wifemom's Blog

   Those who oppose abortion, no doubt, will find vast causes to justify it under certain conditions, such as rape or endangerment of the mother’s life. But who draws the boundaries on when it’s right and when it’s wrong? Abortion is abortion, no matter what the circumstances may be. If abortion becomes illegal, there can’t be any exceptions. Opponents of abortion suggest other alternatives, but there are no acceptable alternatives that I have heard. And unfortunately there are already too many unwanted unloved children going un-adopted in America.

   The most important factor to be considered I think; is that outlawing abortion is not going to stop it from happening. Did you know the risk of death from an illegal abortion is 30 times greater than from a legal one? But, in the absence of legal abortions by qualified physicians, many women disregarded the law and submitted themselves to women and men that were nothing but quacks, which performed abortion, often under filthy back alley room conditions. The women who had these types of abortions in such unsterilized conditions succumbed to infections and at times hemorrhaged and bled out; to cease the back alley and illegal abortions, laws were mandated to permit legal abortions that instilled safe and sterile medical procedures with legalized standards and physicians.

   Understand, I am neither condoning nor condemning abortion; I am simply defending each woman’s right to be in charge of the decisions that will affect her life. If we abdicate our rights in the abortion wrangle, how many of our other individual judgments might we have to capitulate in the future? It is for this basis, for this tenet, that I stand with those who are fighting to keep the responsibility for abortion where it really belongs, with each individual woman. It’s her body, it’s her future, and it’s unequivocally her decision.

**You agree to limit the content you post to the subject matter for which the Forum is intended. Name-calling will not be tolerate.. I expect all users to conduct themselves in an appropriate and mature manner.**

I became very curious about what exactly is cyber-bullying or stalking; insight of the current back and forth bashing of two bloggers. So I asked my uncle retired LEO, what exactly is cyber stalking? It is a crime in which the attacker harasses a victim using electronic communication, such as e-mail or instant messaging (IM), or messages posted to a Web site or a discussion group. Cyber stalking, cyber squatting, and cyber terrorism are among the growing number of new computer and Internet-related crimes, sometimes referred to collectively as cybercrime.

Cyber stalking begins with e-mail messages most often, followed by message boards and forum blogs, yet less frequently with chat. Did you know that 58% of cyber stalkers are male, and women are targets the majority of the time. Serious behavior includes physical violence. For example a NH woman was murdered by the cyber stalker who had threatened her in e-mail messages and posted on his Web site that he would kill her. Unfortunately many women online know how it feels to be objectified and have your arguments trivialized or mocked because of your gender. So the best response I was told; is to ignore them online, deleting their comments from discussions, while saving all their comments and emails in case they are needed for demonstrating a pattern of escalating harassment to law enforcement at a later date.

Often Internet free speech absolutists and blogging platforms and others don’t take nearly seriously enough the presents of cyber stalking. Personally, I think we all need to treat this not just as a free speech issue but as an issue of human dignity, respect and rights. Pressing that websites as these have a clear laid out comment policy that is strictly adhered to ensure; that anarchic escalations at least don’t dominate online space, or cronyisms develop in an effort to  silence those that may differ in their views. Because cyber stalking is all about the behavior that incorporates persistent conduct; for example if someone acknowledges that he or she will continue to target you is that premeditated cyber stalking?

What do you think?

Also should any blogger ponder that they are pre-eminent from expurgate?

18.2-152.7:1 Virginia: Harassment by computer; penalty.

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

In a presentational debate, each person tries to prove them-selves right and the other person wrong. Of course, we all know what happens in the end — each person only ends up more entrenched in their views, regardless of who seems to deliver the most dominant argument. A debate cannot be won with resistance but I have always question can a presidential debate be won by one candidate; because one will only strengthen the other person’s resolve. At best Obama and McCain will both leave in a state of stubbornness, but little communication actually occurred in the context of answering the questions because of the political posturing rhetoric.

I think Obama and McCain should not be worried about winning the debate but aim for a goal other than being the winner. Obviously, Obama and McCain were prepared to defend themselves because one is trying to prove themselves right. Therefore instead of Obama or McCain attempting to prove themselves right or becoming the winner and the other person the loser; Obama or McCain should set a goal of attempting to raise the other candidate’s awareness while maintaining their own sense of inner peace. Thereby focusing on helping the other person become aware of the very extent of their behavior and how it may affect others, but without taking ownership of anything the other individual says. Thus, I think Obama was better at focusing on helping McCain become aware of the very extent of his behavior and how it may affect others as well as the image of America. Obama kept his focus and remained calm and articulate; while McCain seemed frustrated and patronizing when referring to Obama as “that one.”

But it’s also important to me that leaders realize when they’re wrong and change paths accordingly. McCain is showing what he thinks of the political process and of me, as a voter. He thinks that I am to be won by any means necessary, even dishonesty. It’s okay, apparently, to smear and to be dishonest. McCain was obvious in his manifestation of political rhetoric during the debate; that seemed hostile and rude toward Obama including disruptive at times. I applaud Obama for simply side-stepping McCain’s comments in his attempt to pigeonhole him into a negative role. And keeping toward the forum of a presidential debate and giving the courtesy of prioritize things that need to be done. Because doing everything all at once is impossible almost like trying to bake a cake without going through the steps of mixing the ingredients.

“We are not as divided as politics would seem to dictate,” Obama said. “But if we could challenge ourselves, there is no problem we could not solve because election is not about race, gender, or age, but a choice between the past and the future.”

Nearly 4 million people across the United States have felony convictions, which are out of prison, have no say in their own government. Most states forbid current inmates to vote, others extend such bans to parolees, and still others disenfranchise felons for life. It hasn’t escaped notice that the felon vote would prove a windfall for the Democrats; because when they do get to vote, convicts and ex-convicts tend to pull the lever for the Left. Their lost votes could make a decisive difference in the coming election on November 4, 2008; especially in Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Virginia.

The liberal advocates and Democratic politicians seeking the enfranchisement of felons deny any attenuate political motivation, of course. Their interest is moral, they claim: it is just wrong to deny felons the vote. Their various arguments in support of this conclusion, though, have failed to persuade all. Yet here we are again pushing for felons to have the right to vote in an election year that is crucial for the Democratic. Murderers, rapists, and thieves might seem to be an odd constituency for a party that prides itself on its touchy-feely concern for women and victims. But desperate times call for desperate measures. The Democrats need to enlarge their base. If that means reaching out to lock in the pedophile and home-invader vote, so be it. Even moderate Democrat Senator Clinton endorsed voting rights for felons years ago.

Felon advocates also argue that to prevent felons from voting, especially after their release from prison, unfairly punishes them twice for the same crime. On this view, the ex-convict pays his debt to society by doing time and should suffer no further punishment. But this begs the question at issue: should a felon lose his vote as well as spend time behind bars? Few people would say that the drunk driver sentenced by a judge to lose his driver’s license and to pay a substantial fine is penalized twice. Most would agree that, given the crime, this one punishment with two components is perfectly suitable. Similarly, those who support disenfranchising felons do not believe in punishing criminals twice for the same misdeed; they believe in punishing them once, with the penalty including both jail time and the loss of the vote. A punishment of incarceration without disenfranchisement, they plausibly maintain, would be too merciful.

If the right to vote is as precious as felon advocates claim to believe it is, we should expect people to uphold at least some minimum moral standards in order to keep it such as refraining from violating their fellow voters’ own inalienable rights. Because some people might otherwise begin to surmise that the hope of gaining political advantage is the only reason they advocate enfranchisement of felons.

**You agree to limit the content you post to the subject matter for which the Forum is intended. Name-calling will not be tolerate.. I expect all users to conduct themselves in an appropriate and mature manner.**