Welcome Grams!

I would like to welcome my Grandmother to my blog. I had to explain to her on the phone that "Letters From The Left" was me. Now that she knows, she can share in the hilarity of my posts! Remember Grandma, you shouldn't post anything on the internet with a persons real name. Anyway, Grams, you might not like this post today, so, be cautioned.

 

I had a few palpitations after eating lunch today. The first was while I was pumping gas, the the second was while I was in the car. I was a bit surprised since the one that happened while I was pumping gas was pretty strong and lasted a while. Fortunately, I had my event monitor and recorded the whole thing. It's really neat that all I have to do is play it back over the phone and the computer knows what to do with it. Weird.

 

I don't know if you've seen this story yet, but some woman out in Arkansas just gave birth to her 16th child. As much as I respect the right for someone to procreate as much as they want, this is wrong for so many reasons. First, I don't want to hear for one moment that these two parents have been able to spend enough time with all of their kids. Two, in a time where there are more and more people who are having trouble having kids, this just rubs their nose in it. Three, why do you need to have sixteen children? Is the father that concerned with keeping his lineage alive that he must have sixteen kids? The days of having to procreate to keep the human species are long gone sister, you need to either have him fixed or wrap it up. Four, it's just not cool. There are instances of overpopulation all over the world, and this just shows they are thumbing their nose at it too.

 

I know that their argument is that God says birth control is illegal, and if two people want to have sex they need to realize that the woman may become pregnant. I think this is a crock of shit for more reasons thatn one. First, I've never seen a passage that says birth control is wrong in Gods eyes. As a matter of fact, I think God would promote birth control. Then again, I don't think God is part of the "sex is dirty" school of thought either. You know why I think he'd promote it? Because it prevents babies from being born to people who are not ready for them, or don't want them. A baby should not be punishment for a morally casual lifestyle. It's not fair to the parents or to the child. Not to mention two loving adults, married or not, who want to have sex should be able to without having to worry about having kids.

 

This leads me into my problems with people who don't support providing birth control to the poor or the public at large. The poor can't afford to spend the ten to fifteen bucks on a package or rubbers, let a lone birth control pills. They're busy thinking about how they will eat, or figuring out how to pay the next rounds of bills. The poor are still going to have sex, just like the rich. They have as much a right as the rich do. However, the rich can afford birth control. If anyone thinks out there for a minute that all these girls walking around in suburban high schools don't carry birth control think again. I think many people would be astounded by the amount of suburban girls who are on the pill. I bet that the girls in the inner city schools would love the chance to use the pill. The key difference, they don't have the money.

 

You see, the fight against poverty should start with trying to preventing unwanted pregnancies. This goes back to even Bush's culture of life crap. First, every unwanted baby you prevent from being born (and I'm talking about preventive in the sperm doesn't get to the egg sense, not in the abortion sense) does two things. It allows that mother to continue on with her life normally, which includes work, school, and with the income she is accustomed two. It also allows the mother and father to not be forced to have a child they may not be ready for, may not want, or may not have the means to care for. Second, unwanted children in most inner cities and rural areas do not get the nutrition or health care that people outside of the city are accustomed too. I'm speaking in generalities here, so for all I know factually I may be wrong, but I bet I'm not. When I use the term unwanted children here, I am referring to children that the parents were not ready for because they cannot afford them or outright don't want them. This means that for health and nutritional needs, the parents will have to use local, state, and federal programs to aid them. This takes money away from roads, schools, homeland security, whatever, you get my point. Third, unwanted children are probably not going to get the interaction with the parents they need in order to learn the proper social skills to prosper in school and society in general. This will cause them to be a distraction to those around them, and in many cases lead to lifestyles that will lead to run ins with the law and with incarceration. Again, this takes tax money away from many other important functions. Fourth, they will probably have kids that they don't want 15-20 years later. It's one big cycle, and unless it's broken it's bound to repeat itself.

 

So sit back and ask yourself, what makes more sense, spending an insignificant amount of tax revenue to provide public birth control, or large amounts of money caring for these children and their children the rest of their lives.  I think it's an easy choice. You can continue to preach and teach your children and family the values of abstinence only lifestyles, but help the people out who don't believe like you or won't listen so that they don't make big mistakes. It's not fair to them, and it's not fair to their kids. Don't ask yourself if God is on your side, ask yourself if you are on God's side.

 

Now, if you'll excuse the rants of a crazy guy, I've got to get back to work.

 

-O