Which Would You Choose?

I was just two weeks shy of my 17th birthday when Richard Nixon resigned from the office of the Presidency in August 1974. I can still see images in my head of the Senate hearings that led to his downfall playing out on our TV but honestly, I didn't follow it all that closely. I was too busy learning how to shotgun beers and trying not to sabotage my life beyond repair than I was concerned about current events. I would develop an interest years/decades later. There's an excellent podcast called Slow Burn by Leon Neyfakh that details much of what led up to Nixon's demise and the shifting support for him along the way. It's fascinating listening.

Had Alexander Butterfield (during the Senate Watergate hearings) never mentioned the tape recording system that Nixon had installed in the Oval Office, it's likely Nixon never would've had to resign in disgrace. And had there been a Fox News with the likes of Fox and Friends or Sean Hannity to bolster support for Nixon, it's also very possible he would've finished his term. That we have a large percentage of our population tuning into propagandists such as Hannity or Limbaugh or other conservative media voices for direction is disheartening. I actually know people who believe in Hannity's "deep state" nonsense. The investigation into Trump* was entirely Republican-led and is now entirely being buried by Republicans. I fully support efforts by Democrats in the House of Representatives leading an investigation of their own into what is likely the most corrupt administration in our country's history. You don't get to obstruct an investigation into wrongdoing and then claim exoneration because your obstruction was successful.

We need to hear from Don McGahan because McGahn is to Trump* what Nixon's Oval Office tapes were to him. They both hold incriminating secrets. And just as Nixon tried to suppress his tapes from scrutiny, Trump is attempting to suppress McGahn's testimony. History has a funny way of repeating itself.

We're about to have a national conversation about abortion now that Republican-led states are feeling emboldened by a more conservative SCOTUS and are making challenges to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion. What they may want to keep in mind is that Roe v. Wade was decided in a 7-2 decision with 5 of the 7 Justices having been appointed by Republican Presidents. While conservatives love to blame Democrats for legalized abortion in the U.S., they seem unaware that they have their elected leaders to blame (or thank) for it.

There was a time not all that many years ago when you could find me marching with pro-life supporters at the Capitol in St Paul on a cold Monday in January. That seems a lifetime ago to me now. My world is no longer so black and white. In those days, I never once stopped to consider the woman who found herself pregnant with no support, say nothing of a decent paying job with benefits to see her through her pregnancy and for months afterward. And what about the cost of childcare in the years to come? We don't live in an Ozzie and Harriet world, and unplanned/unwanted pregnancies happen. I now get that. But most of all, I get that it's not my place to decide what a woman should or shouldn't do in whatever circumstance she finds herself.

For those trying to use scripture to support their pro-life values—think again. Yes, I've read all of the scripture purporting to show that God is a pro-life God, that he knew you in your mother's womb and such, but does this sound pro-life? There are many other biblical examples.

I truly am hoping for an honest discussion about abortion so that the lies being told by Trump* can be corrected. Doctors aren't taking newborn babies, wrapping them warmly in blankets and then conferring with the baby's mother as to whether or not they're going to kill it. That's just such a ridiculous thing for anyone to say.

A couple of years ago, author Patrick S. Tomlinson penned the following scenario as a way of making a point for those who say that life begins at conception. He details a scenario whereby you are in a fertility clinic when the fire alarm goes off. Before you escape you have the option to save either a 5-year-old child who is pleading for help or a container of 1000 viable human embryos.

Do you A) save the child, or B) save the 1000 embryos? he asks.

There is no "C". "C" means you all die.

Which would you choose?

That's all I've got

Comments

John A Hill said…
Yeah, that scripture sure muddies the water, but I've found that few hardcore pro-lifers know of it and none have an answer for it. They just ignore it and go on beating their drums and demanding death for those that don't agree with them.
Kevin Gilmore said…
I agree, John. I still consider myself pro-life but I like to make a distinction between that and pro-birth types. There's a large chasm between the two these days.
Neil said…
What gives me hope with during this time in history is frankly, you! Seriously, Kevin you are the little sliver of hope for me, and proof that a person with strong beliefs and views can change or at least tweak those views over time.

My hope is that there are more people out there like you who are open to seeing different points of views and openly discuss them. If not, we are screwed.
Kevin Gilmore said…
That's so nice of you to say, Neil. My perspective on so many things has changed considerably in the past 10 or more years and I'm fine with that. Sometimes it changed because I was simply ignorant about an issue while other times it changed because I see the world from a different perspective than I once did. Admitting I'm wrong about something isn't a sign of weakness for me but I think it may be for others. Thanks for your comment.

Popular posts from this blog

David Crowder Concert, NWA188 and Photo Review

Riding, Retirement and a Home Revisited

A Tragic Loss