background information behind what I'm going to talk about here, you can check out the original post here:

http://www.thesarahpalinblog.com/2010/01/cbs-not-backing-down-on-pro-life-super.html

As a side note, before you read and try to tear me a new one -- I am pro-choice politically and personally anti-abortion. I don't think I would ever have an abortion, then again, I'm not in a pressured situation to choose; however, it is not my right to tell another woman what she can and cannot do with her body.

I support contraceptives.

I support sex outside of marriage.

I support women as sexual beings and having as much sexual freedom as men.

I believe that the Roe v Wade / Pro-life v Pro-choice debate is founded in one fundamental principle and a bullshit principle. The right to control one's own body is the fundamental principle and the bullshit one -- right to life of something that cannot claim right to life. Some may argue that it is a right to life (period) that stands next to the right to control one's own body, but that is untrue. One cannot claim the right to life if one cannot live on one's own. Let us assume, however, that it is a right to life, however, and not just a bullshit principle. If it were true that a person's right to life outweighed another's right to control their own body, there would be no such thing as organ doner waiting lists. Doctors could just go out the door, find someone with the same blood type, gank whatever organ they needed, and call it a day -- even if it risked the life of the person they are taking the organ from. Think about it, my analogy makes perfect sense.

If you would just like me to give a short abstract of the blog I'm speaking about:

Sarah Palin has made the claim that pro-choice and women right's groups (such as N.O.W.) are purely pro-abortion, don't empower women, and hold women back from realizing their full potential apart from being "sexed-up objects".

I'm calling bullshit, Palin.

Women’s Rights groups, like NOW, commendably call out advertisers and networks for airing sexist and demeaning portrayals of women that lead to young women’s diminished self-esteem and acceptance of roles as mere sexed-up objects.

True. Women's Rights groups do this, in fact, more people should do this; however, women's rights groups also fight for women to experience and have FULL sexual power over themselves. The most common double standard would be: If a man sleeps with ten women in a day, he is a player and is rewarded by society. If a woman sleeps with ten men in a day, she is a whore/slut and is looked down and ostracized by society. Why should this be acceptable? Women are just as, if not more, sexual than men. They find pleasure in sex. They deserve to be as sexual as they want to be.

What a ridiculous situation they’re getting themselves into now with their protest of CBS airing a pro-life ad during the upcoming Super Bowl game. The ad will feature Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mom, and they’ll speak to the sanctity of life and the beautiful potential within every innocent child as Mrs. Tebow acknowledges her choice to give Tim life, despite less than ideal circumstances. Messages like this empower women! This speaks to the strength and commitment and nurturing spirit within women. The message says everything positive and nothing negative about the power of women – and life. Evidently, some women’s rights groups like NOW do not like that message.

Wrong, Palin. Women's Rights groups can fully appreciate messages that say everything positive about the power of women -- however, that is NOT what this ad does. If this ad is pro-life, that means it speaks against abortion. Speaking against abortion not only diminishes the power of women, but completely destroys choices that they should have. It really doesn't matter when this ad features, who is in it, and why they are talking. That isn't really the message being sent. The message being sent is how immoral abortions are because it can eliminate "the beautiful potential within every innocent child". Messages like these lead to taking power away from women. If you really want to empower them, give them the choice to control their own sexual reproduction. Give them the choice to sleep with whomever they want and enjoy life as a SEXUAL BEING. If they weren't supposed to enjoy sex, why would we be bestowed with a clitoris. It serves no sexual importance, it is mere pleasure. Mrs. Tebow acknowledges her CHOICE to give life to Tim; she wasn't forced to, and I commend her for that, honestly and truly from the bottom of my heart; however, this doesn't mean that every woman will CHOOSE to give life and doesn't/shouldn't infer that all women would WANT TO CHOOSE or should be forced to choose to do the same thing Mrs. Tebow chose.

NOW is looking at the pro-life issue backwards. Women should be reminded that they are strong enough and smart enough to make decisions that allow for career and educational opportunities while still giving their babies a chance at life.

NOW looks at the pro-life issue just like everyone else does. The pro-life issue stands just as it always has, you can give it another name or give it another purpose now, but it still stands for the same thing it did when Roe v Wade first came about. Abortions are bad because it kills a child (fetus) and eliminates a life. I'd like to remind you that many abortions take place before the fetus can live on its own, making it (pardon my upcoming language) more or less a parasite. It needs the woman's body to live, it needs the food the woman eats and the air the woman breathes, the heat her body provides, and the protection from cold her clothing/skin/hair provides. Not to mention, no one can prove that it has a soul. Isn't this one of the biggest things behind your argument? It is a gift from GOD, right? It's eliminating not only a possible child, but a SOUL, isn't it? I'm calling bullshit again. Prove it. Prove to me a soul and I'll become a pro-lifer right away. The things is, Palin, you CAN'T prove it. No one can. Faith is that, just blind faith.

Women are reminded every day, by you, FOX news, pro-life bloggers, acts of violence against those who have chosen abortion and abortion clinics that they can give life. That isn't a secret. Women know they can have children, it happens every day. And women who have children are FORCED to balance their children and education/jobs. I won't say career because you have to dedicate yourself to a career -- when you are a career woman, you don't have time to see your children; maybe you do, Palin, but that isn't an option available to the every day woman. Women don't need to be reminded how AWESOME they are by taking away their ability to control their own bodies.

In my own home, my daughter Bristol has also been challenged by pro-abortion “women’s rights” groups who don’t agree with her decision to have her baby, nor do they like the abstinence message which she articulated as her personal commitment.

I'm not going to say anything about if Bristol has been challenge about her decision to have her child, I honestly don't know. Until I see the emails she has received or the people who have sent them, I can't form an opinion on it. I can see that Pro-Choice groups may challenge her on WHY she chose to carry her pregnancy to term. Did she do it for herself or for you? You are a devout pro-lifer and she is underage to get an abortion without parental consent. Could it be possible that you refused to give her the option? Yes. Could it be possible that she chose to do it for herself? Yes. As for the abstinence message she has "articulated as her personal commitment" -- maybe she should have committed herself a little sooner? Or maybe, JUST MAYBE, we should give women free reign over their sexuality, promote contraceptive use, and allow them to explore a world that has been closed off to them for so long. The world of sexuality as personal expression, not as baby-making. Sex as enjoyment, not as a duty to preserve the human race. If she really was committed to abstinence, she wouldn't have had a child. She obviously wasn't. And now we have to question why she chose to say it now.

NOW could gain ground and credibility with everyday Americans, thus allowing their pro-women message to be heard by more than just their ardent supporters, if they made wiser decisions regarding which battles to pick.

Which battles are those, do you think? Should they pick and choose when to assert the message that women should have the right to control their body?

"Oh, they are airing a message that speaks directly against abortion, thus directly against a woman's right to choose what to do with her body and when... Meh, we'll let it slide."

Maybe pro-lifers should also make wiser decisions regarding which battles to pick. Do you recall the amount of threats and names a woman was called when she spoke on her twitter about aborting a three week old fetus? She had hundreds of comments calling her a baby-killer, a murderer, and even threats against her life. What about the senator who supported pro-choice movements and the threats he received against his life. It was posted all around the internet.

They should call attention to and embrace the Tebows’ message, instead of covertly and overtly disrespecting what Mrs. Tebow, Bristol, and millions of other women have chosen to do (in less than ideal circumstances).

I do not and cannot question that many pro-choicers supported the Tebow's story. She chose to have a child, despite the odds, and they are living a wonderful life, however, as I've stated: This commercial isn't just their story. It is an agenda to perpetuate the right-wing Christian, pro-life, anti-contraceptive movement.

My message to these groups who are inexplicably offended by a pro-woman, pro-child, pro-life message airing during the Super Bowl: please concentrate on empowering women, help with efforts to prevent unexpected pregnancies, stay consistent with your message that for too long women have been made to feel like sex objects in our “modern” culture and that we can expect better in 2010. But don’t let your double standard glare so vividly as to undo some of the good to which you could contribute.

Do you not hear yourself speak/see yourself type? Women's Rights Groups are obviously not offended by pro-woman messages. What do you think they stand behind? They ARE concentrating on empowering women. Women can only be empowered when they have the option to choose. How can they be empowered if they are FORCED into doing something. There is no empowerment in taking away choice; only heartache, pain, and anger. Another movement of Women's Rights Groups is to make sure access to information OTHER THAN ABSTINENCE is available to them; information such as contraceptives. These prevent pregnancies, yet many pro-lifers are strictly against them. Why? It allows women to explore sexual life without consequences. They don't have to wait for a committed man to engage in intercourse because they don't have to worry about pregnancy.

They have done nothing but stay consistent with their opinion that women should be respected more than sex objects -- however, they also support women in exploring their sexuality whenever they want, however they want, and be able to protect themselves while doing this by using contraceptives (such as condoms and birth control). As I've stated, eliminating the choice a woman has over her body not only keeps her repressed (the opposite, really, of empowerment), but will change the view of women as sex objects to women as baby-makers, all over again.

And CBS: just do the right thing. Don’t cave. Have the backbone to run the ad.

They can run whatever ad they want. But if you think CBS should run an ad that is blatantly pro-life and that pro-choicers should shut their mouths about it, then we can expect the same if CBS runs a pro-choice ad. That would never really happen, will it? CBS would be bombed before that would happen.

To the Tebows: thank you. America is listening. We appreciate you.
- Sarah Palin

There it is, folks! Sarah's wonderful plan to empower women by repressing them. If someone can explain how that would ever realistically work, please, explain.

Another point I'd like to ask about, if you could also explain this.

Why are pro-lifers pro-life? Why would someone be so adamant about making a woman carry a pregnancy to term if they are also limiting the availability of contraceptives and sexual health information?

It is mainly religion, is it not? When pro-lifers speak, some of the first words you hear are: SOUL, BIBLE, and GOD. The fetus has a soul from conception. The bible says it is immoral to have sex for any other reason than copulation. And God is amazing, blah blah blah.

Prove to me a soul. Prove to me a God. And prove to me that the Bible is the sole source of moral and immoral. You can't do it. Period.

THE COUNTRY OF AMERICA IS FOUNDED ON CHRISTIANITY!

Wrong. The country was founded by protestants who wrote INTO THE CONSTITUTION that State and Religion should never cross. Why? Because they were tired of religion being forced onto them and for being ridiculed for religious choices. Why would they want to do the exact same thing to others that they were escaping from themselves? If they wanted a country founded on religion, they would have written in that the USofA is a Christian country and everyone has to be Christian and the laws have to be found in the Bible. That didn't happen, did it?

You may argue "what about why murder is illegal?" Because it has a utilitarian view. We can't be productive if we run around killing people and we are infringing on other's right to live, not because God said it was bad.

And if you want to go on and on about the bible and God and how right everything is in it and people that follow it are morally bankrupt we should just start fresh, right?

Rape -- legal.

Unjust punishments -- a-okay.

Child Labor -- 110% acceptable.

Education for women -- laughable.

Women with political power -- impossible.

Holy Wars -- Fuckin' amazing.

Bears eating children -- pretty awesome.

Masturbation -- smite-worthy.

Women being traded for money and political power for the family in which she came from -- damn straight.

That's the way to an awesome country, isn't it?

In Light of Recent Debates

One of the biggest things being discussed right now is the health care shenanigans. With the passing of the bill and the "tea-baggers" gaining political control; everything seems to be... so blown out of proportion. Everyone is following blindly and won't stop to think for themselves -- the right-wing spews its lies, the left-wing hides in the dark; the people pick a side and engage in debate when they have no idea what is going on.

Socialized health care will make us a pure communist country, won't it? No. No it won't.

Socialized health care will hang grandma up to dry, won't it? No. No it won't.

Socialized health care will increase taxes so much that no one will be able to afford anything, won't it? No. No it won't.

Government propaganda has so taken over situations that people can hardly think for themselves. Our democracy is a mess. Our people have gone beyond stupidity. Our country is no longer a super power and it would take a COMPLETE overhaul to fix the system.

And no. It isn't Barack Obama's fault. He just came into office, for god's sake, how could he single-handedly destroy everything in a little over a year. I almost wish McCain had won the election, then it would be the republicans' fault, wouldn't it?

Let's all just take a second to look at the downfalls of a purely (though we don't have one) democratic/free market society:

1) The rich will just keep getting richer.

Some people say that there is a flow of money. Everyone gets money, everyone spends money, someone else gets the money, they spend it, and it goes to someone else -- so on and so forth; however, this idea is unbelievably false. Take a look at the economic super powers we have in the United States -- the Walton Family for instance. Say, they only had 100 dollars. They export fifty of that to... China. They receive fifty dollars worth of product which they sell for 1000 dollars. They take that 1000 dollars, send it to China and receive 1000 dollars worth of product which they sell for 10,000 dollars. The cycle keeps going and they keep getting richer.

2) Power will never be with the people.

In a democratic society, the people are supposed to be the will behind the government, right? They are supposed to give and take power from the government as they please; controlling the government in a way they believe is right and beneficial to the society, correct? When have you ever seen this happen? The government is controlled by money. Government is supported by large corporations and their decisions are effected greatly by where this money comes from. They aren't really looking out for us, they aren't trying to do what is best for us. Why, then, do they support oil so strongly -- giving tax breaks and allowing drilling in areas where wildlife once lived? Because we like oil? Because destroying nature as it is is important to us? Because it is right? No. Because the oil companies have money and if the government doesn't grant certain royalties to the companies, they don't support them with money and if they aren't supported -- they won't get elected. Television advertisements aren't free. Traveling from state to state during a campaign trail isn't free. It all costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and it definitely doesn't come from their pockets. We don't control the government, they aren't looking out for us.

3) Many people follow parties blindly and will accept anything for truth.

Top story! Health care! It WILL KILL GRANDMA. And she won't even get a funeral -- what, Palin didn't mention that, not only will they EUTHANIZE the elderly, they will also cremate them without the family's consent and toss the ashes in a LARGE MASS GRAVE!?!? THE HORROR! And don't get me started on the PUBLIC OPTION! That is democrat for TAXES SO HIGH you won't be able to afford food, let alone a house, car, television, cell phone, iPod, iPad, laptop, designer jeans with holes in them, or StarBucks. Now that is a shame, and all lies. Can you believe it? Lies. Propaganda. Story telling at its finest. Do you know what the public option would allow for? It means that you, as a United States Citizen, would have the choice to receive free health care in a declining economy. You would be able to take your child to the hospital regardless of your employment position. Do you know who paid the republicans to fight against the public option? Insurance Agencies. Do you know why? If people can receive FREE health care that offers the same standard of health care that insurance agencies offer now, why would they want to pay for it? They wouldn't. Which means, to compete, Insurance Agencies would have to greatly increase the standard of health care or lower their prices, which means (either way) they would lose money. And they don't want to lose money. I've read the bill (before it was passed) personally, it never mentioned euthanasia. Do you know what it said? It said that doctors would have to, when speaking to patients, inform them and discuss with them options if they went into a coma, got into an accident, had a heart attack and then went into a coma, were bedridden due to illness and old age -- among these options are life support which leads to the discussion of the extent of life support. It would also include not having life support, if the patient so chose. But rather than looking at this information themselves, people read Sarah Palin's blog and decide that the public option and socialized health care will destroy the economy.

How far must we fall until people think for themselves?