Some men need to be women for one day

Some men need to be women for one day

I try to respect every religion probably more than they respect me since majority of them try to obtain more followers, some through dubious means not so long ago (Crusades, Saint wars, so on) as well as imposing their ways on the rest of us.

I think this idea of banning abortion comes almost in its entirety from Christian religions, whom believe life starts at the moment of conception. What I keep wondering myself is how can you say something is living if it doesn´t do it by itself?

At the moment of conception the fetus needs the mother to survive, and this keeps going on for several months, although  some babies survive birth from around 6 months onwards. This argument also links with the concept of Euthanasia, in my opinion if you need a machine to survive and there is no chance of you recovering I think that is not living, just postponing the inevitable.

But “life” definitions aside politicians and men specially should evaluate their positions towards abortion since women´s health is being negatively impacted by their proposals and that should be considered a violation of women rights and a clear act of discrimination by gender.

The reality is that many women need contraceptive pills to tackle health problems such as periods that are not regular o more serious issues that without care could develop in cancer or loosing the ability to have children. These women may or may not have sex, it is wrong to assume they are using these methods so they can have sex without getting pregnant when health is at stake. This argument goes to all people that attacked Sandra Fluke due to her appearance in USA Congress for explaining the economic struggle of a friend of hers because her mandatory pill was not covered in her health policy.

Other women need an abortion because their life is in peril due to the pregnancy. What would be the answer for those women? That religion is more important than their health just because they are women? I thought Jesus said to treat people as you would want them to treat you. And this is why I think male politicians should be women for a day, so they could check first hand how their religious agenda would impact their health and day to day life.

There is another proportion of women that use contraceptive methods so they can plan their careers and their family; in many cases these decisions are made together with their partner. If women can´t have control over their body we wouldn´t be better than cows or chicken stored in the farm to  “mass produce babies”. Abortion regulators seem to think is better having all the children that nature want to give instead of having them in a controlled way so we can provide for them, (forgive me if I don´t even consider the absurdity of the abstinence argument).

Taking or not contraceptives, this issue also impacts on all those women whom got pregnant through rape or incest and whom the trauma of the act itself should be enough if they want to stop the pregnancy. Among all the politicians saying that women need to carry to term any pregnancy by law , the ones that need my approach the most are those forcing rape and incest victims to have a child (Sharron Angle, Richard Mourdock, Rep. Paul Ryan  and others whom need a basic biology lesson like Todd Akin). I don´t wish harm to anyone but perhaps if they were women (to those whom are men), forced to have a sexual relationship and then forced go through all the psychological and physical consequences from having a child product of that act they would see the brutality of their ideas.

If they were women for one day and see how many health issues are linked to contraceptive products I can only hope they would see the unfairness of it all.


Takers were once makers

Is my understanding that Republicans believe in the “solo” approach, that every man is on its own and success will come if you work hard enough.This fuels the argument that the nation is becoming a nation of takers and makers.

I just wished life was so simple as that.

For the own sake of human society we should promote the idea that the majority of the people want to work and contribute, if not for anything else just to feel useful and get a feeling of accomplishment when they see their paycheck, I for one feel that way.

The reasoning Takers and makers is very dangerous and in my opinion wrong.

It gives the argument for division and confrontation within society thru the portrait of a portion of the people (as much as 47% according to Romney or a little less according to Ryan and I am sure another figures are being talked about conservatives in other parts of the world) just chilling waiting for a paycheck without doing anything and laughing at those people that are working instead. Thus the people that have a job would feel betrayed, used and somewhat angry at these “takers”.

The “working force” is being bombarded with suggestions that they are being used and fooled and that could ignate anger and violence. Taking this to the extreme one could even think that should one of these “makers” gets angry and tired of “being used” it would be justified if he violently fought people that were taking something from him, because hey he is working and the other guy is just chilling and taking advantage from him. 

Also this theory confuses the following fact, only extreme cases of people born with disabilities haven´t ever contributed to those benefits that they claim. Everyone pays part of their salary towards Social Security and so forth, so is not really taking something when you have put something there in the first place as Ryan mentioned today. I am happy Ryan said that and I wished he trully believes it.

No one can be looking forward to being sick and not able to work, thus seeking benefits. And unfortunately in the States going broke due to the Health Care system, at least in Europe we have a right to life (I will tackle women´s rights on another post) and medical care no matter our income.

There are few people looking forward parenting alone, thus no one can be looking forward having to seek benefits to support a child.

And more to the point, even if someone is taking advantage of the system for example exagerating an illness, I honestly don´t think we the society should sacrify all the people that are in need for a bunch of people that ought to be found and stopped. I´d better invest in fraud prevention than cutting safety nets for all.

I think people live in societies made of different ideas but should feel united to contribute all together for the benefit of the country. The more people the more ideas. Likewise in order to have an innovative and productive society all its members should feel in peace with the system and equally appreciated so they can contribute to the best of their abilities. Dividing arguments should be stopped.

 Aren´t societies supposed to be groups of people that gather to overcome difficulties together? Aren´t families the same thing at a small scale? You wouldn´t leave a lovely one in the dark, you´d help him. Why aren´t we helping our country fellows more, so shall we fall from grace and need help they help us?

I don´t want to go with the argument of I do this just to get this after but, no one is impune to disgrace, it can happen to you tomorrow with no fault of your own. What would happen to you? To your family? Isn´t it worth investing in an “insurance” for all that would help you in your moment of need? I think it is just the right thing to do.