30 Days (part 2!)

Well my love of controversy and discussion is driving me to continue posting as we watch further episodes. Enjoy!

The fourth episode of the day was about pro-choice woman living among those who are pro-life. This is one of my favorite topics, mostly because logic tends to hold little sway in the arguments of either side. It is almost always an emotional argument, which is useless, as no one emotion is more valid than another. My personal view is that if you don't want to get pregnant, you probably shouldn't be having sex at all. But since my views on sexual behavior are wildly out of sync with the world I live in, I cannot expect everyone to abide by this. So I believe that our current laws are fantastic. Th reality of living in a country filled with millions of people is that we have to compromise to function. People seem to forget this a lot, insisting on getting their way and throwing tantrums when they don't. The abortion laws as they exist are a very good example of effective compromise in action, and one that is all too rare. It always allows early abortions, always bans later ones, and leaves the middle ground up to the state.

But on to the actual episode. The hosts were members of a church, ministers who ran a shelter that would help people raise their children as an alternative to abortion. I honestly sided very much with the pro-choice guest in this case. She had an abortion earlier in life, and works in an abortion clinic, and everything she said seemed very supportive of the women, whatever they decide. The minister and his family seemed less concerned about helping the women than about condemning abortion and harassing those who sought abortion services. Personally it irks me that these two sides cannot come to reasonable terms with each other. The solution is simple. Those who are pro-life and want alternatives to abortion, work WITH abortion clinics. If the clinics provide all alternatives, all the choices, it all falls on the pregnant women. The clinic hands out information on these shelters, and women can seek them if they wish. What pisses me off is when these people stand outside the clinic and make an already tough situation more difficult for their own selfish ends, rather than worrying about the women who are already in turmoil. Their well being comes first, so stop making their lives more difficult because of your own personal opinions. I respect both sides of the argument, but I think that they also both need to examine their decisions. As far as being responsible goes, I am on the side of pro-life. If you don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex. If you take the risk, you reap the reward, no matter what precautions you took. There is always a chance. As far as freedom goes, I think it is ridiculous to ask women to risk their lives for a 'person' who doesn't exist yet if there are health issues. It is their choice, their lives that are being affected, so stop trying to decide for them. This two sided opinion of mine is why I agree with the current compromise laws. I am happy to say both sides seemed to learn something from the experience.

The next episode is about animal rights, and I honestly don't feel much like tackling it. I personally am a fan of animals dying to make sure products are safe so people aren't killed by unsafe products. Animals are food, we are omnivorous for a reason. I am all for humane treatment and such, but I think the animal rights activists go too far more often than not.

EDIT: alright I had to mention this. The silly animal rights activist was talking with the visiting hunter. She keeps saying that animals are the same as people and have the same rights. He says if he had the choice between saving ANY person, or saving his dog, he would choose the person every time. She was appalled. Really? You would rather save a dog than a person? What the hell is wrong with you? Also, if animals are the same as people, people are of course the same as animals. That means that if animals kill each other for food, then people should be able to kill animals for good. And the animal rights silly person was claiming that killing animals for food is the same as.... the Holocaust. Wow, you are truly ridiculous

Now they do go on to show cruelty and such. Yeah, I think some of the methods are wrong, so protest THAT. Stop with your ridiculous ultimatum of not eating any animals and shoot for humane treatment like a reasonable person. The process of eating animals isn't an issue, it is the methods sometimes used. But of course you also have to balance this with the fact that expedience is required to keep food cheap, so people in the lower economic class can afford to eat. I personally am fine with animal cruelty if it keeps people fed instead of starving or dying

The problem with PETA is that they have some good points. Animal cruelty should be minimized without risking human safety. But then they go on from activism to extremism, and lose all of their credibility. If you say something like 'I don't think that cows should be tossed out and allowed to slowly die', then alright. But then you compare the eating of meat to being a Nazi, and now I don't care what you have to say, because you're obviously crazy. You're hurting your own cause by pushing incredible extreme views on reasonable people, who are going to ignore you and continue living their lives. As well they should.

Examples of extremism shown in the episode: meat eating makes you a Nazi, they trespass and steal at one point, at another point they indecently expose themselves by having two women be completely naked and painted plaid to protest fur.