December 9, 2007

• The Intitial Response

  I’ll be the first to confess I am completely ignorant of politics and current events. It is a weakness I have fostered, and any insight I have stems from the study of classical literature and literary criticism. So the following are my thoughts that need to be written down before the desire for obscurity washes them away.

  I forget that I’ve recently come into possession of American Citizenship. There’s supposed to be a presidential election next year, and it will be my first attempt at voting. So…. how to go about this voting business. I guess it’s not too difficult to find some information on likely candidates; we have a newspaper that magically appears on the doorstep every morning, after all.
  Interesting to see how the focus for today is on the “swing” vote of the “women voters bloc.” I fit that criteria. And look, a handy little table of the hopeful candidates’ positions on women’s issues.

  Key words seem to pop up repeatedly:
  Health Care
  Homeland Security
  Abortion
  Internet Security

  And seeing these words, my thoughts fill in the blanks of things left unsaid:
  Equality
  Potential
  Process

  To make sense of what I’m thinking, I reread the article and the table. Everyone – according to the reporter – believes that at the forefront of women voters is the issue of Abortion. Such a prickly subject that piques emotional spikes, and yet it wouldn’t logically affect society as a whole. I mean, it shouldn’t. For a nation that, historically speaking mind you, prides itself on independent thought and fiercely advertises the virtue of uniqueness, why should such a personal decision be overexamined and overexhausted by busybodies wielding the bludgeon of religion or morality? That is something difficult for me to understand, and I suppose it has a lot to do with the environment and community I live in; do what is right for yourself without hurting others, and the social organism as whole will benefit from the continued health of its independent parts.
  So, as I understand from the article, a person in power can take away the right to choose for oneself. It wouldn’t be…. denying the act, or ….. making it impossible to procure an abortion. Should a person in power make it illegal to obtain an abortion from a medically trained professional, then there would be laws in place to punish those who take part in the act. There would be …. repercussions, legal consequences…… which would mean that those who need it would be coerced into participating in a crime…. those who perform the procedure would be penalized……. those who could get away with it could be as careless as they could be… or as mercenary…….
  Wouldn’t it be more prudent to approach the subject of parenthood prior to the necessity of addressing a pregnancy? Wouldn’t it be more…… logical to find the root of the problem and fix that, rather than attempting to hack at the overgrown tangles of chaotic and emotionally charged decisions? Wouldn’t it be more….. human….. to consciously embrace the idea of parenthood rather than trying to find ways to destroy it?
  What is it that goes wrong between childhood and seniority that makes us deal with the aftermath of our decisions rather than develop our foresight? We are, in my opinion, a reactive society stunted by a narrowminded and myopic focus.
  What if the issue was broader and far-reaching? I imagine that sex-education could be a very powerful subject in shaping an individual’s mind. When we had the class ages ago, it was a short and cold subject, treated with a distant and impersonal tone. I believe it shouldn’t be. It is a subject that needs continuous attention with young adults – heck, with adults and seniors as well; after all, the body is continuously changing. Why should the lessons learned from one specific moment in time – if they are learned at all – be the pennant under which a person’s soul must forever march. And human sexuality touches on so many things! Why does it need to be confined within the boundaries of medical terminology? It could start with the introduction of relationships. Friendship, for example, is a marginalized idea. The concepts of loyalty, fidelity, trust – these terms now mean more in commercial enterprizes, having been absconded from their rightful locations in the heart. How can one speak honestly to a sexual partner if there is no shared language, no common ground? How does one bridge the unbelievable chasm between one’s Self and the Other in order to communicate the need for a lasting bond and family, or the simple desire for mutual physical benefit and nothing else. But it seems so much more efficient to me to approach a relationship with tools ready to build rather than to be in the midst of one duct taping a crumbling infrastructure.
  It would mean an individual with an understanding of their own health and actions. Being able to understand the consequences of decisions could prevent unhealthy dependance on intoxication as a way of dealing with aftermath. The shared language, the trust that could be expected with each encounter would relieve psychological angst.

  My head clears as my thoughts empty to the page. “The issue of Abortion” seems to me to be a symptom and the candidates are ignoring the disease. And it is revealing how I choose to portray it in such a negative connotation – saying it in such proximity with the word “disease.” Truly, it is not the act that I find despicable, but rather the fact that the candidates would use it in such an inflammatory way. I fell for it, but it did make me think.

  I wanted to say to the candidates:
  I want a president who will make decisions With me, and not For me. Make this nation a place that encourages potential and inner strength. Teach us to rely on ourselves and then we can trust each other. Because, how valuable can another life be, if we don’t value our own?

  • 1:55 pm
  • Leave a comment