thinking out loud

recently i’ve been wasting a lot of time reading about the us election and obama’s victory (yay!) online…instead of doing my multitudes of work. yesterday i came across this article on how abortions has been, for once, a non-issue in the recent campaign, and how nuns and christians etc all over the country are now fearing for the millions more babies killed if a democratic president gets elected and supports “pro-choice” laws.

one thing i’ve always noted is the terminology “pro-choice”, as opposed to those “pro-life” on the other side of the issue. what is it about these people? being pro-choice doesn’t mean that you support abortion, or that you are anti-life. it only means that you don’t believe in outlawing it. why will pro-lifers insist on imposing their views on everyone else?

maybe it’s something about christianity as a whole which i’ve abhorred ever since i went into much closer contact with it in jc. (i refer to christianity because in articles, most pro-lifers referred to are christians. it’s just a generalisation of SOME pro-lifers) many christians have a very clear view of the world. they believe in what the bible tells them, what their pastor tells them, what their parents tell them. they believe in right and wrong. they believe that they are right, and that’s why they often seek to impose their views on people. i suppose we can’t really blame them for it. since christians believe that the information they get are facts, they seek to save the world by opening their eyes to them.

I’m not deriding christianity, or saying that their information is wrong. this is something which we will probably never know, until perhaps after we die. but the black-and-white approach that many christians subscribe to (i am only generalising here, please don’t take offense) is what leads to so much of the wrongs of the world. people are unable to understand each other because of this fundamental difference of beliefs. in the case of christianity, people want to evangelise for the good of society. they cannot comprehend that someone else’s definition of the “good of society” is different from theirs, and even if they did, their strong beliefs would lead them to be convinced that other people are wrong, and they are unfailingly right. and there we have an impasse. they impose their beliefs on others–others resist. therefore, crusades, jihads, and whatnot. the pro-life and the pro-choice. the way to “save millions of innocent babies from being murdered” and the right to choose.

while doing research for an essay in jc i came across this fact that shocked me at first. did you know that in singapore, girls below 16 can get an abortion without informing their parents? the rationale is that some desperate teenage girls will go to lengths to get rid of the baby without their parents knowing. if forced by legislation to inform their parents, some teenage girls would throw themselves down stairs, poke sharp objects into their bodies, go for unsafe back-alley abortions and even commit suicide. they would find a way to get rid of the baby some how. what use, then, is the law? of course, under the current system, the girls are still made to go through counselling, etc. it’s a surprisingly liberal law in conservative singapore, and actually a pretty sensible one.

if strong pro-lifers had their way, abortions would be outlawed in the world. imagine what would then happen. people always find ways to get around laws, especially when they are desperate. millions of girls and women would die from unsafe abortions. and why force a baby upon parents who don’t want it, and are not ready to raise it? the child would likely grow up neglected, and even perpetuate the cycle. surely, some things are worse than death. or maybe not, in some cases. there are too many shades of grey. this is what extreme religious and right-wing fanatics fail to comprehend. sometimes, there is just no right or wrong, and you have to let people choose for themselves what suits them best rather than adhering to a one-size-fits-all mentality. (on a side note, i HATE free-size clothes.)

religious beliefs should never have a place in politics. morals, yes, but not religion.

i need to add, however, that i greatly admire women who choose to continue unplanned pregnancies even when they are young, unmarried, and face great censure from society. it is a difficult and noble choice to make. still, this should remain a choice, and not a forced event.

another thing about this election that irks me is the millions of stupid people who insist that obama is a socialist that will destroy america as he will raise taxes and allow bums to not work, etc. and now these people are forecasting gloom and doom for america. OMG! sometimes the stupidity of a significant portion of the world really makes me want to tear my hair out. if they actually read and understood obama’s tax plans, they would realise that most americans would be getting a tax cut under him, better than what mccain would offer for them.

i don’t really think the world would be very much different under obama or mccain. both, i believe, will follow pretty centrist policies. however, sarah palin is horrifyingly ignorant, attacking obama on a whole host of issues which she barely understands and completely misinterprets. cnn fact-checker writers must be sniggering at her comments. and the people who support her…omg. phew, am happy that obama won!

a rare serious post! haha. back to work.