Tag Archives: social problem

Pro Life? Pro Choice? (pt. 2)

Standard

Part 2? Where’s the part 1?

It’s been years since I wrote this. Almost half a decade ago, I stated that I support the legalisation of abortion, although I wasn’t sure that I should be categorised as a Pro Choice supporter. Of course since then things have shifted a bit, and now I am a full fledged Pro Choice supporter, and don’t care as much what people would think about me as I was when I was younger.

It is wonderful knowing that in many countries abortion is now legalised. It is wonderful to know that in many parts of the world, women could make decision for themselves, and their own bodies. I know that there are still many oppositions, especially from religious bigots, and so called Pro Life supporter, but at least the government has acknowledge the importance of legalising abortion. That’s halfway done.

Now the fight is for the right for ALL people to have control of their lives. Not only women, but all people, to have a say about what they want to do with their OWN lives? You still don’t know what I am talking about?

Okay. I say it.

Euthanasia.

For some people it is as touchy of a subject as abortion. How do we talk about people helping other people to commit suicide is -for some people – unthinkable. Pro Life supporter, like usual would be against anything ending a life, but it is not their lives they’re talking about, is it? It is someone else’s lives, and… you know what? I don’t think Pro Life supporter actually knows what pro life actually means.

I think Pro Choice supporter is a true pro life. For them, what is important is not about prolonging the life, or keeping people alive. Yes life is important, and you should definitely respect it. But more than that, it is also important to acknowledge the quality of life.

What drives Pro Choice people like me to support both abortion and euthanasia is not hate, nor disrespect of human life. It is mercy, and compassion.

Did you watch “The Wolverine” film (bear with me)? In the first few minutes of the film Wolverine found a heavily wounded – but alive – bear. After being shot by an irresponsible hunter, the bear couldn’t barely move, and was in immense pain — death is imminent, but it would be slow. He did what Wolverine would do, claw and all… end it quickly, and with dignity. That’s mercy, that’s compassion.

If you are a veterinarian, or have a veterinarian friend, you might have seen or hear stories where your friend might have to put a dog to sleep because of an incurable illness. Knowing than keeping the dog alive is a torture, you would have to bear that tough face, and inject that liquid to the dog’s body, and see it slowly drift away in peace. That’s mercy, that’s compassion.

How can you see that in animal and can’t see that in human? That is beyond me.

Animals can’t beg you to get this over with, humans could. And they do.

It is not desperation, nor depression that bring them to do this. Some people do want to have a peaceful, painless, and dignify death. Some people want to die surrounded by people they care about. Some people just don’t want to die in pain, or be remembered in their worst condition. Whatever it is, it is their wish — probably even, their LAST wish.

And how could you say no to that? Because you think keeping them alive is more important than HOW they would live that prolonged one or two years of their lives? And why is that? Is allowing them to choose to die is against YOUR moral belief? Well tough then. It is not what they believe.

That’s why I think Pro Life supporters are not a true pro life. They are not celebrating nor supporting life, they’re a bunch of bigots, wanting to feel good about themselves by playing god with someone else’s lives.

Prost!

Advertisements

Burkini, Duterte’s Middle Finger, and Indonesia

Standard

The video of the Philippines’s president dropping the F-bomb to the EU has — unsurprisingly — gone viral. I have never noticed this new president until his conversation with Indonesian president — about the Philippine’s citizen who were convicted for smuggling drugs and now in death row in Indonesian’s prison — went viral too few weeks ago.

How refreshing.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t condone what he does. However I do believe that every country has a right, and sovereignty to make their own internal law. In Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines, for example, drug smuggling means capital punishment. It is beyond me that so many people couldn’t just let them be.

President Duterte called them a bunch of hypocrites. I can see why he does.

In France you are not allowed to wear burkini in the beach, because French has A LAW against it. When people around the world criticise this law, and condemn this too, one of my French friends would get very offended and tell other non-French people off for failing to understand what this religious symbols mean for the French people.

In America, you can carry guns. When some people got killed, lots of people around the world would criticise their gun laws. But a friend from America said to me once, people who are non-American don’t understand that it is their law, and their rights to carry a gun, and what those rights and law mean for the American people.

Why don’t the same rules applied to third world countries like Indonesia or the Philippines?

Indonesia was under a massive scrutiny when we were about to execute nine Australian drug smugglers. People said that the death penalty for drug smuggler is inhumane and barbaric. Now the Philippines has to endure the same thing, because the president is doing a so called “bloody war against drug” in his country.

People who are not Indonesian and not Filipino don’t understand how drug, and drug cartel has undermined the very core of the country. They deliberately introduced drugs to underages, and school children. And, these people won’t back down just by threats of prison time, unlike most criminals in first world countries like the UK, US, or some European countries.

Drug is different in first world country, and third world country. People in the UK called it recreational drug, but it is no recreation at all in Indonesia. When I showed my objection towards drugs to my ex, he felt heavily offended — as for him recreational drug is a part of… you know, youth freedom, the trial and error of life, hippy kind of thing… For me? Coming from Indonesia, it is the reflection of either rich people gone bad, or poor people trying to run away from life, by ruining it even worse.

Do I know someone who died from drugs? I do. But I am not going to speak for him or his family. I leave it at that.

I just want to tell people who complained about this drug war, and burkini. If you want to go to a beach and wearing burkini, don’t go to Nice. There are plenty other places where you can wear your unique looking – sharia approved – beachwear — try Tunisia, their tourism has been suffering after the gunman attack to British tourists few years ago. If you want to go to the beach, and at the same time wanting to be able to get high on drugs, don’t go to Bali. There are plenty other beaches where you can kill yourself slowly, without the government having to help you with the means of firing squad.

Prost!

Hindsight is Always A Good Thing, Isn’t It?

Standard

Months ago when the media started to pick up the migrant and refugee situation, I told my husband that we were lucky that in the UK, our Prime Minister decided not to back down with the European Union’s idea of taking in refugees coming from Syria. It was definitely not a popular opinion, and many has branded me either racist or fascist.

I mean, how silly is that?

We are living in a world where political correctness has taken over the freedom of speech, and freedom of thought. I agree that some people are just dickheads who would say anything out of spite, which some people deemed as hate speech. This is where the the blurred line is drawn. How do you know when you’re being critical to an ideology, or when you are just being purely hateful?

In my own definition of hate speech and freedom of speech, the line is drawn where the opinion is targeted to. I believe that ideologies, ideas, opinions, as well as beliefs are open for criticism. You can criticise liberalism, democracy, capitalism or socialism, nihilsm, humanism, Christianity and of course Islam as an ideology, but… it has turned into a hate speech when you start attacking a person, personality or their lifestyle.

How about the sentence “British women going to Syria to fight alongside ISIS and being a jihadi bride is stupid”? Does it mean that the women were stupid – which is an attack to a person? Or does it mean that going to Syria to be a jihadi bride is stupid – which is a criticism towards the idea of going to a war torn country to marry a terrorist she never knew?

Back to the day when I said that I was glad that our PM refused to accept those so called refugees. Why did I say that they were “so called” refugees?

Simple Definition of refugee

  • : someone who has been forced to leave a country because of war or for religious or political reasons

Full Definition of refugee

  1. :  one that flees; especially:  a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution

Refugee.” Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 9 Jan. 2016. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refugee&gt;.
Website
So… If someone has fled from Syria to Turkey for example, then Turkey government had to take them in because they are refugees. I can deal with it. But since Turkey is not a war torn country and that these people were not persecuted in Turkey, once these refugees left Turkey to find a better life in Europe their status would change into… “economic migrant”. Can you follow the logic up to this point? If you can, please continue…
If, these people who is now an economic migrant tried to enter a country illegally, their status would be now an illegal immigrant. Would you be surprised if a country would reject these people as they are now illegal immigrant?
No. I totally support them.
When PM Cameron decided only to take proper refugees — those who are from the refugee camp to the UK, after the Home Office got all the documents and background check, many British citizen called him inhumane and embarrassment to the country. They got so defiant and even printed a sticker saying that “refugees welcome” and put it in their house’s window. Why? I think it is just because that was the most PC thing to do or say.
I wonder what is in their mind when Norway had to teach these people about consent and rape. I wonder what is in their mind when France and Belgium is now dealing with terror attacks. I wonder what they are saying now after Germany — who has accepted more than a million refugee now is dealing with sex attacks in several cities (most notably Cologne). Angela Merkel is now tightening the border and wouldn’t let any more refugees in. But isn’t it a bit late for that?
Of course some apologist would say that there’s no link between the sex attacks and the refugees, and that we shouldn’t generalise refugees and crime rate. No we don’t generalise. We don’t say ALL refugees are shit because that would be hate speech (according to my own definition of hate speech I said above). We are saying that the idea of taking shitload of people without checking their background beforehand is just the definition of silly. We are saying that ultimately the government’s responsibility is not to the welfare of the refugees, but to protect its own citizen first and foremost.
I will end it here for now. Wish Germany the best of luck.
Prost!