Quality? or Quantity. Part 1

I am about to go on a tirade that could possibly get me in a lot of trouble. It shouldn't. It is nothing more than my opinion - however, with all the 'internet spying' going on and rules about what one can and cannot do with 'social media' and still retain ones job or life ..............

However, there are a few things in this world on which I not only have an opinion but very strong feelings about.

This is one of those.

I am grateful that I lived in the time I did. When I needed an abortion, it was obtainable. That may well not be true in the very near term. Many southern states have enacted legislation that, while couched in terms which would have one believe that it is solely for the support of women's health, are in reality, intended to, and in fact DO, limit or completely abolish access to legal abortions.

The age-old argument, of course, is the question of when human life becomes viable. For the thinking minds of the anti-abortion supporters, I have a question - why is this the ONLY or even the PRIMARY determinant ?

I would agree that human life is viable immediately upon conception. I would also agree that fetus' can feel pain. I also, unconditionally believe that life is precious. ALL LIFE. NO exceptions.  I also believe that no one life is MORE or LESS precious or valuable than any other.

I can also agree with those who feel that the right to abortion is seriously misused in this country. Many treat it as if it were nothing more than a normal part of life - casual. Rather the same way many look at divorce - a way to try marriage out and see if it works. The rights to abortion allow, and even promote - excessive promiscuity - and I would certainly agree that is not a good thing any more than excessive indulgence in any enjoyable pastime is a good thing.

All that said - I still firmly believe that women should retain the right to a legal, and therefore reasonably safe abortion performed by qualified physicians in a clinical environment at a cost that is not so exorbitant as to prevent the majority from obtaining same. I believe we need to remember that there is always good and bad in everything - every freedom we have has its ups or good points - and also its bad or down side.... NOTHING is perfect. We will never have a law that is perfect for everyone. The 'majority rules' always leaves out the minority............

My personal reasoning here is much the same as my reasoning for animal rights activists standing down a bit AND for the right of a person to terminate their own life..........  Don't see the link there? I'm not surprised. Its a tough one.

Consider adopting a rescue animal. The reason for the application and the review thereof is to screen out those who are not good 'potential pet parents'.  This is good - to catch some (but DEFINITELY not all) people who are animal abusers. But - it also lets out those with nothing more than love to give. Its easy to feed, house, and love an animal. Vet bills, however, get extremely expensive. So, there are pet parents out there who could and would love to give an animal a 'forever home' but will not be allowed to because they cannot afford the vet bills.  With all the rescue animals in shelters, and many more still on the 'street', it doesn't make logical sense that financial support should be a determining factor. While animal welfare agencies intents are pure and good, the reality leaves so many adoptable animals without 'forever homes' and people without furry companions. Is remaining in a shelter for the rest of their lives really better than allowing them to go to a loving family who cannot afford vet bills?

Now consider the right to die - again, we are making a decision for a person without truly looking at all the sides and all the information. If a person is terminally ill and their demise is imminent - say within a few months, why is it the right of the law to determine that this person is NOT allowed to CHOOSE to end their life? It seems rather strange to me that those who have never been in that position are the ones who have the right to make the decision that everyone must live until they die naturally.  This stems from that 'under God' theory. Most Christian religions believe that only the "Highest Power" (whatever you choose to call Him or Her, God, Allah, Yahweh, Mother Earth, etc...) has the right to choose when one passes from this life. Nice in theory - BUT, if the quality of life is so horrible that one spends their days in agony, or incapable of doing the things they love, perhaps even incapable of doing ANYTHING, why is it necessary for life to continue?

The common thread in all these subjects is Quality Of Life.

I think we can all more or less agree that the length of a life, or 'quantity', is not nearly as important as the quality of that life. This begs the question of what constitutes 'quality' - and that is exactly where this debate, as well as the other two which I have mentioned, needs to start.

What is 'quality of life'?

The answer to that question is a very individualized, and for many - a highly personal one. For each person, it is based on many things including socioeconomic status, spiritual belief system, ethnic background, education, and general awareness of the world around us. No two people will ever view anything, be it an issue or a person or a picture in exactly the same way. No two people reading this blog will read it the exact same way. I would hope not - but, it is entirely possible that after reading this blog - some of you will not come here again.

My purpose is dual. It is both to express my opinion and, perhaps if I am fortunate - my words will encourage a re-thinking of those whose minds are made up one way or another. It is NOT to denigrate nor deride ANYONE or their personal beliefs.

                                            ________________________