I'm Angry.

Today's WOMAN to WOMAN column in the local paper displayed the sheer egotism of the pro-choice viewpoint. And I'm mad about it.

I'm always angered a little bit by the abortion issue. Abortion is, in my mind, an atrocity. There are so many people in this world who want children that any time one is wasted to abortion is simply horrible to me.

Don't give me the scientific crap either about how it's not really a baby and when life actually begins. People can have babies at 25 and 26 weeks after conception that live. Medical technology has fought a long fight to save these children. And the only difference in these pre-mature miracles and aborted babies is whether or not the parents want them. Excuse me, but that's bull. A baby is a baby is a baby. Regardless of age, location or what anyone else thinks they are, we are talking about human beings. Living human beings.

Which is why the discussion of the rights of pharmacists to refuse prescriptions for the abortion pill (in the paper today) makes my skin crawl. Doctors have the right to refuse to perform abortions. Pharmacists should have that same right.

Before I go on let me quote the feminist idiot who managed to get me stirred up this way--
"We never hear about pharmacists objecting to Viagra refills. Men can go wild, but women are denied the same sexual freedom."

No we are not. We have every bit the same sexual freedom men do without the option of abortion. Isn't it a bit irresponsible to put Viagra and the abortion pill in the same category? We're comparing freedom to perform the act with freedom to destroy the consequences. Obtaining Viagra does not imply that a man is unwilling to care for the woman involved or the resulting children.

Let me quote again--"Should a woman with a high-risk pregnancy be turned down because a pharmacist has determined a fetus' life is more valuable that hers? I doubt moralists would have objections if it was their own child suffering."

Let's turn that question around. Should a woman pre-disposed to high-risk pregnancies abstain from sexual relations? There are a large number of contraceptives available at this time that are reasonably risk free. Shouldn't a woman in this position take the responsibility of checking into that? I know it's not a fool-proof answer, but I believe that freedom to choose is not something you can or should have after the fact. Your choice is made when you have sex.

Beside that, women who have children will tell you that their lives are not as important as their children's lives. This is argument turns completely around if you are talking about a three-year- old. The same woman who just called a baby a fetus in the quote above, would tell you that her children (if she has any, which I doubt) are the most perfect people in the world. If one of my darling daughters became pregnant and had to suffer a high-risk pregnancy, I would support them. But I would not choose my child over my grandchild, or vise-versa. (By the way, what kind of term is "moralist." Shouldn't we all be moral? Is she implying that she is amoral? I already knew she was, but she admits it!)

Granted, you don't always know if you're going to have a high risk pregnancy. Sometimes you just do. But the high-risk pregnancy is not the point being argued. Pro-choice advocates want us to believe that abortion protects the raped, the high-risk, and otherwise helpless victims of pregnancy. In reality, it is a matter of convenience and an attempt to escape the consequences of bad choices-A point that is emphasized by the Viagra comment above.

This is not about pharmacists refusing to dispense life-saving drugs. If we were discussing a pill that cures cancer or diabetes, you could point a finger at the pharmacists that didn't want to give it out. But this is a drug that is specifically manufactured to kill unborn babies. It doesn't promote life. It's death in a bottle.

Shouldn't that bother all of us?

My Thoughts on the Innocence of Michael Jackson

It must seem like a beautiful morning today for old Wacko Jacko. I bet his breakfast tastes better than it has in months. I bet he got up and watched the sunrise. I bet he thanked God about a hundred times last night before he went to bed--for the verdict in his favor, for the circumstantial evidence, for the haughty and case-killing testimony of the accuser's mother, for the beauty of a poorly prosecuted case.

Our justice system is beautiful thing. If you can convince a jury not to trust the people who are after you, you're home-free. Nevermind that you are obviously a sick and twisted individual. Nevermind that you tried every lame excuse you could think of to avoid appearing in court. Nevermind that you admitted on television that you like to sleep with children. Nevermind any of that, just make the jury HATE the prosecution and you will be acquitted.

I believe that Michael Jackson is innocent in only one way--he is a stark-raving lunatic. In fact, that's the defense that should have been used anyway. It's the logical one. I can't imagine why he didn't plead insanity in the first place. Of course, this way keeps him out of the loony-bin a couple more years. I firmly believe that Michael Jackson belongs in a nut-house and listed below are my reasons.

• His childhood was filled with a strange kind of indulgent and abusive drama. For years, I believed that Jacko's father had him castrated at a young age to protect the golden pipes. To this day, I have my questions about the true paternity of his children. Aside from that, at the very least, the combination of world-wide fame and an abusive father would do monstrously bad things to your psyche.
• The number of plastic surgeries this man has had indicates not just an obsession with his looks but also an addiction. I believe this to be one of many addictions he habors. After all, this is not the first molestation charge that has been brought against him. If he is not presently addicted to some form of presciption drug, I feel sure he has been at one time. He is addicted to attention at the very least and that is what drives him to do some of the ridiculous things he has done in the past several years--i.e. holding his baby over the edge of a balcony.
• Neverland Ranch and the fascination with all things related to childhood proove that he is prone to delusion. This is further proven by the fact that he believes he could still have a successful career in showbusiness. Face it, there will never be another hit single for him at least here in America. He doesn't have a market here.
• This may not prove insanity, but the fact that he made the statement about sleeping with children, at least indicates stupidity. This fact is further emphasized by his attempts to avoid appearing in court. If you have nothing to hide, ACT LIKE IT.

I feel sorry for the jurors in this case this morning. To much of the world, they are the ones that let a child molestor go free. It really isn't their fault so much though. The only thing they are really guilty of is not demanding that Jacko get the psychological help that he needs. If this case had been presented well, you would see a different headline this morning. It's not quite the perversion of justice that the O. J. Simpson case was. But as one of my friends stated this morning, at least with the O. J. Simpson case, you feel reasonably sure he will not kill again. With Jacko, there will always be someone crazy enough to believe that their children are safe with him. And if not, he has children of his own.

I Hate Mondays. . .

Marley & Laney are so sleepy on Monday mornings. They both slept through the night last night and were reluctant to wake up for school today. Laney rolled around on the blanket Lewis put down for her on the floor and did the baby version of "Five More Minutes, Mom!" while I was getting her and Marley ready. Marley wouldn't hold her head up long enough for me to fix her a decent pony tail so she went off to school a little lop-sided.

I've been at work almost three hours now. I've accomplished about fifteen minutes worth of work. It's a Monday. I'm going to stop wasting time in a little bit and go to lunch.

I went to a wedding this weekend. I don't remember whose wedding I went to last. I know I don't remember whose wedding Lewis went to with me last. It may have been Jane's. That was like 5 years ago. I remember it because he turned to me at the reception and said "You look really good today." That's a very unusual comment for my husband to make, especially in public.

Anyway, the wedding this weekend was my cousin's. She married the guy she's been dating since she was 12. How do relationships like that work? I don't know how you would know you had the right person if you had never dated ANYONE else. I know some couples like that. To a degree my parents are like that, but it still makes me wonder.

I'm kind of thankful that Lewis played the field a bit before I came along. When he made his decision to marry me, it kind of made me feel like he chose me. I don't know that I would feel that way if we had been together that long.

Another weird thing about this wedding--My grandmother's maiden name was Hester. She married a Johnson. Her daughter, the bride's mother, married a Jackson. The bride for this wedding, married a Hester. He's not related (that I know of) but it's still a little spooky. The wheel goes around again.

Well, I guess I'll stop rambling and get back to work. Have a nice day!
___________________________________________________________________
OOPS! I forgot about a very important wedding that I went to almost 2 years ago. One that I was in no less. Michael & Diana, I am truly sorry I forgot about that. I think I blocked that year of my life when I was pregnant with Laney from my memory. No offense to you, I had just been pregnant for about eighteen months at that time.

You know, they say that a woman's brain shrinks when she is pregnant. Mine shrunk down when I was expecting Marley and started to return to normal size when I had her. Then Laney came along and my brain said, "Forget it. She just wants me to stay this size."

Again I apologize. May I be whipped unmercifully with a wet noodle.