land of the free?

 Although I addressed this topic briefly in my blog, I feel that is important to expand on the problem with Texas's new laws regarding abortions. Especially since it has hit close to home with me and affected someone I am close to. Within the last couple of weeks my friend of around 10 years had to deal with the entailments of the sonogram bill, and she described to me how frustrating it was to feel like she was being dissuaded from an already hard decision and how she felt she was “shamed” to even consider having an abortion. Hearing the actual consequences of the bill from someone I know, and reading articles of the people who have to deal with it made the reality of it apparent. It is really depressing when you find out that you don't have total control over your own body. And everybody should get their heads out of the sand to pay attention to the basic human rights the Texas Legislature is abusing.

 Abortion has been present since the 5^th century. Aristotle thought that it was fine, up until the 40 day mark for boy and 90 day mark for girls when, he believed, they gained a soul and became a human being. And in the time of early American colonies, people were totally against abortion and it was a misdemeanor if you had one until the 19^th century. Then, thank goodness, people in the 1970's gained some sense and passed Roe V Wade which made abortions legal. That ruling should have precedence when bills like the sonogram one come along, where it just hinders the freedom of choice Roe V Wade offers.

 Even though it is still possible to go through with the procedure, the legislation enacted has set up a dozen hoops that women, who are probably stressed enough as it is, have to jump through.

 The sonogram bill states that women who choose to have an abortion must hear the fetal heart beat, view an ultrasound image and the doctor must describe the condition of the fetus. Then she has to wait 24 hours (presumably to to have that time to be more upset and maybe even back out of it) before she can have the procedure. It doesn't make sense that we have these type of idiotic bills when abortion has been legal since Roe V Wade and especially due to the political climate in Texas. Texans love their personal freedom but when it comes to a woman's personal freedom, they back track and create this piece of hypocrisy.

 It seems to me that a lot of the taboo of abortion and the creation of this bill stems from the religious aspects that should we not have to deal with in government. Because Texas is a predominately christian, conservative state it's hard to not believe that religion doesn't influence politics. Church and State should ideally be two completely separate entities but unfortunately most people accept that it is not. How many personal freedoms will have to suffer before people actually start caring to change that truth?

Abortion is always going to be a controversial issue, but it is hard to justify anything other than what an individual feels is right for them.  

disgruntled

 The blog by Robbie Cooper entitled “Why Liberals Cheer When Conservatives Die” is one that drew my attention simply by the fact that it was so harsh towards all liberals but it had no coherent argument that validated any of the authors amateurish claims. He just seemed more hurt by the fact that Matt Taibbi, a liberal columnist of Rolling Stone magazine wasn't very sensitive to the fact that a man, Andrew Breitbart, had recently died. Not that there is any excuse for being harsh to someone who has died, but this was a man who tarnished the image of Shirley Sherrod, a woman who was innocent and a group called Acorn by releasing heavily edited videos of them and others. Not to mention that Breitbart wasn't very sensitive to death either proclaiming minutes after Ted Kennedy died that he was a “villain” and “a pile of human excrement”.

 But, no matter what Andrew Breitbart or the columnist that Cooper disagreed with did, Cooper's argument that all liberals are basically “immature” people with “mental disorders” seems more of a rant than an actual piece based on logic or evidence. His audience of conservative minded people probably ate it up though, since Breitbart was something of a larger than life character in the conservative world and took down those whose ideology he opposed. Cooper probably gets away with this type of writing since it's something that his audience can kind of feel an empowerment in his outlandish rhetoric.

 Even though he is on defensive because some liberals were cruel about the death of Breitbart, he goes on to say that, “Taibbi will likely die alone, afraid, and in horrific pain”. Who's the insensitive one now? His attacks on the whole liberal spectrum are full of circular reasoning, such as “liberals are stupid because they are idiots”. He never really offers any genuine reasoning behind his thinking besides that he is obviously a devout conservative and kind of arrogant. His whole post is basically a temper tantrum.

 Just because he is a conservative does not mean he was in the wrong to feel as if that particular author was unfair, too cruel or even wrong. Cooper could have taken a more mature tone and made Taibbi the fool in this situation. Instead not only did he not make Taibbi look bad like he intended, he made himself look like someone who can't articulate a real point and a hypocrite.

 Perhaps the author of the Rolling Stone article was harsh, although it was his opinion based on things that Breitbart did. But Cooper's “response” blog that could have called Taibbi out, instead summed up to an elementary piece of work where all liberals, according to him are stupid and evil. Why? Because they are!