What is the value of a life?

Watch this video before reading on: 99 Balloons

Our culture is full of death. The wonderful couple in this video were told to abort their unborn child because of his potential health problems, but they refused. I wish I could say that the doctors were wrong, that there was a miracle of health in that baby boy, and that he lived to be just like any other child. Sadly, in spite of the committed efforts of his parents, he only lived 99 days.

Globally, 59 million unborn children are aborted every day. Abortion has become a pragmatic solution to the "problem" of pregnancy in a culture bent on instant gratification and hedonism. What has happened to the sanctity of life? The pro-choice argument I've often heard is that it's about what's best for the mother. That it's "not fair" for her to have a child because she was raped. How is that fair to the child? He or she does not have a voice in this discussion. Others might be concerned that the mother won't be able to take care of the child. There are solutions to this. Give the child up for adoption. Some might say this is too much emotional stress on the mother, but honestly, ask someone who has had an abortion, and it is likely that they bear emotional scars that will never heal. Often, it is pragmatism that drives the decision: the mother and father "can't" care for the child because it wasn't in their plans and heaven forbid their plans change. Maybe they should have considered the consequences before jumping right into something for instant gratification.

What fascinates me the most is that people in this country care more about animals than they do about unborn children. They so passionately fight for the rights of animals, they won't eat animal products, they sink all their money into saving these creatures, and yet they are pro-choice. Don't get me wrong--I LOVE animals and I have always had pets--but we're talking about the beasts of the earth and HUMAN lives. I'm curious how many PETA members would fight for the rights of an unborn animal. Think about it.

We consider ourselves higher than animals, yet we decide to use their behavior as an excuse for human behaviors we don't want to take responsibility for (i.e. homosexuality, but that's a whole other story). Animals sometimes devour their young when they do not know how to parent them. Maybe we aren't so different after all.

Pastor David Linn's sermon during Sanctity of Life week is a great discussion of everything I am trying to put into words. Check it out, there is a sound file and a text file, whichever you prefer:

mp3 text

Let's start taking responsibility for our actions and give these human lives a chance. Even a sick child is a blessing--the Mooney family seems to think so.

-K

I just can't keep my mouth shut.

Here's an article we had to read in my geography class, and my response to it. My professor thinks everyone is entitled to their opinion, hence this is an opinionated response. I really think global warming is a bunch of BS, but I tried to respond intelligently. I'm not totally satisfied with my writing, but hopefully such responses will be more polished and organized as I am forced to write more of them.

Read it critically, don't just read and absorb. This dude uses some writing strategies to bring you to his side/point of view.

The Coming Resource Wars

My response:
“The Coming Resource Wars”, an article written in 2006 by Michael T. Klare, suggests a scenario of imminent war and violence as people all over the world struggle for control of dwindling resources necessary for global function and survival. The exploding population, inefficient use of resources including fossil fuels, agricultural products, and fresh water, and expansion and development of nations threaten to wipe out supplies. Global climate change also threatens the world’s resources because of the rising of sea levels due to melting glaciers, increasing temperatures that will create more arid conditions in many places, and unpredictable weather conditions to which underdeveloped countries may not be able to adapt. Klare offers only two solutions to the impending disasters—rely on military power to obtain resources once shortages begin to occur, or “take meaningful steps to reduce the risk of cataclysmic climate change.”

The only valid point Klare makes, perhaps unintentionally, is that resources are being used inefficiently on a global scale. An energy crisis may be the only major problem to occur in the near future, considering the rate of global consumption of fossil fuels and the looming end to the supply. As for clean water, people have long suffered without this necessary resource in underdeveloped countries and supplies are decreasing in the United States now as well. Part of the problem with the emerging lack of fresh water in the U.S. is due to urbanization and development in areas that were never able to support the amount of people that now reside there. One example is southern California, which relies on water from Colorado to support a population basically living in a desert. All over the U.S. reservoirs and aquifers are being drained faster than they can be replenished; this is a result of poor planning and wasteful overuse. As far as food supplies needed on a global scale, resources are not going to run out in the way Klare’s doomsday article describes. The rate of growth of the population is slowing and will continue to do so into the future, and agriculture is still highly productive world-wide. This is not to say that the lack of food in third world countries should not be addressed—there is still much progress to be made in feeding the young, growing nations of the world.

It seems that Klare believes that global warming is the main source of many of these resource problems. This is not so, and finding a solution to “global warming” is not the answer to any of the scenarios suggested. One real solution is that industrialized nations such as the U.S. use their resources more efficiently as an example to developing nations such as India and China, who have enormous populations and the expectation of living the same quality of life that Americans enjoy. Another practical solution is to find ways to purify drinking water in places where water exists but is heavily contaminated. One example of this is an ingenious inventor who designed a straw that filters contaminated water to a level that is safe to drink, and this invention is already being utilized in underdeveloped countries where in the past people have had no choice but to consume dirty water. New methods of agricultural cultivation are also being investigated, some of which can be implemented in compact areas or unfavorable weather conditions.

The climate is changing, whether people accept it or not. The reason, however, is natural, not anthropogenic. Humans are polluting the air, water, earth, etc., but will not cause any long-term damage to the planet. Truly, only time will tell what irreversible damage has been inflicted and what is being corrected naturally.

***

Not my best writing. I would have much preferred to do lots of research and throw facts in this guy's face, but we're just supposed to write how we "feel" about it. I hate opinions. Give me facts. Give me credible sources and CITE them in your writing. Don't just say something about "recent studies" and expect me to believe or agree with you.

College has turned me into an academic critic. Stay tuned--I'm going to talk about abortion next.

-K

A comment on current events

Usually, I keep my opinions about politics, current events, culture, and society off my blog because of the potential for controversial content that I don't want to argue with someone about, but I feel that a few things have to be said.

First, I think Relient K was right when they said "Opinions are immunity to being told you're wrong" in their song The Only Thing Worse Than Beating a Dead Horse is Betting on One. So I am going to state my opinion, although the right to an opinion has become heavily abused in American culture (example: blogs). You can have an opinion and still be wrong, you just get to ignore anyone who tells you so. Regardless, I'd like to comment on a few things.

I think the whole "green", "eco-friendly" movement is just that--a movement. It's a trend that is going to fade in one way or another. There is the possibility that people will adopt sustainable practices on a large scale, but more likely nothing will get accomplished once the PR people decide that the "green" logos aren't working to sell more products anymore. A lot of companies are actually taking advantage of the trend and trying to market their products as sustainable or "safe for the environment" when they really aren't.


Take, for instance, the compact fluorescent light bulb. I heard through the grapevine that by 2012 we may be forced to use compact fluorescents in place of all incandescent bulbs, because they supposedly last so long and conserve so much energy. I acknowledge that CFLs last longer than incandescents, but for one thing that replacement idea is just silly because LEDs are the future of lighting. I don't know what materials an LED light bulb is made of, but I do know that CFLs contain MERCURY, and if you read the side of the base of the bulb it says to "dispose according to local, state, or federal laws." Well, that's just great. We're going to replace the majority of incandescent lights in America with compact fluorescents which contain an element that, if exposed to the air when you, say, break the bulb, will cause all kinds of health problems depending on the amount of exposure.

But hey, why should we worry about it? We'll just deal with it way down the road when they actually start wearing out and we have to replace them. In the meantime, let's start putting lead in our paint and asbestos in our insulation again.

GE plans to use LEDs
NY Times reports incandescents are obsolete in 2012

-K