I'd like to say it was because I'm knee deep in the book... and I suppose I could since that doesn't necessarily mean I'm working on it. But that's not the reason. I actually have no reason other than I've been boring myself senseless and I see no point in sharing the misery.
A couple of random thoughts...
I spent three hours yesterday cleaning my office after which I looked around and could see no appreciable difference. So I stopped and chalked it up to another misguided, childish endeavor.
I drank a large bottle of rosé wine on Sunday. Yes. I'm ashamed. Not because I enjoyed the whole thing. There's no shame in that. But because in my heart-of-hearts I know that the people who drink rosés, are the same people who drink zinfandels. But the bottle was beautiful.
Just because they make skinny jeans in your size, does not mean you will look presentable in them. Even I don't wear them, and I'm a small girl. Let's all give Old Navy a big round of applause for ensuring that those who shouldn't, do.
Is it just me, or does it seem like there are a lot of young women in their 20s getting pregnant without the benefit of a husband? This isn't new, and I'm not judging - not even a little bit. It's just an observation. The number has clearly grown over the past couple of years. I 'd be interested in the "why" of this. It's obvious that the rise in teenage pregnancy is directly influenced by the romanticism imparted by television. But what's up with these beginning-of-your-professional-career pregnancies? Maybe I'll go check some stats on this...
I think the point right-to-lifers are missing is that a woman's Right to Choose extends well beyond termination. What's next? Will we all be forced to wear our hair in a bob because it's too dangerous to perform our household duties otherwise? After all, we could be killed by the garbage disposal, so in passing that piece of legislation, they'd be saving a life! I wish the men on that side would think a bit harder about what they're supporting. It's not unreasonable to think some obviously right-winged Catholic group could declare that masturbation is abortion. That a million possible children were just expelled into a Kleenex tissue? I know, I know... there's no fetus and blah, blah, blah. It's the point, People! How about DUIs? Do we take away the liquor (again!) or do we take away the vehicles? See where we're headed...?
*pops off soapbox*
And lastly... a pre-holiday season reminder.
Ann Landers agrees it is incredibly déclassé to send out a family "Year in Review" letter with your holiday cards. It's self-congratulatory and ego-driven. So what if little Suzie had a solo in her oboe recital, Timmy got a blue ribbon at the science fair, or Mommy ran her first half-marathon and clinched her age group. I don't care. Really. I don't. Oh, you need to share stories around your charitable works, and expound on your volunteerism? Hey, I think it's great that you have all of that free time. But let's keep it in perspective. At the end of the day, you write these letters so other people will admire you. That's embarrassing...
It's a common fallacy that "Right-to-Life" is about taking away a woman's rights, but the name should say that it's not -- it's not about the woman at all. It's about the innocent life, the baby. "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." - attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Obviously there's more than one person involved in the decision, but the contrast between the two visions is unmistakable, and stark. Acknowledging that they fight for the rights of the child, and not against the woman, is an important distinction that too often gets lost in the noise. I'm not actually pro-life for a number of reasons, but I find it helpful to recognize another person's viewpoint, even if it's one with which I don't agree. :-)
ReplyDeleteAh Paul. It IS about the woman and her CHOICE to make a decision about what's happening within HER body. Should we not remove a tapeworm because we didn't plan for it to be there? That's a life, too. Perhaps if there were some repercussion for the man involved, maybe as a nation we wouldn't be having this conversation. By taking away her choice, we're are saying, "Just spill your seed then let her sort it out... but only how we tell her she can." I'm not implying she's not responsible in the ole contraception area. But when it fails or there are "circumstances" or whatever situation put her in that place, should the government really get to coldly say, "sorry about your luck"?
DeleteNo man can truly understand this issue, except in theory... unless said man once had a uterus. Until then, it's all presumption. And while I'm thinking about it, it's not as though women faced with this are doing so without a care in the world. This is a difficult and painstaking decision. Ugh, those words cannot possibly begin to describe it. And at the end of the day, it's a decision made 100% alone. No one WANTS to be her...