mmoa_writes

Abortion is a funny thing... even funnier than God. At least when we talk about God, there is always a point when all sides can bow out and appreciate one another's point of view. Even fanatics, once you know how to talk to them.

You see, it's interesting the assumptions of the average pro-life candidate. Mostly because of the fact that by labelling themselves pro-life, they make out that everyone else is pro-death, but that's another rant... no, just that they assume that anyone who even admits that people do need some privacy in their life especially when it's to do with something so involved, is an unfeeling, cold-hearted, cruel and horrible individual whose main concern is keeping the population down.

As you can tell, I have just come fresh from a debate. I have been accused of being a weak, spineless individual mainly because I decided to be honest: I have an adamant dislike of abortion, but I wouldn't go about trying to make it illegal, because I know that wouldn't work. I would do (well, am doing, I suppose) something or a more permanent, subtle nature. Communication, persuasion. Or, depending on the person involved, slap them and tell them to get over themselves.

But only in the rarest of circumstances.

Is that hypocrisy?

Which brings me onto another point: I hate that word, hypocrisy. Too many people have latched onto it and keep on using it most inappropriately. Much like Logic, now that I come to think about it. Those two words are the bane of my life, really. Any time I am involved in any sort of debate and someone decides to throw those two in, it makes me want to throw up my arms in frustration. Once those two are mentioned, the debate is effectively over.

Since when did pragmatism become hypocrisy or even worse, spinelessness, a symptom of a mind unable to make up it's own opinion, a personality trying to please both sides? In any other debate, such a stance would have earned some interesting comments, maybe a laugh or two, but not the hostility within the abortion ranks. I am not saying that I expect one type of (perhaps lesser) behaviour from me and everyone else to behave to the highest moral standards. I am simply saying that campaigning for abortion to be illegal, is no more going to change attitudes or opinions than making outbursts of racist hatred illegal. So you may do that, if that is what your heart tells you, but why that should make you better than someone who shares the same 'values' as you do, but intends to go about them in a different (and to their eyes no less legitimate) way, lower than you in terms of ability to formulate and hold their own opinions... hm. Frankly I'm not impressed. I pity the aborted fetus' if this is the best defence such people can afford them.



Onto something else now. Did anyone else watch Riot at the Rite on Saturday? (BBC) I hope no one had, actually, because whenever I see something that really touches me, and I try to share my thoughts with others, it becomes polluted, if you know what I mean. For instance, 'The Secret History' by Donna Tartt was one of my favourite books until I came across other people who had read it and liked it. No matter. It (Riot at the Rite, I mean) was a lovely piece of television about the 'Rite of Spring' and the infamous riot that took place at it's first performance. The acting was excellent, and Adam Garcia was amazing as Vaslav Nijinsky.

Ah, Nijinsky... Tragedy, but such makes History.



And the funniest thing happened to me. Someone decided to ask me if I was 'happy' and do you know, it took me such a long time to answer that question that I just muttered some rubbish about being content. It's a bit like when people ask you if you believe in God. What on earth does it mean [to be happy, but I suppose I may as well throw God in as well...]?

Just rather odd, I thought.