Moments and Choices

I simplify things. In my opinion, life is separated in two categories: moments and choices. Think of a film reel. Each frame is its own individual moment, they occur randomly or planned and we as humans choose what to do in those instances. This happens to also be my basis for being supportive of abortion. A woman has the right to decide what she wants to do with her life, who she wants to have sex with, and also, she determines the livelihood of the life within her, if she were to get pregnant from said sex. We like to think that conception means "rights" for the child, but, in the most inappropriate way I can state this imaginable, the mother could easily drink a half-bottle of bleach and end it if she wanted to, or, go to a professional and end the life. It's all a matter of what she chooses, until the kid is out of her system and on its own, or (again, a terrible, unimaginable situation) until the kid is flooding in the basin of a toilet/in a trash can, aborted/the result of a forced miscarriage.

People are just fucked-up! They could have worn a condom, in another instance, they should have worn a condom, they could have easily stayed abstinent, or should have stayed abstinent until they were ready, if they were worried about getting pregnant. Sex is defined as the physical act used in conceiving a child; we interpret it as recreation more than for the use of procreation. Again, people have a decision at that moment. The Surgeon General states that the best way to not contract STDs or get pregnant is to use a condom if you must have sex, to limit your sexual partners down to the constraints of monogamy, or to engage in abstinence, but we as humans, and yes, we as Americans - we don't follow rules. So if you have sex, and get pregnant, that's entirely your fault, and not the child-spawn within you. Killing an innocent life form is no solution to an unwanted pregnancy, and if you were to choose the right solution, it should be to put the baby up for adoption once it is born. But again as humans, we are faulty. Not everyone chooses the right solution. They think, "Oh my god, ohmygod-ohmygod-ohmygod-I have to get rid of it!!!" That's not thinking straight. And they, in turn, destroy the pregnancy by having an abortion. Making right choices for people isn't anyone elses' job, but the person responsible.

Rules are there for us to follow and the government/brain-trust/powers-that-be enforce those laws, but anyone under 21 can choose to drink, any one person on the face of the Earth can choose to smoke marijuana/do heavier drugs, any person on this Earth can become a serial killer or abortionist, and, as long as no one knows about it, they won't be caught. What is at issue here is not necessarily what's right and what's wrong about abortion, most people citing that "what's wrong about abortion" is the only right - the question at hand is whether or not we want the government to have absolute power over what path we choose in life. At hand here is we can prevent murder through abolishing abortion, why can't we prevent murder altogether? Serial killers can be caught before anything happens, it's all down to how we catch a criminal - do we - screen more people for psychosis to prevent a serial killing - do we - step-up big brother's watchful eye, by surveillance; physically monitoring every citizen of the United States...that's just fucking stupid, but relatively realistic. So you've agreed to prevent one ring of murders by outlawing abortion, but you disagree with abolishing all murder in general because of how erroneous the process would be?

What about for those who need the abortion to stay alive - let's say - complications during the pregnancy give the mother one option, to abort the baby to save her own life? By outlawing a medical procedure, the mother and the baby die...when, if abortion was still an option, the mother might be able to survive, and, let's say, given the choice, could help the field of science by donating her son/daughter's fetus. It's all up in the air as far as it goes, but here's a good question, shouldn't that choice be left open? It's better to have more solutions to a problem, then none at all. One big solution to not having to worry about possibly choosing abortion is to not have sex. For those who engage in sex regularly, that's your choice - do what you please. For those who want to abort their child, that's their choice. As far as extremes go, why not outlaw sex to prevent from having unwanted kids? Obesity is a major killer in today's world, why not outlaw harmful foods? Obesity kills hundreds-of-thousands per year; it's an epidemic. Write a law that states you have to exercise at least 3-times a week. How would you enforce it, you might ask? How would you enforce anti-abortion laws?! Licensed practitioners wouldn't dare perform an illegal operation, but those "doctors" down in Mexico, who perform botched cosmetic surgery get by - they don't give a shit. Isn't it better to have a professional do something like abortion, then some whack-job in a dark alley, using unsterilized equipment, and reading step-by-step instructions printed off the Internet??? And for people who say, "Even if I did, unfortunately, get raped and get pregnant, I would still have the kid"... you don't know what you would do in that situation, unless it were real-life. That's all that needs to be said; there's no argument there...you don't know...
I like to think that if I were ever held-up at gun point that I would play off distractions, and if something did detour the shooter, I would karate-chop the person in the neck, they would go unconscious, I would then proceed, first, by picking up his/her dropped weapon, unload it, keeping the gun portion and throwing the bullets out randomly, and then escorting every other casualty from the crime scene. What would really happen would probably go along the lines of me, like a contestant in a game of "Simon Says," listening and obeying everything the shooter says. I could also see myself breathing heavily, maybe to the point of panic attack, I might even piss myself...I don't usually think about that kind of stuff because it's depressing; it's bothersome. And wouldn't you know, here's another point in my rant; I don't care about the abortion issue because it just flat-out irks me. I guess those on the front lines of the issue call to arms because, "if someone doesn't, who will stop the murder?"
You know what else is murder - sending people into a country and giving them orders to shoot anything that moves. The underlying factor of anything traumatic, violent, or just plain wrong is that if you were placed in that situation, you would not have a clue how you would react, unless physically placing yourself in that predicament. Well, I would assume if you were experienced with whatever it was that was troubling you, you might have a game-plan, but for those novices out there, and there's quite many of those, things would be a lot different. Moments like those then free-up the limited to unlimited possibilities of how to handle that certain situation. Choices arise and we pick what solution seems the best, even if it's the wrong one. Abortion is an issue that has just recently been accepted, on the terms that it's not as "hush-hush" as it was a hundred years, fifty years, or ten years ago. Then, it was a common and practiced medical treatment, like removing your tonsils. It was frowned upon, but other than that, and the whispers of who has had it done and why, the subject was never brought up at the dinner table as it frequently is today. Why? Because it wasn't an issue - or, in other words, no one cared.
Blood-letting was a common practice, where a doctor would poke a needle into one of your veins, and release a few pints of blood, or a leech/leeches were placed on you, and they drank what doctors referred to as, "excess blood." That treatment is not as common today, but in some cultures, and with some herbal practitioners, it is still in use. It's outdated, but it's not medieval, or in a sense that it is not cruel. It is believed that George Washington was treated in this manner following a story of him helping a friend out with an overturned or stuck wagon during a chill, rainy night. He caught pneumonia, and it was not until Pierre Charles Alexandre Louis demonstrated that phlebotomy didn't help cure a patient from pneumonia during the 1830's, that this form of prognosis was scrapped. As for Washington, almost 4 pounds of blood was withdrawn, contributing to his death by an infection in 1799.
Today's medical staff do not use it as a solution because of its fatality rate, yet cases of bloodletting still surface to this day. Bloodletting is still used and not griped about like abortion, but abortion is such a determining factor because it deals with babies. Kemo therapy is where doctors administer nuclear radiation to the cancer sufferer to dispel cancerous cells and tumors. Radiation is deadly to humans. If babies were cured with radiation, that solution might be stopped by the government. What's this!? Aborting a perfectly healthy child is wrong because nothing is wrong with the fetus, but the lack of the mother's interest....who's body is the fetus in? The mother's...so it's her decision, given that the baby is clinging to life by an umbilical cord. If the mother didn't want her appendix anymore, she could do away with that, and, again, there would be no fuss. Functioning correctly, the appendix is a life-form because it is made up of living cells. You cut that son of a bitch out of the woman or man, and the cells die, ultimately the appendix is useless/dead. Same principle as abortion. Moments and choices people, that's all life is.
I guess abortion has changed its purpose. No longer is it medicinal; it's seen as the wrong solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Our absence in legit reasoning has resulted in the right thing to do when facing endangerment to the baby and mother entering the wrong when dealing with morality. The only personal gain with abortion is the relief a doctor might feel in saving a patient. Let's not forget whose choice it really is; physician and mother.

'Why We Love the Spider'

Last night, in advanced, I purchased tickets to "Spiderman 3" reminded of last year, when I went to see "Pirates of the Caribbean 2" and was denied a ticket, due to the crowd that had festered around the lobby, waiting to get in themselves. When my brother and I arrived at the theatre, with our other friends waiting for us, we noticed a lapse in populace. Opening night must have harboured a better turn-out.
We entered the auditorium, beseeching upon a night of entertainment. I had read somewhere that Spiderman 3 was the most expensive movie ever made (to date)! It's final costs reaching close-to-over $500 million. Filmmakers take a giant leap when over-estimating their budget. I like to think of it as a loan, and that's exactly what it is. The studio-heads set a gross figure they think they will reach once the movie is released, and that, over-all, can equal the budget for the film. A lot of studios will jip-out on the budget of a film, for revenue, once the film hits theatres. This, in turn, makes the most money. So far, Spiderman 3 has only grossed $59 million within it's first weekend, a long-shot away from $500+ million it needs to hit for it to be labelled a success.
As far as the movie goes, it was alright. The dialogue was shitty and whenever there was supposed to be an emotional moment, the film was kind of 'blah'. It was purely a comic book, action film, though you could tell the creators of it strived to make fans and the audience happy. To argue that the director or the writers needed to step-up the pace, derive from the comic book more, or steal some of the flare that made the first and second movies well-loved would be unnecessary, mainly because the film itself is just a comic book/ the cartoon-series adaptation. The CGI was fantastic, the story seemed too rushed, but overall lack-luster. And...yeah...I realized why I, personally, love the Spiderman movies: wit. Bruce Campbell makes his famed appearance once more (which I always liked) and J.K. Simmons is always a delight in his role as J. Jonah Jameson, the Daily Bugle's high-strung editor.
If you liked the first film, you will definitely like this one as well, but if you're more of a fan of the second one, as I am, this one will seem the worst of the series. My Spiderman trilogy rank is: 2, 1, then 3...I'll flat-out say it; I worship Bruce Campbell...