The debate goes on (or why I may not appear quite as I seem)
May 07, 2003 ~ 8:28 p.m.
LONDON, U.K.�There has been cause to revisit the subject of children and child-bearing that rumblelizard and I have been promoting as of late. The issue is whether or not you can commit yourself to children, with all their commensurate financial, personal and moral needs and the sacrifices you must make in order to see those commitments through. I think that there are far too many children in the world who were brought up wrong, simply because their parents did not comprehensively think out what an enormous chore bringing up children really is.
Having children can be rewarding, if you are prepared to meet their needs in every way and truly do love them. Feeding, clothing, educating, instilling basic morality as stipulated by any safe society�s social contract and more is no mere task, so only those with the motivational fortitude to see a child through to his or her legal adult age of 18 should ever consider the task at hand.
Now, bully for you if having children is your life�s dream. Lots of men and women alike dream of having a family. That's their choice and they can live it out if they are so prepared. Hell, you can act like it�s the Middle Ages and demand on having 30 children if you want to. Forget the drain on modern-day resources this will create. As long as all thirty children are cared for in a loving manner and instilled with some semblance of what passes for polite manners, then this is a valid choice in a free society. I even support tax breaks to families with children to make the burden of raising children easier.
Childless couples should not, however, have to bear the burden of not contributing to the future, either through a higher tax bracket or social rejection. In fact, I liked part of what I put in Rumblelizard�s guestbook so much that I�m repeating it here:
�I suppose the reactionary religious stuffed-shirts consider not breeding an act of terrorism against the human race, or some people love children so much that they�re desperate to have others share in the experience.�
And this is pretty much what it comes down to�society�s idea of what is proper and normal, and anyone who dares to act outside of society�s prescribed norms (assuming that they are not norms designed to enforce law and order, which I could wholly agree with) are labeled as incorrigible dissenters. And as for the second class of folk, those who love something so much that they must convince others of its benefits, they should be prepared to accept a response of �no thank you.� Some numbnuts could tell me what a liberating experience that burning an American flag can be, but, believe you me, all they�ll get from me in response is a sneer and a �piss off.� Well, it�s the same with having children. I don�t want them, so take your �procreate and feel good� prophecy somewhere else�or, better yet, nowhere else. People should not be forced into a lifestyle or be made to feel guilty about the lifestyle they lead. If you are of an �alternative� sexuality, wear �improper� clothes, or smoke dope in the privacy of your own home, I fail to see how that affects or endangers the greater good of society. (For those who are left wondering why I was so hard on the war protestors, I believe that did effect the morale of society. Big difference, friends.)
It�s true that I am strongly conservative. But I take offense at being labeled Far Right, because I�m not. I have taken some hits regarding my commitment to a free society over this whole damn war debate and it stung. What else does this conservative believe?
(1) I believe in mandatory local-community recycling so we don�t have to build so many landfills and/or incinerators, and, while rejecting the global warming hypothesis, believe that there could yet be some validation to the Malthusian hypothesis on exponential population growth (which is also a side to the childless debate that I can add to the mix).
(2) I support cannabis legalization (please see the end of this entry).
(3) I boycotted Austria during J�rg Haider's reign and, despite being the sleazy worm that he is, agree that Jacques Chirac is much better than the truly frightening Jean-Marie Le Pen.
(4) I believe that Rick Santorum uttered a very unfortunate choice of words in comparing the gay lifestyle to bigamy. Please, Senator. There is no connection between the two lifestyles at all and when you mouth-off before thinking, the idiot label can thusly be applied to you.
So even though I will be gearing up to vote Bush in 2004�nyah, nyah� for the headstrong leader that he is (and if I could vote in England, Tony Blair would get the nod from me), this conservative quite rightly resists the label of Far Right-winger.
Thank you.
� M.E.M.
|
[Sign My Guestbook]
[View My Guestbook]
|
Copyright � 2001-2007 by M.E. Manning. All material is written by me, unless explicitly stated otherwise by use of footnotes or bylines. Do not copy or redistribute without my permission.
AMERICA FOR TRUE AMERICANS!