Oh, The Controversy

This is a blog that I wrote on myspace on  8/14/09.  As it's something I've been discussing lately, I wanted to move it over here.  You can't import from myspace at this time, but I'll move the comments over individually if requested.  Anyway...

When in doubt, go with what everyone else says. Geez, people. Grow some balls here. I'm getting really irritated with the inundation of individuals who can't seem to think for themselves. Or rather, they can, but they're afraid to let everyone else know what their true feelings are. You know the sayings: 'There's 2 sides to every issue (right or left)' and 'There's 3 sides to every story (his side, her side, and the truth)' That last sentence isn't totally relevant, but this topic made me think of it so I threw it in here. However, something can be said about it in that clearly an issue or a topic should not have the bulk of our population sitting on one side. We need balance. This is why I am a Republican, but yet like the idea of our world's liberals just the same. Why? Because it's like yin and yang. It's necessary to create some sort of level happiness and justice in the world. This holds true for our government, in the workplace, as parents, and in relationships. It's a checks and balance system no matter where you place it. Good for the soul.

Now, back to some controversy. I'm going to list a couple of controversial topics that are either current events, or have just been discussed recently in my group of friends, along with my view on the issue. Please feel free to give your thoughts as well. Though, once I take a firm stand on an issue I don't typically back away from that view, but it wouldn't make sense for me not to hear other intelligent viewpoints.

First up is the obvious news of Michael Vic being taken on by the Philadelphia Eagles. In case you've been hiding under a rock the last couple of years, the issue is this. He served 23 months in prison for running a dog fighting operation. Now, we're all somewhat intelligent people and understand that dog fighting means horrible things happening to poor animals. I'm with everyone on that. But the fact that the man got hired back into the NFL should not be in question right now. Talk about your double standards. Think about it. He's not the sharpest tool in the shed. He screwed up. He paid the price, and hopefully learned a very valuable life lesson. Does that mean that he shouldn't be allowed to work ever again? What if we had a felony charge for something stupid we did? We'd never do it again, but should we be punished for life? I just don't think that's right. I did have a discussion last night about other players such as Cleveland Browns' Dante Stallworth. He was recently suspended from the NFL because of his conviction for DUI manslaughter. He is only to serve 30 days in prison, though he will be on house arrest for 2 years. So, some people are saying that's not enough. And why should someone who killed dogs (not even directly) receive a higher penalty than someone who killed a human being? Well, first of all, Stallworth didn't have PETA knocking down his door. Seriously. Do I think that Stallworth should serve a longer sentence? Actually, I do. But that's not where I'm going with this. The issue is whether or not these people should be allowed back in the NFL, not what deals their lawyers get them in the court room. Personally, I don't see an issue with it. To them, it's work. We all feel bad when the general everday person has a problem finding work due to a criminal past regardless of how reformed they are. So, why these people? My thought is the amount of money they make gets to people. Admittedly, that gets to me too when you think about the poverty in America, but if I had the skills to play a game that is publicly known to pay ridiculous sums of money, I would do it. So, I conclude that it's jealousy. Let them work. If you're upset at the team for taking him on, so be it. Be morally pissed at them. But give me a break. Also, this is just more reason why you should root for the better team anyway (Steelers). :)

Next in line is whether or not people who have physical and/or mental issues should be allowed to reproduce. It's possible I'm going to get my head cut off for this one, but here goes. There are exceptions to everything, so it's difficult for me to generalize and place people into a certain category here. But I sincerely believe that individuals who have severe issues should be sterilized. I'm not a medical expert, so I'm not going to list certain problems that should be included in the list of 'not to have kids' people. Though it might make more sense for me to give this scenario. If two people have so many medical/mental issues that they cannot hold down a full time job, must be supported by the government (tax payers), have over the top medical needs that cause them to not completely be able to take care of themselves properly 100% of the time, then what business do they have bringing children into this world? First of all, the risk of the child having similar issues has got to be pretty high. That alone is irresponsible because of the fact that you would knowingly be bringing a child into this world who's quality of life would be jeopardized. Yes, that child could very well turn out fine, but how would they take care of it? And the possibility of other family members maybe being able to step in is not good enough.

Now, some of you may be say, "April. You have three kids. That's a lot. What about your own financial situation? Isn't that similar?" Clearly, I've thought of this. Well, for one, I wasn't in this financial situation until now. I wasn't exactly in the best financial situation when I got pregnant with the twins, but I had the ability to remedy that and I did. Regardless of my financial situation, though, I'm still able to make sure my childrens' needs are met. I may not be able to buy them a new toy every time we go out, but I can live with that. Point is, I do want to have another child someday. However, considering where I am in life right now, it would be incredibly irresponsible. Should I be with someone and my financial situation looks different, then it can be considered. Until then, no. But that's a difference too. I have the ability to be responsible and control whether or not I actually GET pregnant. Can we say that for everyone? Clearly not, if we want to start looking at all the children born into poverty or addicted to drugs, or thrown in dumpsters, or (god help us) chopped up by samarai swords. So, I don't think this is a good comparison.

The point of this second topic, and the last as I've just now decided, is that we should not view having children as a right, but a priveledge. They are precious, most valuable, human beings and they should be brought into the world under the best conditions possible. That doesn't mean they all have to be born into the higher tax bracket, but their fragile lives are in our hands; they are so dependant upon us. We have to be sure that we can care for them not as best as we can, but as best as they deserve.