Why I don't like abortions

It is unfortunate that I feel the need to write this.

I don't like abortions. They terminate a pregnancy that, in most cases, could lead to the birth of a healthy human baby. As a part of the operation, the baby - or egg, embryo or fetus - is killed and removed from the uterus. Many abortions are done for non-medical reasons where the pregnancy is not threatening the mother's life and the fetus seems healthy.

In addition to the fact that abortion involves killing, it is also a medical operation, and all operations carry risks. The medication that the mother has to take has its own risks, too, and it is known that abortion is a traumatic experience to many.

I also don't like hospitals in general. They are almost prison-like institutions where people are taken to lie on an uncomfortable bed, attached to cold medical equipment and given drugs whose ingredients are not always clear to the patients. People are made to go through treatments that are sometimes done without correct equipment and with incorrect diagnosis can be fatal.

People tell of horrible experiences and derogatory treatment in hospitals of different kinds - even when the treatment is exactly what was needed for their condition. As the place of childbirth, hospitals have been criticized as being inhumane facilities that do not provide the comfort and support that the mother giving birth requires.

I also don't like prisons in general. They are inhumane places where people lose their freedom, which is one of the most precious things one can have in today's society. While at least nominally covered by a legal system designed to provide them with food, medical care, security and legal services, prisoners are often beaten (both by other prisoners and guards), submitted to degrading treatment and there are even cases where completely innocent bystanders have had to suffer through a lengthy prison term because of errors in the judical process.

It is said that the main purpose of prisons isn't even the punishment - that they are correctional facilities that are supposed to reeducate criminals to reenter the free world as reborn citizens that are able to work and live like others. Per actual statistics, it is known that many prisoners join gangs while detained and will pursue a criminal career outside the prison. Thus, a relevant purpose for the prison in this context seems to be containing the unwanted, criminal portion of the population where they cannot harm others. But that's expensive, and it consumes public funds desperately needed in other places.

I also don't like guns and other weapons. They are designed specifically to hurt and kill people and destroy property. Inducting lethal trauma to other people should not be necessary or right anywhere, ever. Yet almost all sovereign states on this planet maintain organized militia, often called "defence forces" or, in the case of Japan, the questionable "self-defence forces".

The greatest losses of life in the history of humankind have been directly or indirectly attributable to the use of weapons in an organized manner. The two World Wars left the whole world in an insane state of cold war between two superpowers - USA-led NATO and USSR-led Warsaw Pact. Even decades after the end of Cold War, many countries still maintain and develop arsenals of city-destroying nuclear weapons, whose use might very well be the end of the whole human species were they ever used in any manner.

I also don't like cars and other road transportation. This is something I have hated since I was a little kid, when I proclaimed that the automobile is the worst invention ever. Now, as we have come to understand how large role the humanity plays in the global climate change, road traffic has been shown to be a major contributor to the terrible problem.

It is known that much of the road traffic actually consists of single cars with only one person inside - the driver. At the same time, the routes they drive are congested with other drivers going to same places using the same roads. This traffic could often be easily replaced with efficient mass transit systems, but since the advent of the auto industry, it has been a struggle, huge corporations selfishly opposing these more efficient and environmentally friendlier plans. However, even in places where such a system exists, many still choose to use private cars to travel to work, making maintaining the road network even more expensive and necessiting their expansion and constant resurfacing. And what about traffic accidents? They kill people all the time, everywhere. All the advances in safety have done nothing to the actual problem - that traffic kills, and you cannot avoid it anywhere, even if you just walked everywhere. It doesn't end.

I also don't like the fact that people disagree with me. I have done my research, and I know I'm right. If people would just do what I say, there would be no time wasted on arguments and endless and worthless debates. There would be one, unified system where people would live in peace, doing good things, discussing in constructive manner and the world would be without abortions, prisons, guns and polluting road traffic. Everybody would be happy. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

But the world doesn't revolve around what I like and what I don't. Many things that I don't like are acceptable and even necessary. They are and should be legal and regulated within a comprehensive and transparent legal framework, to ensure that there also exists a system to make constant progress to make us need those things less. In the case of abortions, it is important to educate the youth (and people in general) about sexuality and reproductive matters, keep condoms and other conctraceptives available, and have sexual health clinics - including Planned Parenthood type services - and access to safe abortion clinics available to all.

I still don't like people disagreeing with me, but that is just one of the things I have to accept. They might not like me disagreeing with them either, and they have the right not to.

Why I would not vote for Ron Paul for President

Ron Paul is one the four most prominent candidates in the race to be nominated as the Republican Party's presidential candidate, to run against Democrats' Barack Obama in 2012. Newspapers and social media websites are full of quotes from GOP debates - making it pretty obvious to me that most of the well-known Republican candidates are idiots.

I am (kind of) sorry for that expression, but I cannot avoid the impression I have got from the remarks they have made. Bachmann, Perry and Santorum are just way out of line and Cain did not seem to be smart enough to understand what's wrong with his message. Newt Ginrich is somehow just a boring, repulsive professional politican (with lots of experience) and Mitt Romney a less repulsive but just as boring politician. If I have counted correctly, that leaves out Ron Paul. Because I know many smart people who share (some part of) libertarian ideals, I thought I should write this blog post to explain why I (even though I am smart!) would not vote for him.

Many of the Republican stereotypes do not apply to Ron Paul; he does not seem to want to have a system that pushes his personal (religious or political) beliefs down everyone's throat. He is undeniably bold and intelligent and is not afraid of being at odds with even fellow Republicans. But of course, he is not a Republican at heart, he is libertarian and happens to be playing with Republicans out of necessity, as in United States you must be with the Democrats or Republicans in order to achieve any political offices.

I sincerely hope that Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, for many reasons. It would be a shock to Republicans and may force them to rethink many policies, interventionist doctrines and so on. It would also make the future debates with Barack Obama much more interesting. He is very much "electable" but not probable to win. Against Obama, I think Paul would be the wrong choice (but I think Paul will try to get nominated every four years as long as he is alive). I am happy not to be writing about this as a U.S. citizen, so I do not have to make a choice and vote, because I do not like the U.S. political system in general.

The Ron Paul Newsletters - or different publications that were published under Ron Paul's name but him apparently not being aware what was being published - are a difficult matter. I know that Paul has said it was stupid not to have any knowledge of the stuff that the publications contained. They had a lot of text that would be considered racist, bigotry, conspiracy theories and so on. I find it very difficult to understand how a prominent businessman and politician could be so ignorant of what is published under his name, how can he screw up so badly?

As a politician, Ron Paul does not really have a track record of cooperation and going by the general opinion of his partymates or the government's. As a president, who leads the whole country, that is a major problem. Obama is criticized as being "too negotiating" and not taking enough stance on matters,  but I fear that Paul would be far too independent and constantly at odds with Congress and Senate. As a result, it would be difficult for him to push through any new policies, and as everybody knows, he has plenty of them. I am not convinced of his ability in making compromises in matters that he has declared as critically important.

I think many of the libertarian ideals that Paul upholds make a lot of sense. However, I do not think it is the best way to advance them to have a libertarian president who must fight the Senate and the Congress who very much disagree with those ideals. I know that libertarians believe that having no (or very little) taxes, no mandatory or state-provided health insurance etc. would contribute to a better world, more liberty, more jobs and less poverty. I do not believe that. Like communism, libertarianism would not work. Instead, both of them are useful and many of their ideals can be used in real world.

I am also worried about Paul's stance towards abortion. He regards an embryo a "person". This would mean that abortion is for some purposes, among other things, a murder. I dislike the American polarized discourse about abortion, but I do not think that abortion should be classified as murder (intentional killing of a person).

Even though I generally support Paul's ideals about not interfering other countries' matter so much, not waging war and not spending so many trillions of dollars into military (especially with budget deficit), I think his proposals are a too unrealistic again. The operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have left United States with obligations that it cannot just abandon like that.

I also don't like Paul getting money from a Ku Klux Klan leader and being satisfied with the donations. However, this might not be as big an issue as it has been advertised to be.

So, is Ron Paul, or would he be, a good leader? Caring yet strong, understanding of issues both domestic and foreign? Does he have friends, does he make friends? Is his view of the world correct? I think not.