EQUAL TIME: Letter From A Red State Mom
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is a letter sent to Phawker Gaydar Editor Aaron Stella by his mother, explaining her decision to vote for McCain despite her son’s attempts to convince her otherwise. Both agreed to Phawker publishing it along with a rebuttal. Astute readers will recall Sylvia Stella’s proud mom remarks and constructive criticisms in the COMMENTS section of Aaron’s Gaydar columns. She currently resides in Cullman, Alabama.
Dear Aaron,
I have read quite a bit on both Obama and McCain. I am voting for McCain. People fought and died for our right to vote. A vote is not a philosophical statement. It is a transfer of power. It is a pragmatic act to preserve, as much as possible under the circumstances, the common good and to limit the evils that threaten it. The vote can be used just as much to keep someone out of office as to put someone in. Ideally, one candidate would be viewed as the best choice. To my way of thinking, there is no “best” candidate.
In this election, the reality is that several unsatisfactory candidates will be elected. So I am using my vote to create what I believe will be the better outcome and to limit the damage. I disagree with Obama on a number of counts and/or am not convinced that he has a plan that can work. I feel he has contradicted himself saying he will do one thing and then saying he will do something else, when the 2 cannot co-exist (like the EFCA, I may have the letters wrong, that will make unions much easier to start in all companies and will cost employers much more money and cause many companies to have to send jobs overseas- Obama promises to sign this bill. But, he also says he will take away take tax benefits from companies that send jobs overseas. His plan for employees will end up making it so tough on employers that companies will end up either sending jobs overseas or going out of business.)
I feel McCain has a much more practical take on things and knows how both business and the government work and can make things happen. In reading the websites of both, I don’t see that much difference in certain issues. In others I see a vast difference. I think Obama is making some promises that will be impossible to keep. So I have looked into many areas about both candidates.
I have to say, in the final analysis, that I think this quote from JP II sums up things:
“Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination”. (Christifideles Laici, 1988)
I felt so sick when I was pregnant with you that I actually considered whether I could go through with an abortion because I didn’t know how I could possibly go through with the pregnancy. I obviously decided I could not get an abortion. I felt it would be wrong. Not because the Church said so. Because something deep inside me was very aware of you, alive, in there. It would have been no different to kill you before I saw your face than to do it now. I knew it was wrong. I had to persevere through the pregnancy. So, I know that going through a pregnancy that is intolerable (due to illness, due to any other reason, physical or psychological- even a pregnancy resulting from a rape) is so, so difficult. But the fact that we CAN do something about it does not mean that we SHOULD do something about it.
Well, I am going on and on here. Anyway, so I’m voting for McCain. I appreciate your sharing all that you did with me. I figure Obama is going to win. Especially after his 30 min ad before the World Series (by the way, congrats Philly!). But I still have to vote my conscience as do you. Love you!
-Mom
EDITOR’S NOTE: The Editor responds after the jump.
Dear Aaron,
I have read quite a bit on both Obama and McCain. I am voting for McCain. People fought and died for our right to vote. A vote is not a philosophical statement. It is a transfer of power. It is a pragmatic act to preserve, as much as possible under the circumstances, the common good and to limit the evils that threaten it. The vote can be used just as much to keep someone out of office as to put someone in. Ideally, one candidate would be viewed as the best choice. To my way of thinking, there is no “best” candidate.
Sure there is. One candidate has voted with George Bush 90% of the time. During George Bush’s tenure, we have seen a major attack on our homeland, we have gotten bogged down in two no-exit wars, a major American city was taken offline by a hurricane, the housing market collapsed and Wall Street melted down, all of which triggered a deep stateside recession, a global financial crisis and the gloomiest economic outlook since the eve of the Great Depression, we started torturing people in secret prisons and using the government’s awesome surveillance powers to spy on American citizens, and we have managed to completely squander whatever goodwill, admiration and respect the rest of the globe once had for America. A vote for McCain, is a vote for four more years of George Bush. Is not the repetition of the same behavior over and over again with the expectation of a different outcome the very definition of insanity? It is, according to Albert Einstein. That is why the only sane choice is Barack Obama.
In this election, the reality is that several unsatisfactory candidates will be elected.So I am using my vote to create what I believe will be the better outcome and to limit the damage. I disagree with Obama on a number of counts and/or am not convinced that he has a plan that can work. I feel he has contradicted himself saying he will do one thing and then saying he will do something else, when the 2 cannot co-exist (like the EFCA, I may have the letters wrong, that will make unions much easier to start in all companies and will cost employers much more money and cause many companies to have to send jobs overseas- Obama promises to sign this bill. But, he also says he will take away take tax benefits from companies that send jobs overseas. His plan for employees will end up making it so tough on employers that companies will end up either sending jobs overseas or going out of business.).
Man, this sounds like the farmer has convinced the turkey to vote YES on Thanksgiving. Businesses don’t like unions because it means they can no longer dictate terms of employment on a take it or leave it basis. THEY decide how much you work and how little you get paid. THEY decide how much health care you don’t get, how short your vacation is. And so they fight unions tooth and nail, often using disinformation, intimidation, violence and fear. The latter would include the threat of closing up the business or moving overseas. Sure unions sometimes go too far and become self-defeating, killing growth or aggravating management to the point they shut down and move operations elsewhere. But if you actually studied the data on this, you would find that the overwhelming majority of companies go out of business or move overseas because of piss-poor management decision-making, naked greed, and or felonious corruption. Remember Enron?
I feel McCain has a much more practical take on things and knows how both business and the government work and can make things happen.
By his own admission, McCain doesn’t really ‘get’ economics, and defers to his advisers on this matter. His chief economic adviser, Phil Gramm, is not only responsible for the de-regulation of Wall Street that lead to its recent meltdown, he declared that we are “a nation of whiners” and that all this talk of economic difficulty was just a ‘state of mind’. Tell that to the 9,000 people that used to have a job at Lehman Brothers, or the 2.5 million people that lost their homes this year, double the rate this time last year. Combine all this with McCain’s bizarre grandstanding during the The Bailout talks: the phony suspension of his campaign (instead of rushing back to D.C., he stayed in New York and did a Katie Couric interview) the call for postponing the debate (this is a steady hand? this is grace under pressure?), the big talk of rallying Congress to action (three days after McCain declared that he was optimistic that an agreement was reached his fellow Republicans in the House killed the bailout package) and then just showing up at the debates despite a vow that he would not debate until a deal was struck, and acting like none of this ever happened? THIS is the man you trust to get the economy out of the ditch?
In reading the websites of both, I don’t see that much difference in certain issues. In others I see a vast difference. I think Obama is making some promises that will be impossible to keep.
Surely you have heard the Obama campaign rallying cry of YES WE CAN. Well, its not just a slogan. It is informed by the united-we-stand-divided-we-fall premise this great democracy was founded on, along with an abiding belief that if the people come together and work towards a common goal, there is really nothing that is ‘impossible.’ Consider this, if I asked you two years ago, which one of the following do you think would be on the verge of winning the presidency a day before Election Day – A)The wife of the most popular Democratic president in recent memory with the full weight of the Democratic party machine behind her. B) The white, Republican war hero nominee with 30 years in the Senate. Or C) A young, black and largely unknown junior Senator from Chicago with a weird name and an exotic background. — which one would you pick? Not Obama. Of course, not. Nobody expected this, nobody predicted it, and the vast majority said it could never happen. And yet, here we are.
So I have looked into many areas about both candidates. I have to say, in the final analysis, that I think this quote from JP II sums up things:
“Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights — for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture — is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination”. (Christifideles Laici, 1988)
I felt so sick when I was pregnant with you that I actually considered whether I could go through with an abortion because I didn’t know how I could possibly go through with the pregnancy. I obviously decided I could not get an abortion. I felt it would be wrong. Not because the Church said so. Because something deep inside me was very aware of you, alive, in there. It would have been no different to kill you before I saw your face than to do it now. I knew it was wrong. I had to persevere through the pregnancy. So, I know that going through a pregnancy that is intolerable (due to illness, due to any other reason, physical or psychological- even a pregnancy resulting from a rape) is so, so difficult. But the fact that we CAN do something about it does not mean that we SHOULD do something about it.
I am sensing you are a single issue voter, and my guess is that when you get right down to it, your problem with Obama is that he is not Right To Life. I can appreciate the profound moral weight you assign to this single issue, but, with all due respect, I think given the enormity of the crises facing our country, this is both irresponsible and unpatriotic. There has been a lot of reckless talk about patriotism from the McCain camp. But if ever there was a time to question someone’s patriotism, it’s when your country is so obviously headed in the wrong direction, and there is a surging majority joining together to try and get it back on track, while others stand by with arms folded, refusing to help, whether out of fear or anger or a single issue they have declared a deal-breaker. Sometimes I wonder about those people. Obama supporters are full of disagreement and dissenting viewpoints, but have all put aside our pet issues for the time being because the need for change is so dire. This country is broken, and we need everyone to roll up their sleeves and fix it. Come lend a hand, Sylvia, it’s not too late.
Well, I am going on and on here. Anyway, so I’m voting for McCain. I appreciate your sharing all that you did with me. I figure Obama is going to win. Especially after his 30 min ad before the World Series (by the way, congrats Philly!). But I still have to vote my conscience as do you. Love you!-Mom
![[Digg]](http://cdn1.diggstatic.com/img/favicon.a015f25c.ico){kind=small}
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Phawker.com's
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:00 am
This should have been six words long, “I vote the abortion issue only.”
And for a mother to deploy a culture war volley against her own son by suggesting the “what if I murdered you” scenario is also kind of fucked up and sick. Or, basically totally in line with everything we’ve seen from this woman so far.
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
All-
My letter to Aaron was a quickly written email summarizing the result of many hours of research, conversation and debate on the candidates so I could let him know my decision. I had hoped no one would have a knee jerk reaction to reading the pro-life statements. (Hope? Nope!) Why do some people immediately assume that if you are pro-life, you must be a one trick pony? Please, don’t subscribe to such prejudice! As it happens, I am far from a single issue voter. In fact, the abortion issue was the very last one I looked at in all of this! I tried to educate myself on the issues. I considered voting for Obama during my research of the past several months. As it turns out, I don’t think either candidate is a great bet. But I think McCain is a little better, more experienced, and, tipping the balance for me, there is the pro-life agenda. It does not change those things about him that I do not like. It’s just that he has that to add to the mix, whereas Obama has a view and intentions I believe are wrong. A quotation:
“As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is
not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that
involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may
legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.”
Also, I think the situation our country is in is no more the sole fault of the president than it is yours or mine. Yes, the President has the power to influence some things. But especially during election years, he becomes everybody’s fall guy. Suddenly EVERYTHING is his fault. I think there are many complex issues that have contributed to the state of affairs.
Here’s another quote:
“The economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way
to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God’s creation. Employers contribute
to the common good through the services or products they provide and by creating jobs that
uphold the dignity and rights of workers—to productive work, to decent and just wages, to
adequate benefits and security in their old age, to the choice of whether to organize and join
unions, to the opportunity for legal status for immigrant workers, to private property, and to
economic initiative. Workers also have responsibilities—to provide a fair day’s work for a fair
day’s pay, to treat employers and co-workers with respect, and to carry out their work in ways
that contribute to the common good. Workers, employers, and unions should not only advance
their own interests, but also work together to advance economic justice and the well-being of all.”
I personally “roll up my sleeves”, not through political activism, but by working with Relay For Life (American Cancer Society) and United Way (which funds community-based initiatives to build stronger communities…stronger communities make a stronger country) both of which I am given time to do by the manufacturing company (a good corporate citizen) for which I work, and both of which do not miss a beat, but do their jobs quite well regardless of who is or is not President of the United States.
Regarding Deeney’s interpretation of my pregnancy experience as a “culture war volley”, I believe you misunderstand me. I like to share myself, who I am, by relating relevant personal experiences, especially in weighty matters like this about which many folks have perhaps more opinions than they do experiences. My very traumatic pregnancy experience was not something to be shared with Aaron by saying someday, “Oh, by the way, did I ever mention to you…?” On the other hand, this discussion of who to vote for, and why, was the perfect situation in which to share it. It says something about why I think what I do in relation to this election. It exerts no power of manipulation on him. It is about me, really. Not about him. He knows that. I want you to know that about me too! Aaron can be who he is because he has been positively influenced and supported by others who are who they are. The good Lord made each one of us unique and that’s something I (we) celebrate! Thanks for reading this stuff and weighing in with your own opinion! So, we disagree. Hey, that’s what makes the world go round!
No, I never had an abortion. But I have known many who have. During my college days, I was a board member of Planned Parenthood of Southwest Florida and a co-founder of the Zero Population Growth chapter in the area too. I was also very active in environmental work. Well, I still am involved in environmental work, now through my association with the (OMG!) automotive industry, promoting interest in and information about ISO 14001 (international environmental standards), which is a small part of my job. (By the way, I work for a non-unionized company that is concerned about its employees and provides good benefits, many that it does not have to at all, but it provides them anyway!) About the environment, here’s another quote:
“As stewards called by God to
share the responsibility for the future of the earth, we should work for a world in which people
respect and protect all of creation and seek to live simply in harmony with it for the sake of
future generations.”
And I have tempered my views about pregnancy and abortion. And the thing that Aaron knows about me, that you do not, is that I believe everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. I also believe that controversy is good. It would be a dull, non-progressive, Twilight Zone-ish world if we all agreed. In fact, it is being confronted with another’s views, views that differ from mine, that inspires me to reinvestigate my own views. As I live and grow and experience more of life, I often find that my views change.
You know (well, you probably don’t), but when you get to be whatever age you once considered to be “old”, it turns out that inside you are still the same person you were when you were in your 20′s or 3M’s. The way you express who you are may have changed, but the basic person is the same. I have often told my kids that some day, if I live that long, when I am a little old lady shaking my cane at those with whom I disagree
, please remember that inside I am the same person you know today – I just look different on the outside. So all this is to say that the very things within me that led me to search for what was “the right way” (Buddhist, Christian, Ethical Culture Society, whatever) when I was in my teens and 20′s, still leads me today to keep growing and changing and searching to find the truth (yes, I believe there is truth- it is not all relative). And one of the best ways to engage in that adventure is to talk, to listen, to discuss, to debate, to stir the pot.
Well, that’s what I’ve done. And I hope it will inspire some readers to ponder more deeply the views they hold so they can hold more fast to them or let go and embrace something new.
God bless you!
-Mama Stella
(whose mother used to quote “To thine own self be true”
and
“Truth is stranger than fiction”)
The quotations were from
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
A Call to Political Responsibility from
the Catholic Bishops of the United States
issued November 14, 2007
I told Aaron, but I should tell you too,
that a few of the lines in my original e mail to Aaron
were taken from some writings of Fr. Frank A. Pavone,
National Director, Priests for Life
because they expressed so well just what I wanted to say.
Okay now, I need to get back to watching Saturday Night Live’s pre-election show…
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:38 pm
They have websites for this sort of thing, Stella:
http://www.livejournal.com/
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Oops! I forgot to address the issue of unions. I never said I was anti-union. Workers should and do have the right to form unions. But the EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act) would weaken or erode certain things that I feel are very important. I am against the EFCA because I believe we need to protect workers’ privacy during organizing drives and guarantee every worker the right to vote in a private-ballot election; ensure that workers hear from both sides during an organizing drive and have time to reflect on their choice so they can make an informed and considered decision; and protect the right of workers and employers to bargain collectively without having government officials unilaterally impose employment contracts on them. That’s it! Do you disagree with me? -Aaron’s Mom
November 4th, 2008 at 3:31 am
Hey deeney, lay off. I don’t agree with her view either, but I think our editor has put her in her place, without going for the jugular. Your comments, on the other hand–temper temper deeney, is all I have to say. She has done her homework, and I think that is more than what more voters do, democrat or republican. And yes, you are free to interpret this as a son defending is mother, because frankly, it’s damn thoughtful of her to send me a letter like that, and I love her all the more for it.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“Dude, check out how fucked up my family is!”
“Yeah, your mom seems kind of fucked up.”
“LAY OFF MY MOM.”
Maybe you should consider how you’ve portrayed your family, Aaron, if you’re not comfortable with people coming to that conclusion, because I’m basing the mental image I have of her in large part on what you’ve written.
November 4th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
My bet is that Aaron’s Mom has done about twice as much research into these candidates as Deeney has. She also appears to have twice as much decency and amiability, and her remarks carry none of the knee-jerk venom and haughty disdain that characterizes most of what passes for reasoned argument on this site, whether from Mr. Deeney or from its editor.
November 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
You still hanging around since that Whitey Can’t Vote post, Dan?
And for the record, if you want to talk about unions, Deeney has taken American labor movement history classes at Columbia University, though you’ll almost certainly dismiss that as “valid research” or “scholarship” considering the only people who study at those big snooty east coast schools are liberal elitists and baby murdering communists.
November 4th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I disagree with you, Deeney. After your post, I went back and looked at Sylvia’s comments. I didn’t think she’s come across as anything but a supportive mom to Aaron in her comments – certainly not some crazy wingnut. I also don’t think he’s portrayed his family in any particularly negative light, except for his father…who clearly deserved the portrayal he got.
Just sayin’
November 4th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
That’s fair. Here’s how I read the initial post: it starts with a trojan horse about how informed the writer is about all the issues, making barely a nod towards the economy before starting to quote scripture and proselytizing about abortion. That’s what Aaron’s mother is and has been doing here; she’s taking an opportunity given to her by Valania to use Phawker as a soap box for her Christianity. I understand why Valania continues to post her letters; it adds a weird twist to the autobiographical material that Aaron writes that makes Aaron’s material more interesting — though in a very strange and occasionally cringe inducing way. Why Aaron wants his mother so heavily involved with the website he writes for is beyond me. But as a contributor and reader I’m asking myself, “Who fucking cares about Aaron’s mom and why am I reading another post from her about what Jesus wants for the world?”
No offense, Aaron, seriously, I have a mother who I vehemently disagree with on politics but the difference is you brought your mom here. The reason I don’t bring my mom on Phawker to rant about her loony neocon ideas is that I wouldn’t expect people to put up with that. I wouldn’t want someone else to call my mom a nut, but if I were to drag her into the public sphere and give her a podium that’s exactly what I should expect if the audience happens to be young and progressive.
This letter stopped being a letter to Aaron from his mom the minute it was posted on this site. Aaron’s presumably provided the letter to Valania, so one can assume that he wanted to see it posted here. At the point it was posted here it became an open letter to Phawker’s audience, and a piece of proselytizing propaganda at that. I don’t want Aaron’s mom’s Jesus taking away a woman’s right to choose. I don’t want Aaron’s mom’s Jesus overwhelming my city’s already completely fucked up child welfare system with unwanted babies from poor mothers who can’t afford to raise them now that Jesus by way of the Supreme Court says they have to keep them.
This is no joke, man, if in another 8 hours John McCain wins this thing you will likely see this happen within four years. I’m sorry, but the fact that this is Aaron’s mom and she seems like a nice lady is completely irrelevant.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
You know, it’s really sad that some people, as soon as you mention certain subjects, decide that you are not qualified to comment on them. I was not raised a Christian. It was a choice I made, as an adult, after many months and much study, reflection and thought. But now, some people react to the news that I am a Christian by declaring that my views are neither valid nor worthwhile because I believe them.
I don’t know how old some of you are, but I am old enough to have both studied about and been in unions as well as worked places with no unions. I was not commenting for or against them, but about the negative things that the EFCA would do to the process of union formation and bargaining and such things.
Also, I doubt that many poor moms are reading Phawker, much less being converted by my opinions, or Deeney’s.
As to being loony- well, I guess it is a matter of opinion. Same as for Deeney being loony! Matter of opinion.
All the rants in the world are not going to get rid of religion or of faith. If nothing else, consider all the faith-based groups that do so much for people in our country and in others around the world. Christians and Jews are not some drudges or drones, pulling the world down with out-dated philosophies. Quite the opposite.
It happens that this election deals with some high profile issues that are both political AND moral. So how could I ignore them?
I am a citizen and I have shared some of my views and why I came to hold them. I did it politely, tried to be interesting, if not entertaining, and hoped it would stimulate discussion- about the issues.
Oh- and I do not need Aaron to protect me. I am a big girl and I consented to the letter being posted, and for the express reason that I hoped it would draw various responses. Sometimes blogs like Phawker can be rather one-sided. A view from the “other side” can spice things up.
I used to be young. I am still progressive. Deeney, save this and look at it 20 or 30 years from now! Will your views count, be valid, be worthwhile, when you are 40, 50, 60, 70 years old? Just in case you live that long, you might want to help make a world now that will respect you and your views later.
To everyone who has posted less volatile comments, I hope you have enjoyed the exchange of ideas. Let’s hear what you think about the issues- and why…
Thanks for your time!-Sylvia
November 4th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Wow, it’s too bad this fellow above (deeney) has little-to-no consideration for the emotions of other individuals. Just because this is the internet does not give anyone license to treat people disrespectfully. There’s a word for that — “trolling” — created specifically with assholes like the one above in mind. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. End of conversation.
November 4th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
I have skimmed all of the above and I am surprised to find no mention of Gov. Palin. If McC wins, he will be the oldest president at the time of his inauguration (72). If he were to die in office, or otherwise be unable to serve, then Gov. Palin would become president. In my view, she is scarcely qualified. Yes, she has administrative experience as governor (for 2 years) of a state that has approximately the population of Charlotte, NC (630,000 more or less). She has no experience at the national level and in her few interviews, she has shown herself to be ignorant of international affairs. Gov. Palin is also hostile to science. She believes, for example, that creationism should be taught along side of modern evolutionary theory. I believe that she also is in favor of abstinence only (not even abstinence plus) sex ed. In short, McC’s pick of Gov. Palin makes Bush I’s choice of Dan Quayle seem inspired. So, for me, along with all sorts of reasons to vote for O and against McC, I want to suggest that Gov. Palin’s inexperience and ignorance is yet another reason to vote Democratic. I am not impressed by the fact that one can see Russia from Alaska.
Lewis (Sylvia’s bro, Adam’s [i.e. Aaron's] uncle
P.S. Sylvia, — looking forward to seeing your this T’giving. — L.
November 4th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Yes, the thought of Palin as President has been a scary one. I have often thought, watching the spoofs on Sat Nite Live, that Tina Fey might do as well! But Obama is not all that experienced himself. Certainly, much more than Palin. But this particular presidential election year has not turned out the caliber of candidates we have had in the past. I almost wish Hilary had won for the Democrat nomination. Well, it’s a sorry state of affairs when people feel they have to vote for “the lesser of 2 evils”. I have felt that way for the past couple of elections for sure.-Sylvia
November 5th, 2008 at 12:26 am
Well, no great surprise. Congrats Obama supporters!
November 5th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Sylvia mentions her respect for other people opinions. Do you know, that if the choice of whether to have an abortion or not is taken away, that hardly respects my opinion. It’s a your way or the highway ruling. Choice doesn’t mean you have to do it, it means others can if they want to.
And as a pro-lifer I am going to be sure to email you a request for money to help pay for my unexpected pregnancy and child, if it should happen. Not that I’m not being careful but things can happen. I’ll be sure to have you speak to my daughter about why she has to give up what little we can give her because now we have another mouth to feed. Oh, and also why we have to move to the ghetto because we can’t afford to live in a nice area any more. Because I can promise you we can’t live our life, stretched as it is, with another mouth to feed.
Of course there is abstinance. I’ll just tell my husband of nine years that we can’t have sex until I go through menopause in about 20 years. And I know about vascectomy and getting my tubes tied but if things change economically, we would totally love to have another child and since things could, we’re not really for surgery yet. I suppose we can abstain for a few years… take away a wonderful part of marriage, unless sex isn’t supposed to be something married people do except to have kids. Is sex only for reproduction? Does every person in America have to subscribe to that? That seems very harsh when the right to choose doesn’t make anyone do anything or give up anything they don’t want to.
November 6th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
You can only become pregnant during a few days of the month. There are ways to tell when you will be fertile; by tracking signs in your body or using an ovulation predictor (cost is about 40 cents per use-use several times a month). The rest of the time you do not need to abstain. Sex between husband and wife is not just for procreation.
As regards abortion, I found this tonight. I was unaware of this. (Am I allowed to post a link?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us_y9GP_-DA
November 9th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I wanted to respond intelligently (if not humorously) about those who have had that knee jerk response to my postings. I didn’t know how to word it, but I found what I feel will serve as an eloquent reply in a paper by Dr. Phillip Zimbardo, (written a few years before he was elected president of the American Psychological Assoc.). The words (below) in parenthesis were added by me.
How do we make sense of (Catholics, pro-life supporters, people over 50, Republicans, mothers…take your pick)? Typical explanations of all such strange, unexpected behavior involve a “rush to the dispositional”, locating the problem in defective personalities of the actors. Those whose behavior violates our expectations about what is normal and appropriate are dismissed as kooks, weirdoes, gullible, stupid, evil or masochistic deviants.
Such pseudo-explanations are really moralistic judgments; framed with the wisdom of hindsight, they miss the mark. They start at the wrong end of the inquiry. Instead, our search for meaning should begin at the beginning: “What was so appealing about this group …What needs was this group fulfilling that were not being met by ‘traditional’ society?”
Such alternative framings shift the analytical focus from condemning the actors, mindlessly blaming the victims, defining them as different from us, to searching for a common ground in the forces that shape all human behavior.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I wanted to respond intelligently (if not humorously) about those who have had that knee jerk response to my postings. I didn’t know how to word it, but I found what I feel will serve as an eloquent reply in a paper by Dr. Phillip Zimbardo, (written a few years before he was elected president of the American Psychological Assoc.). The words (below) in parenthesis were added by me.
How do we make sense of (Catholics, pro-life supporters, people over 50, Republicans, mothers…take your pick)? Typical explanations of all such strange, unexpected behavior involve a “rush to the dispositional”, locating the problem in defective personalities of the actors. Those whose behavior violates our expectations about what is normal and appropriate are dismissed as kooks, weirdoes, gullible, stupid, evil or masochistic deviants.
Such pseudo-explanations are really moralistic judgments; framed with the wisdom of hindsight, they miss the mark. They start at the wrong end of the inquiry. Instead, our search for meaning should begin at the beginning: “What was so appealing about this group …What needs was this group fulfilling that were not being met by ‘traditional’ society?”
Such alternative framings shift the analytical focus from condemning the actors, mindlessly blaming the victims, defining them as different from us, to searching for a common ground in the forces that shape all human behavior.
November 9th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I wanted to respond intelligently (if not humorously) about those who have had that knee jerk response to my postings. I didn’t know how to word it, but I found what I feel will serve as an eloquent reply in a paper by Dr. Phillip Zimbardo, (written a few years before he was elected president of the American Psychological Assoc.). The words (below) in parenthesis were added by me.
How do we make sense of (Catholics, pro-life supporters, people over 50, Republicans, mothers…take your pick)? Typical explanations of all such strange, unexpected behavior involve a “rush to the dispositional”, locating the problem in defective personalities of the actors. Those whose behavior violates our expectations about what is normal and appropriate are dismissed as kooks, weirdoes, gullible, stupid, evil or masochistic deviants.
Such pseudo-explanations are really moralistic judgments; framed with the wisdom of hindsight, they miss the mark. They start at the wrong end of the inquiry. Instead, our search for meaning should begin at the beginning: “What was so appealing about this group …What needs was this group fulfilling that were not being met by ‘traditional’ society?”
Such alternative framings shift the analytical focus from condemning the actors, mindlessly blaming the victims, defining them as different from us, to searching for a common ground in the forces that shape all human behavior.