Or maybe I’ll be just fine. I’ll pack up my emotions and move and everything will be okay. I’ll be okay. I’ll still see you more than I’d wish to, but that’s the price you pay sometimes for work related relations. I’m sorry, I know this wasn’t what you wanted out of us, but it’s what we became. We became those people that say “hi” and “bye” to each other, but only when other people are near so they don’t think anything. We became those people that look at each other, but only from afar. We are those people who act like they never met, but know deep down inside that for a moment in time, even though it was brief, we were best friends.

Sincerely,
Ariel

You remind me of someone I once knew. He was very similar to you. Very similar indeed. He cut his hair the same way and wore the same style of clothes. You’re slightly taller than him, but you remind me of him whenever I look up at you. He had the same dance in his step and he told the same style of jokes. Perhaps that’s why I’m so drown to you because you bring me that piece of him that I miss. 

However, you are exactly like him. You say the same cruel things to me and you push down in the same direction. His impact hurt more, but you’re getting there. You give me the same look and I continue to give you the same one I gave him years ago. This look of disappoint, regret, and pain. 

How does it feel? Does it hurt you too? I never got a chance to ask him so I’m asking you.

Read More

I’m not quite sure what to do.
There’s what I want
and what I think I want too.
There’s option one
and option two
Option three,
but there we all lose.

In no way am I trying to offend anyone, but some things need to be said.

• As one would start to read this, I assume the first thing that would come to their mind is that I should not force my morality on them. This is the my first point. By stating this one is saying that morality is relative, or that it is up to me to decide what is right and what is wrong. This is referred to morality relativism, the belief that there is no objective standards on what is right or wrong, only personal preferences. This in itself is self refuting and to prove that point I would like to take an excerpt from a conversation said between two people, pro-choice and pro-life:

Choice: You made some good points, but you shouldn’t force your morality on me or anyone else who wants an abortion. It’s our choice, isn’t it?
Life: Are you saying I’m wrong?
Choice: I’m not sure. What do you mean?
Life: Well, you think I’m wrong, don’t you? If not, why are you correcting me? And if so, then you’re forcing your morality on me, aren’t you?
Choice: No, I just want to know why you are telling people what they can and cannot do with their lives.
Life: Are you saying I shouldn’t do that? That it’s wrong? If so, then why are you telling me what I can and cannot do? Why are you forcing your morality on me?
Choice: (regrouping): I’m confused. Look, the simple fact is that pro-choicers are not forcing women to have abortions, but you want to force women to be mothers. If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. But you shouldn’t force your beliefs on others. All I am saying is that pro-life people should be tolerant of other views.
Life: Is that your view?
Choice: Yes.
Life: Why are you forcing it on me? That’s not very tolerant, is it?
Choice: What do you mean? I think women should have a choice and you don’t. It’s your view that’s intolerant, wouldn’t you say?
Life: Okay, so you think I’m wrong. What is it you want pro-lifers like me to do?
Choice: You should let women decide for themselves and tolerate other views.
Life: Tell me, what exactly do pro-choicers believe?
Choice: We believe everyone should decide for themselves and tolerate other views.
Life: So you are demanding that pro-lifers become pro-choicers.
Choice: What?
Life: With all due respect, here’s what I hear you saying. Unless I agree with you, you will not tolerate my view. Privately, you’ll let me think whatever I want, but you don’t want me to act as if my view is true. It seems you think tolerance is a virtue if and only if people agree with you. 

It is impossible to live as a moral relativist. As C.S. Lewis points out, “a person who claims there is no objective morality will complain if you break a promise or cut in line. And if you steal his stereo, he will protest loudly. If I were a crook, I would reply to the relativist, Do you think stealing stereos is wrong? Well, that’s just your view. My morality says it’s perfectly acceptable. Who are you to force your views on me? Simply put, moral relativists espouse a view they cannot live with.”

• Another point is that it would appear that ones views are not only “pro-choice” or “pro-life,” but also “pro-life, except [insert exception here].” The ever most popular, “I personally oppose abortion, but I think it should still be legal.”

I wonder rather these people would behave similarly about slavery. Would they not approve of slavery, but not mind if a neighbor owned a slave? If so this was the same exact case the Stephen Douglas made to Abraham Lincoln. It’s also interesting to state that many people told those oppose to slavery to take their morals out of it.

• Pro-chiocers state that men should have no say in the matter. To me it appears that they forget that it takes both a man and women to make a baby. Men have EVERY right to be pro-life just as women do. Arguments do not have genders, people do. Lesbians, and non-menopausal women cannot get pregnant as well… do they not deserve the right to a say? Pro-chiocers with that reasoning would therefore be stating that the Roe v. Wade case is invalid. Seeing that it was decided by nine MEN. They should also be unsupportive of all male lawyers working for Planned Parenthood on abortion related topics. However, since we know that is not going to happen it would appear the main argument is that “No man can speak on abortion—unless he agrees with us.”

Using that same belief system I state the following:
-“Since only generals understand battle, only they should discuss the morality of war.”
- “Because female sportscasters have never experienced a groin injury, they have no right to broadcast football games on national television.”
- “Only Jewish people have a right to condemn the holocaust.”

 I rest my case.

• But what if she’s raped? Pro-lifers are cruel and insensitive toward women suffering assault. Right? WRONG. Rape is profoundly evil. Victims deserve our best care. But there’s a moral consideration as well. Does rape involve two victims or just one? And if the unborn entity involved is human, why should she be forced to give up her life so that her mother can feel better?

Put differently, can you think of any other case where, having been victimized yourself, you can justly turn around and victimize another completely innocent person? Say, for example, a drunk driver plows into your parked car, destroying it. To ease the pain of your loss, you take a sledgehammer to your neighbor’s sedan. Is this morally permissible? If a friend protests your actions, is he insensitive? Hardly. So again, the issue is not, Are pro-lifers cruel?, but, What is the unborn? If the unborn is human, it should not be killed to benefit its mother.

The argument from rape, if successful at all, would only justify abortion in cases of sexual assault, not for any reason the woman deems fit. In fact, arguing for abortion-on-demand from the hard case of rape is like trying to argue for the elimination of all traffic laws because a person might have to break one rushing a loved one to the hospital. Proving an exception does not prove a rule.

Read More

What if the world turned slower today?
What if the skies turned dark gray?
What if the earth crumbled from under our feet?
What if the sounds of love never make a single beat?
What if my questions never get answered?
What if—