Sarah Manley doesn’t know that I think I dig her. She also doesn’t know I think I was meant to find her (I discovered her due to my Lenten Facebook fast). She and I have also never actually met (“Hi Sarah, I am April.”)
But I knew I would spend more than five minutes on her blog “The Nerdy Apple” because of this outfit. And she likes Bloody Mary’s (I am not sure if that is in the morning, but I am betting I could talk her into it). And this is her comment policy:
If you can say it respectfully, it will stay. If you get mean, personal, insulting, I will remove it. I have no problem with differing opinions. I have a big problem with rudeness and bullying. So please, play nicely.
Yep – that is some cool stuff.
Sarah wrote a post, and I almost left a comment. But I didn’t because it turned into this post. (Sarah, if you are here, please don’t stop at #1 – I do agree mostly with most of it )
1. The semantics of Abortion get all tangled. If it is a discussion on the topic, then the sides would be pro- and anti-. There are issues with all other monikers outside of pro- and anti- abortion.
- Pro-life – not necessarily true of all anti-abortion thought holders. How do I know? Because I am currently struggling with my own views on the death penalty (a topic for another time). I would bet that there other anti-aborts out there that either also struggle or comfortably support the death penalty. That is not a pro-life stance. Therefore, the issue is not pro-life, it is anti-abort.
- Pro-choice – I believe myself to pro-choice. I believe that folks choose to have sex. (*Note – I have numerous times said that I appreciate the struggle over extenuating circumstances. These account for less than 5% of the abortions performed in the United States. The exception should not dictate the rule and I am content to discuss the other 95%.) I believe folks choose to contracept. I believe babies are not choices – they are consequences to already made choices.
Legal doesn’t make right. Slavery is the first thing that comes to mind. Hitler’s reign is another. I am NOT comparing the acts or the people. Simply questioning the defense of the “legal”. And I wouldn’t think that digging a baby out of a womb is the same thing as digging a cavity out of a tooth. And unless Sarah tells me otherwise, I am going to assume she didn’t mean that either. As a person who also draws analogies that are sometimes misunderstood, I am assuming she was not comparing the medical practices simply the access to medical services.
2. Agreed. While I would prefer something different to be used other than “marriage,” we kinda gave that right up a long time ago. The religious assertion is that marriage is sacred – and I believe that it is. However, there wasn’t too much of a stink raised when the ceremony moved out of the church and into the courthouse. We didn’t ask that it be called a “civil union” then. And we fussed a bit, but not too much, as divorce went from a serious decision to $99 and a court date. You want to talk about an assault on the dignity and sanctity of marriage? It should have started there. We didn’t.
3. Agreed. However, I would caution that just because something is found or held to in religion does not, in itself, make that thing off-limits in the political arena. Murder is the best illustration of this point. It is against a Biblical ordered commandment. But that doesn’t negate it from being addressed by the state. Murder is illegal, not because it is found in a religious text, but because it deprives the rights of another person against their will.
There are, and always will be, topics that commingle. The requirement should be, if you can discuss that topic in your religious body and justify it according to the governing powers for your religious order, then hold it religiously. If you can discuss that topic in your public square and justify it according to the governing powers of your civil order, then hold it civilly. If these two discussions can successfully occur on the same topic, I am not mixing church and state – the topic is just appropriate to be accountable to each.
5. The system is broken and needs to be fixed, I agree. However, I would suggest that state mandate and socialization is not the way. Medical innovation and practice is expensive. Research and Development takes facilities, equipment, supplies, and some seriously talented labor. Medical practice takes the same. All of this equals a business that simply must make money. The investment is too great on the front end and the need for incentive must be available to fuel the ability to make it to the goal.
So do I think that health care should be a “get what you can pay for” service? No. But I also think that a “free for most, paid by some” system is detrimental as well. I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know the problem is exacerbated by both extreme views. The answer is somewhere else but the powers that be keep focusing on the fringes.
6. What is “fair share”? I am a Fair Tax girl. That is my definition of fair share. And there is an overwhelming population of people who pay no taxes at all. Shouldn’t there be something? Even if it is a super small something.
Further, I don’t think taxes are truly the issue. Most folks, I think, would not bitch so much about taxes if they believed the spending was appropriate. Kinda like my house. My husband and I don’t argue about spending. We don’t argue about income. We do butt heads over the eighth running outfit or the suped up, see to the moon flashlight.
7. There is a “behind/under” to clean? Damnit…
So, here is to a post that, I hope, will be found to honor Sarah’s comment policy. We disagree on some things (I have never met a Pale Ale that I liked) but I think our hearts beat the same (I would climb over you to order an Irish Ale). So the conversations cannot stay the same. We cannot keep beating each other over the heads with empty Smithwick’s bottles. But I think when folks like Sarah and I respect, question, and engage, progress is made – and a Bloody Mary wouldn’t hurt.