I had been considering the idea of starting a weblog for quite some time. I was attracted to the idea for the same reason that millions of others were - because I would have an opportunity to voice my opinions and reach a wide audience at low cost. I just happened to be a bit slower with regards to jumping on the blogging bandwagon than most.
The issue that finally pushed me into starting a blog was watching the worldwide outrage at "Crocodile Hunter" Steve Irwin feed a 13 foot alligator a piece of meat with his right hand, while holding his one year old son in his left. Obviously, Irwin was quickly likened to Michael Jackson, who last year held his infant over a railing high above a street. The outrage of course, has to do with both placing their infant children in some danger. It's obvious that either situation could possibly have gotten out of control and that would have been the end of either child. Why do I have a vision that in 20 years, both of these kids will end up meeting each other and becoming fast friends?
As a side note, the news came today that two Australian government agencies, a Workplace Safety agency and a Family Services agency, both sensibly declined to put Irwin through a legal wringer for his behavior.
Meanwhile in the here and now, what bent me out of shape about both matters was not that there was outrage at Jackson's and Irwin's behavior. What burned me up was wondering exactly how many of all those outraged people in the world are pro - choice abortion supporters?
I know, what does being pro - choice have to do with being angry about Irwin and Jackson? Well gentle readers, if you were angry with Jackson and Irwin, then why aren't you angry about the millions of abortions all over the world that are legally sanctioned every year? They both amount to the same thing, don't they? All other things being equal, unless a mishap occurs, that lifeless 2 - celled blob of a foetus will within a year turn into Steve Irwin's and Michael Jackson's child right?
But wait! There's a difference you might say. A woman has to have command over her body, while both of these men willingly brought these children into the world. Well my reply to that is that, yes, a woman does have command over her body. Women have won much of that battle, at least in the West. She could choose say no to sex and she could remember to take those birth control pills. And how about cajoling her man into perhaps cutting down on the risks by wrapping that rascal?
Twisting that argument around, one could say that Irwin and Jackson willingly brought these children into the world, now they are fully responsible for what happens to them. I would imagine that if anything would have happened to to either man's child, that Jackson and Irwin would have both lived through private personal hells that would have been worse than anything that public righteousness and legal strong arming could have ever visited upon them.
Exceptions have to be made for women who get pregnant through rape or when pregnancy becomes a threat to their own lives. In either case, the woman is not responsible for what has transpired.
Again, my irritation is not directed towards everyone who was mad at Jackson and Irwin. My annoyance is directed towards those whose attitudes towards childbirth and infancy may not entirely be consistent. You make your bed, you lie in it.