Oy, what a week. I'm thankful for the 3-day weekend at hand, mostly so I can get more sleep. 5am comes awfully early when I'm woken up by a baby 2-3 times per night, no matter what time I go to bed.
I'm loving having my grandma here. She helps me amuse the kids at night when I'm trying to get dinner ready, and she's even been gracious enough to do laundry and some cleaning while I'm at work during the day. It's like having a live-in mother's helper. I'm going to miss her when she goes back home in March!!
Gabriel has really taken to her as well. All she has to do is pick him up and he's all smiles and cooing! It's so adorable. I'm going to try get a video this weekend.
Just a reminder that the Phoenix 40 Days for Life Campaign starts up again on February 22! Sadly, my work schedule is not as flexible this time around so I won't be able to participate as much as I'd like, if at all. :(
Speaking of things I wish I could do but can't due to my work schedule... the Institute of Catholic Theology has opened 4th Quarter Registration! Those classes look terrific and I wish I could take one, but logistically it's impossible, especially with a baby who is exclusively breastfeeding. One of the downsides to living in Surprise. Oh well... maybe someday!
The debate surrounding the HHS Mandate is really irritating me. I think Glenn Reynolds sums up my frustration well:
But note how the narrative in the press has shifted. The Obama Administration says that churches who oppose contraception still have to pay for it. And then, when people object, suddenly the talk shifts from who pays for contraception to whether someone wants to ban it.
It’s as if we passed a law requiring mosques to sell bacon and then, when people objected, responded by saying “What’s wrong with bacon? You’re trying to ban bacon!!!!”
Of additional frustration are the misconceptions regarding the new ultrasound law in Texas. A FB friend of mine posted a news story on her wall about how it was legalized rape (ugh, I know) and we've been going back and forth. I had a long comment carefully explaining that the law does not force a woman to have an ultrasound, because they're done anyway as standard medical procedure to date the pregnancy. Of course, a woman can refuse an ultrasound but it's really not safe to do an abortion without an ultrasound, given that the wrong gestational age or pregnancy complications (an ectopic, for example) could cause problems if not detected prior to the procedure. I also pointed out that women were free to refuse to see the ultrasound, if that was their choice.
The latest reply on the thread this morning? A friend of hers says, "Why do you think it's fair to FORCE a woman to look at an ultrasound? Do you think people should be forced to look at X-rays before having broken bones repaired?"
Seriously, people, READ THE THREAD before commenting, and use some freaking logic! First of all, genetically unique, developing human being =/= broken bone. Secondly, if you break your leg, the doctor WILL SHOW YOU the X-ray before fixing it -- not as a condition to fixing it, but as a part of informed consent, so you know exactly what's wrong and what needs to happen to fix it. I'm sure you could refuse to see the X-ray if you wanted to, but why wouldn't you want to see exactly what the problem was? And why would the ultrasound information make any difference to a woman if unborn children are merely clumps of cells or masses of tissue, as PP et al like to claim?
One of my friend's friends from the convo above went off on a tangent about how the new personhood laws are trying to say eggs were people. *sigh* I explained the difference between an ovum and a zygote, and she actually admitted that she'd hadn't taken the time to actually inspect the merit of the claims of the opposition (that is, she didn't bother to look at their arguments, because if she had she would have realized that no one is trying to claim that an ovum is a person). However, then she went on a tangent about how saying that human being were, well, human beings would then mean any woman who had a miscarriage or stillbirth could be thrown in jail. *headdesk*
I pointed out that prior to Roe v. Wade, in states where abortion was, in fact, illegal, women weren't prosecuted for having a miscarriage or a stillbirth. My friend replied that I was wrong because her great-grandmother in 1923 was offered an abortion after a car accident. Uh, yeah, I wasn't arguing that abortion never happened when it was illegal. I was arguing that women weren't prosecuted for having miscarriages when abortion was illegal.
(Incidentally, my friend's great-grandmother declined the abortion, and gave birth to my friend's grandmother. Which is fabulous, and you'd think my friend would be happy, right? Well, she's happy her great-grandmother "had the choice." ??? Sorry, don't get the logic... you're happy your grandmother was almost killed, which would have negated your existence as well as your children's???)
If you ever hear reports of my untimely death, it's likely that my brain exploded after reading too many of these types of arguments.
On that cheery note, have a great weekend!
For more Quick Takes, visit Betty Beguiles!