At a little over five weeks until the inauguration of Barack Obama and just about the same since he was elected we can’t seem to get beyond the race issue.  I wrote shortly after the election I was glad so many voters could put aside the race issue, but in fact it doesn’t seem we have.  Everyone wants to label the man as this or that.  I recently saw a cartoon that had two people talking about the issue, and the white one says to the other, “He’s half-white you know.”  The other one which had definite non white features said, “You must be so proud.”  That isn’t the only piece to suggest that Barack isn’t proud of his white heritage, nor is it the only piece to make it plain that many blacks don’t consider him one of their own either.

While I am all for neat orderly labels on things that can be neatly ordered and labeled. People are not meant to carry labels other than the one that says, “Made of human parts. Assembled in a woman.” What other label is needed to be officially licensed as a person?

Does it matter what race Barack Obama identifies with so long as it is the human race?  Maybe I hold this issue a little closer than most since as a single guy dated women across the racial spectrum, from Andean native to a girl from Zimbabwe.  I potentially could have had children with any of them and while my government, friends and even the most racist members of my family would have granted that made them Americans. None of the above would ever have said my children with these women were white, with the exception of those who were white.  It wouldn’t have mattered to me what color these kids skin was, their label would have been my children and TLC required.  Simply put babies, which I am sure Barack Obama once was, do not come with a “wash darks separately, do not use chlorine bleach” label.

We all grow up to look like we look, judge us not because of the DNA we carry, but by the actions that define us as humans.

We have gone too far this time in niche laws and micro niche terminology. NFL player Charles Grant, of New Orleans Saints, has been arrested and charged with feticide. That means he is being charged with killing both a woman and her fetus. The laws have gone too far.

Is it more of a crime to kill a woman than it is a pregnant woman? Do we really need an extra crime with different penalties? Do we really need to make up shit just to impress the media? Fact, this idiot was involved in a gunfight, whether he did the actual shooting or not, and this woman is dead. Why do we need so many extra laws when the people who make them have a hard enough time abiding by the ones we had?

The fact is I know what this law is on the book and I dislike it even more than most, extra laws. This law exists for anti-abortion activists who hope and dream of one day charging doctors with murder. These are usually the same people who coincidentally say the government shouldn’t be interfering in people’s lives. Of course they only mean theirs and only when it comes to paying taxes or providing welfare for other people.

Aside from this being a niche law put into effect to satisfy someone’s constituents it also puts us in a very slippery situation. If we are to define a fetus as a person and child in their own right, we must apply the law evenly across the board. Pregnant women who drink or smoke are abusing their children. Pregnant women employed in potentially dangerous environments would be guilty of child endangerment; this includes waitresses who might be around a lot of second hand smoke. Miscarriages for any number of reasons could make a woman guilty of negligent homicide.

Not only are the serious crimes potential landmines, but the ones where the data is questionable could lead to all sorts of legal implications. If a pregnant woman and those they interact with don’t do everything every study says is beneficial they would be guilty of at least neglect or violating the fetus’s human rights and dignity. Imagine telling your boss he must now address your expanding belly as a person because you are both employed here now. Imagine the battle over some women not putting headphones on the bulge to introduce music. Imaging the battle if you play it AC/DC over Bach?

If any of that sounds silly then the entire notion of a law giving legal personhood to a fetus should too.

In the modern age, the latest roaring battle cry from women is “Reproductive Rights”. I find myself questioning the whole notion, on a legal level and an ethical level. Here is your opportunity to speak out.

My first instinct is that yes women have reproductive rights. The more I think about it on a legal level I start to have my doubts about whether they should. Time and time again, the US population has said select groups don’t deserve special rights. To an extent I don’t disagree with that notion. In all practicality I realize the government often times has to step in and protect certain groups from mob mentality, but that is a different argument altogether. If women are afforded special reproductive rights, does this put them in a category of select individuals getting rights not available to the general public?

On the ethical side of things, if a woman has reproductive rights, what are her reproductive responsibilities? One can not have rights without having responsibilities to go along the exercising of those rights. I personally think that just because a woman can have babies doesn’t mean she should. I am not suggesting legal restrictions placed on reproduction, just yet. I am suggesting personal responsibility though.

When I talk about personal responsibility it isn’t just about having kids you can’t support though that certainly is one of them. The one responsibility I see most neglected these days is the genetic responsibility. Having a baby simply because you want one without regard to the quality (or even quantity) of life the child will have and how much it will cost the healthcare and welfare systems to support is completely irresponsible.

Three or four times in the last week I have seen articles on disabled women having babies when they shouldn’t have been. One was having her fourth child, trying for one that didn’t have her condition. This woman was all of three feet tall, with severe limb deformities, wheelchair bound, and had to use a ventilator most of her life. She had three kids with her condition 2 of which had survived before she had one that was just merely a carrier.

This woman was completely deluded when she suggested she takes care of and raises these kids. He arms were incapable of wiping her own ass much less changing a diaper. While the father(s) may be the type to take care of the kids and the mother, this woman has intentionally produced 2 kids that will require millions of dollars of special medical, education, and social services each by the time they are adults. Should they choose to follow in their mother’s selfish ways will likely produce more of the same burdens on society.

In the end women may or may not be legally entitled to something called reproductive rights. However the ones who can’t exercise that right responsibly certainly aren’t deserving of it.

Fact in Idaho a 10 year old girl gives birth. Fact she was the victim of statutory rape maybe as young as nine. Fact the man involved is 37. Fact he is an illegal alien. Instead of this case being about the poor girl and her baby, this case is sensationalized to be about an “Illegal Aliens Raping Little Girls”

This case is wrongly put in a light that says foreign people are horrible monsters, but does nothing to draw any attention to the medical or social facts surrounding the case. There are some reports (from unnamed sources mind you so I will not give them the credibility of providing links) that say this girl “dressed like a whore”, “flaunted her wares at older men”, and “went as far as begging men to let her spend time at their homes”. I can’t confirm these, but that isn’t the point. If this was happening why didn’t anyone speak up?

A few reasons no one said a word was probably the fear of deportation or bringing in outsiders to the immigrant community. I am sure a number of people said to themselves I know what is going on, I am sorry about it, but I have to protect my own family. We need these people to be here and work, but since there is too many good political bullet points, no one is willing to take one for the team and say, we need them and more if our economy is going to survive long term.

Another reason is how we have sexualized our young girls. Miley Cyrus’s bare back is nothing compared to the marketing campaigns and trend happy mothers that will put their no hip toddlers in low cut jeans and thongs or buying their preteen the high cut skirt and thinking the current commando fad for girls that age is cute. We sexualize these girls, but never bother to talk to them about sex. Oh sometimes we get into tizzies and scream don’t have it. We never talk to them about sex, relationships, or much important in life for that matter.

In the end the story of this girl and everything she went through is going to be lost because we start the conversation off by shouting, “Illegal Immigrants Are Child Rapists!”

I was linked to this morning through a completely unrelated topic this morning to a letter to the editor and just had to do a post of my own. To make a long story short the letter’s author blames people having babies who can’t support them for most of our economic woes. In part I agree, but he is very naïve. First he states:

“Even high-school dropouts can get married and be self-supporting as long as they do not have children to support. They can flip burgers at McDonalds and earn roughly $2,000 a month. Later, they can get other jobs, learn marketable job skills and move on to become financially secure adults.”

I am not sure what reality he is living in, but when it comes right down to it. That is a full time job getting 40 hours a week in fast food for the guy flipping burgers and the girl at the counter. That doesn’t happen. $2000 bring home for a couple is above minimum wage and at 40 hours a week, even in an above minimum wage state like Florida where the letter originated.

Further problems go something like this. The average hourly worker at a fast food place, including the hourly management, are going to be lucky to pull 24 hours a week. Unless you are a high school kid who can’t work before school is out or live in a college town and are a college student, any sort of set shift is also hard to come by. It is not uncommon for fast food and retail to give you a day shift then an evening and call it your flex time whether you asked for it or not.

With low hours and no chance to find a second or third job to make up the difference even a couple with no kids often can’t make it on his proposed idea. Besides the financial strain on this couple, there are worse problems yet. In order even see each other assuming you could manage to get 2 or 3 jobs each to make that money you would have to work at the same places. This would mean always being around each other which isn’t good. The alternate is if you can’t work at the same places, then you will never see each other anyways, much less have time for the sex which might make time for those unplanned babies.

The naive little shit writing the letter is right in another area. He blames the right wing religious nuts for insisting on abstinence only education that doesn’t work. He even almost challenges their mantra of fiscal responsibility being at odds with sticking their heads in the sand, almost, but not quite. The more kids had by people who can’t support them the more money the government has to poor into social welfare system and the more the government eventually has to raise taxes. Any fiscally responsible person should be able to see family planning is a necessary option. Free birth control and rubbers is a lot cheaper than an abortion, which is a lot cheaper than a minimum of 18 years of welfare. When I say minimum, I mean for each child born and each of their unplanned pregnancies, because children of unwed mothers are ten times more likely to be in that same boat before than kids with married parents.

So what is the solution to all of these problems? First off states need to create legal protections for workers to keep them from being shafted by shitty hours. It is in the states interest to make sure people can work full time. This can be done by both direct and indirect legislation. I would prefer to give these corporate giants who look at employees as tampons used to fill a bleeding whole in the schedule. Offering tax advantages to companies that create jobs that have each employee working 35 hours or more a week during a 10 hour window during the day would be one way.

Directly legislating companies of a certain size to provide a certain percentage of their employees with full time work is another method which has both benefits and consequences. First you can guarantee a majority of the employees will not be receiving welfare and have full time jobs. Most of these corporate entities also have benefits packages which would need to be made reasonable as well in the legislation. The down side is a lack of competition and new construction in some areas which has pluses and minuses all its own. Construction is good for the economy, but usually bad for the environment. Every community having seven or eight big box stores selling the same thing can be good for the price of goods, but has a negative impact on the consumers and employees in the long rung being stretched to thin. Having so much competition also leads to long term survival issues with large abandoned buildings comes back to having environmental consequences.

Either way something really needs to be done and it is time that the government sticks its nose into big retail and fast food giants business as much as they are sticking it into the personal lives of the average every day citizen.