+
“A balm for the soul”
  review on Goodreads
GOOD PEOPLE Book
upworthy
Democracy

It is possible to be morally pro-life and politically pro-choice at the same time.

Abortion remains an incredibly polarizing issue but it doesn't have to be.

pro life and pro choice demonstrators face each other
Wikicommons

Pro-choice and pro-life demonstrators face off

The legality of abortion is one of the most polarized debates in America—but it doesn't have to be.

People have big feelings about abortion, which is understandable. On one hand, you have people who feel that abortion is a fundamental women's rights issue, that our bodily autonomy is not something you can legislate, and that those who oppose abortion rights are trying to control women through oppressive legislation. On the other, you have folks who believe that a fetus is a human individual first and foremost, that no one has the right to terminate a human life, and that those who support abortion rights are heartless murderers.

Then there are those of us in the messy middle. Those who believe that life begins at conception, that abortion isn't something we'd choose—and we'd hope others wouldn't choose—under most circumstances, yet who choose to vote to keep abortion legal.

It is entirely possible to be morally anti-abortion and politically pro-choice without feeling conflicted about it. Here's why.


There's far too much gray area to legislate.

No matter what you believe, when exactly life begins and when “a clump of cells" should be considered an individual, autonomous human being is a debatable question.

I personally believe life begins at conception, but that's my religious belief about when the soul becomes associated with the body, not a scientific fact. As Arthur Caplan, award-winning professor of bioethics at New York University, told Slate, “Many scientists would say they don't know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments. The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on."

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that a human life unquestionably begins at conception. Even with that point of view, there are too many issues that make a black-and-white approach to abortion too problematic to ban it.

Abortion bans hurt some mothers who desperately want their babies to live, and I'm not okay with that.

a man holds a sign for pro-choice arguments reading "our life - our decision"a man holding a sign that says our life - our decisionPhoto by Aiden Frazier on Unsplash


One reason I don't support banning abortion is because I've seen too many families deeply harmed by restrictive abortion laws.

I've heard too many stories of families who desperately wanted a baby, who ended up having to make the rock-and-a-hard-place choice to abort because the alternative would have been a short, pain-filled life for their child.

I've heard too many stories of mothers having to endure long, drawn out, potentially dangerous miscarriages and being forced to carry a dead baby inside of them because abortion restrictions gave them no other choice.

I've heard too many stories of abortion laws doing real harm to mothers and babies, and too many stories of families who were staunchly anti-abortion until they found themselves in circumstances they never could have imagined, to believe that abortion is always wrong and should be banned at any particular stage.

I am not willing to serve as judge and jury on a woman's medical decisions, and I don't think the government should either.

pro-life and pro-choice demonstrators face each otherIt is possible to be morally pro-life and politically pro-choice at the same time.


Most people's anti-abortion views—mine included—are based on their religious beliefs, and I don't believe that anyone's religion should be the basis for the laws in our country. (For the record, any Christian who wants biblical teachings to influence U.S. law, yet cries “Shariah is coming!" when they see a Muslim legislator, is a hypocrite.)

I also don't want politicians sticking their noses into my very personal medical choices. There are just too many circumstances (seriously, please read the stories linked in the previous section) that make abortion a choice I hope I'd never have to make, but wouldn't want banned. I don't understand why the same people who decry government overreach think the government should be involved in these extremely personal medical decisions.

Protestors gather outside Supreme Court after Dobbs decision

a crowd of people in front of the Supreme Court after Dobbs decision

Photo by Sarah Penney on Unsplash

And yes, ultimately, abortion is a personal medical decision. Even if I believe that a fetus is a human being at every stage, that human being's creation is inextricably linked to and dependent upon its mother's body. And while I don't think that means women should abort inconvenient pregnancies, I also acknowledge that trying to force a woman to grow and deliver a baby that she may not have chosen to conceive isn't something the government should be in the business of doing.As a person of faith, my role is not to judge or vilify, but to love and support women who are facing difficult choices. The rest of it—the hard questions, the unclear rights and wrongs, the spiritual lives of those babies,—I comfortably leave in God's hands.

Most importantly, if the goal is to prevent abortion, research shows that outlawing it isn't the way to go.


The biggest reason I vote the way I do is because based on my research pro-choice platforms provide the best chance of reducing abortion rates.

Abortion rates fell by 24% in the past decade and are at their lowest levels in 40 years in America. Abortion has been legal during that time, so clearly, keeping abortion legal and available has not resulted in increased abortion rates. Switzerland has one of the lowest abortion rates on earth and their rate has been falling since 2002, when abortion became largely unrestricted.

Outlawing abortion doesn't stop it, it just pushes it underground and makes it more dangerous. And if a woman dies in a botched abortion, so does her baby. Banning abortion is a recipe for more lives being lost, not fewer.

At this point, the only things consistently proven to reduce abortion rates are comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control. If we want to reduce abortions, that's where we should be putting our energy. The problem is, anti-abortion activists also tend to be the same people pushing for abstinence-only education and making birth control harder to obtain. But those goals can't co-exist in the real world.

Our laws should be based on reality and on the best data we have available. Since comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control—the most proven methods of reducing abortion rates—are the domain of the pro-choice crowd, that's where I place my vote, and why I do so with a clear conscience.


This article originally appeared on 01.22.19


From Your Site Articles
abortion rights
Modern Families

Fed up parents explain why they 'never want to bring the kids over' to visit

Can't you guys come to us for once?

Photo by Johnny Cohen on Unsplash

It's a good news/bad news situation for parents of young kids.

The good news? Everyone wants to spend time with the kids! Grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends. They all want a relationship and lots of special moments with the little ones.

The bad news? One phrase:

"When are you bringing them over?"

Parents have been frustrated by the expectations of orchestrating stressful visits for generations — loading the kids in a car or on an airplane only to spend hours chasing them around in an un-baby-proofed environment and watching routines go to hell.

Now they're sounding off on social media and airing their grievances.

Why visiting grandparents and other relatives is so challenging for parents

A mom recently took to Reddit to vent about everyone in her life wanting her to "bring the kids to them."

"My parents live 30 mins away and always bug me about not coming to visit them," she writes. They constantly ask, "Why don't you bring our granddaughter to come see us?"

The fascinating discussion highlights a few things that make arranging visits with young kids a potential nightmare for parents.

Grandparents' houses are rarely childproofed

Grandparents love their breakable decor! Ceramic doo-dads, glass vases everywhere. They can't get enough. And while they should be able to decorate their house however they see fit (they've earned the right!) that doesn't make it a good environment for toddlers and babies.

Ceramic bowlsThe breakable decor found in every grandparents' houseozalee.fr/Flickr

"Last week was the last straw, I took my daughter to my parents and of course she went EVERYWHERE! flooded their toilet, broke a vase, and tried multiple times to climb their furniture," the Reddit mom writes.

Parents in a foreign environment are on constant safety duty and can rarely sit down

Let's be honest. Sometimes these "visits" are hardly worth the effort. After all, it's hard to get much catch up time when you're dutifully chasing your kid around.

"They don’t understand that my 3 yo ... is absolutely wild," writes another user in the thread. "She has no self preservation and nothing we do works. She doesn’t listen, she throws, she bites, she refuses to use the potty. It’s exhausting and then ... they expect us to entertain them, when I’m trying to just keep my kid from jumping off the stairs and into an ER visit."

Even just putting the kids in the car for a 20-minute drive is more work than it seems

Taking the kids out of the house requires packing a bag, bringing extra clothes, loading up on snacks, etc.

It seems easy to "pop over" but it actually absorbs the majority of the day between prep, visit, and aftermath.

Naps and routines go to hell

Parents with babies and toddlers know all too well — there is a price to pay for taking the kids out of the house for too long.

Chances are, the baby won't nap in a strange environment and then you're stuck with a cranky kid the rest of the night.

Kids with special needs require even more consistency

Kids with autism or ADHD can really struggle outside of their zone of safety. They might become severely dysregulated, have meltdowns, or engage in dangerous behaviors.

Explaining and mediating the generational divide

man in gray sweater sitting beside woman in black and white floral long sleeve shirt Photo by Tim Kilby on Unsplash

Why is this a conflict almost all parents can relate to?

Is this a Boomer vs Millennials thing?

Some experts think that generational values and traditions might play a role.

"Many Boomers were accustomed to more traditional, hierarchical family dynamics, where visiting grandparents was a way for the younger generation to show respect," says Caitlin Slavens, a family psychologist.

But that's not to say this is a new problem. I can remember my own parents driving me and my brothers over an hour to visit my grandparents seemingly every other weekend, but very few occasions where they came to visit us. It must have driven my parents nuts back then!

Plus, it's easy to forget that it's hard for older people to travel, too. They may have their own issues and discomforts when it comes to being away from their home.

"But for today’s parents, balancing careers, kids’ routines, and the demands of modern parenting is a much bigger undertaking. Grandparents might not always see how childproofing their space or making the trip themselves could make a huge difference, especially considering how travel and disruption can impact younger kids' moods and routines," Slavens says.

"So yes, this divide often comes down to different expectations and life experiences, with older generations potentially not seeing the daily demands modern families face."

Is there any hope for parents and grandparents coming to a better understanding, or a compromise?

"First, open conversations help bridge the divide—explain how much of a difference it makes when the kids stay in a familiar space, especially when they’re very young," suggests Slavens.

"Share practical details about the challenges, like childproofing concerns or travel expenses, to help grandparents see it from a parent’s perspective. You might even work together to figure out solutions, like making adjustments to create a more child-friendly space in their home or agreeing on a shared travel plan."

Ultimately, it's a good thing when grandparents, friends, and other relatives want to see the kids.

We all have the same goal.

"It’s helpful to approach the topic with empathy, focusing on everyone’s goal: more quality time together that’s enjoyable and low-stress for everyone involved. For parents, it’s about setting boundaries that work, and for grandparents, it’s about recognizing that flexibility can really show the parents that you are ... willing to make adjustments for their children and grandchildren."

Enjoyable, low-stress quality time — that's something everyone can get behind.

From Your Site Articles
grandparents
Pop Culture

She bought the perfect wedding dress that went viral on TikTok. It was only $3.75.

Lynch is part of a growing crowd of newlyweds going against the regular wedding tradition of spending loads of money.

TikTok

Making a priceless memory.

At first glance, one might think that Jillian Lynch wore a traditional (read: expensive) dress to her wedding. After all, it did look glamorous on her. But this 32-year-old bride has a secret superpower: thrifting.

Lynch posted her bargain hunt on TikTok, sharing that she had been perusing thrift shops in Ohio for four days in a row, with the actual ceremony being only a month away. Lynch then displays an elegant ivory-colored Camila Coelho dress. Fitting perfectly, still brand new and with the tags on it, no less.

You can find that exact same dress on Revolve for $220. Lynch bought it for only $3.75.


The bride-to-be’s video quickly went viral, racking up 2.6 million views. People were floored that Lynch was able to find such a huge deal on a dress that seemed to be made just for her.

@jilly_lynch

so happy with all these finds 🤍

♬ original sound - Jillian

“Honestly, brides pay 1000s of dollars to look that good in a white slip dress like that, I think you’re rocking it & it’s perfect,” complimented one person.

OK, maybe it did cost her a little more than $3.75. In an interview with Insider, Lynch disclosed that she did make some customizations based on suggestions from the comments—”elevating” the gown with nonadjustable shoulder straps, taking in the waist and adding a “demure” bit of lace to the front slit.

Altogether, those alterations totaled out to $110. Add to that some $8 shoes (also thrifted, of course) and Lynch still created an entire wedding look for only $113.75. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a steal.

Lynch is part of a growing line of newlyweds going against the regular wedding tradition of spending loads of money. And she might be better off for it. Research has shown that when it comes to creating happy long-lasting marriages, frugality oftens beats extravagance. With the average wedding cost at around $19,000, and the average wedding dress costing $1800, it certainly makes sense. Weddings are supposed to be fun, celebratory and joyous. It can be hard to feel any of those things when financial stress is involved. Who would want to start off a (hopefully) lifelong partnership that way? Save that money for the honeymoon, I say! Or the gas station!

Still, Lynch didn’t say no to every wedding tradition. As she walked down the aisle in her gorgeous discounted gown, looking like a Grecian goddess, her father walked right alongside her. "I could see how much it meant to him, and it actually ended up meaning a lot to me," she told Insider.

@jilly_lynch

♬ Put Your Head On My Shoulder - Paul Anka

And perhaps most important of all—Lynch felt good in her own skin on her big day. "I don't think I've ever felt that great in something. That's what brides should feel on their wedding day, like they're at their peak beautiful self. That's exactly how I felt when I put it on."

It doesn’t have to cost an arm and a leg to make lasting memories. And when you are able to show up for life’s big moments authentically, that feeling is priceless.


This article originally appeared on 7.4.22

From Your Site Articles
weddings
Popular

A seemingly simple Final Jeopardy question stumped all three contestants in 1984

It was only Alex Trebek's second day on the job when all three contestants gave the same wrong answer and all ended up with $0 .

Representative photo by Rosemaryetoufee

"Jeopardy!" is one of the most popular trivia shows in the world.

The popular game show "Jeopardy!" originated in 1964, and for six decades it has stumped contestants and viewers with tough trivia questions and answers (or answers and questions, to be more accurate). Competing on "Jeopardy!" is practically synonymous with being a smartypants, and champions win lifelong bragging rights along with whatever monetary winnings they end up taking home.

To win "Jeopardy!," you place a wager in the Final Jeopardy round with whatever money you've collected through the first two rounds. All three contestants write down their wagers based solely on the category given, then they have 30 seconds to write down the question for the same answer after it's revealed. Very rarely do all three contestants get the Final Jeopardy wrong.

But in 1984, on Alex Trebek's second day hosting the show, a deceptively simple Final Jeopardy answer answer resulted in all three contestants making the same wrong guess and ending the round with $0 each.

The category was "The Calendar," and after the contestants placed their bets, the answer was revealed: "Calendar date with which the 20th century began."

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

The 20th century was the 1900s, as most of us are aware, and all three contestants wrote down identical responses: "What is January 1, 1900?" But they were all incorrect. And unfortunately, all three had wagered their entire amount, leaving them with nothing across the board.

"Oh, I don't believe it!" exclaimed one of the contestants as they all laughed at the absurdity. "I'm at a loss for words," said Trebek.

A member of the audience asked what the correct answer–or question— was, and Trebek shared that the correct response would have been "What is January 1, 1901?"

If that seems confusing, it's probably because we all made a huge deal about the year 2000, marking it as the end of the 21st century as well as the turn of the millennium. But basically, we were wrong. Some people did point it out at the time, but the excitement and momentum of celebrating Y2K had us all in a frenzy and no one was going to wait until January 1, 2001 to celebrate the new millennium.

Why should we have? It all comes down to the fact that in the Gregorian calendar the first year wasn't 0 A.D., it was 1 A.D. The first century spanned from 1 to 100 A.D., the second century from 101 to 200 A.D. and so on, leading up to the 20th century officially being from 1901 to 2000. So January 1, 1901 is actually the date that the 20th century began, despite how unituitive it feels.

To be fair, you'd think a "Jeopardy!" contestant might recognize that the question seemed awfully simple for a Final Jeopardy round, but only having 30 seconds to think under pressure is tough. And it's not like these people lived in the internet era where random trivia questions like this regularly go viral, making us more aware of them. And this episode aired over a decade before the "Seinfeld" episode where Jerry explains the "no year zero" thing to Newman, who had planned a millennium party.

- YouTubeyoutu.be

As one person pointed out, the calendar answer is technically correct, but it's not the way the average person thinks of centuries, just as a tomato is technically fruit but the average person thinks of it (and uses it) as a vegetable. Even though there were some sticklers about the year 2000, most of us just went along with seeing it as the turn of the millennium because it felt like that's how it should be. It's kind of wild how most of us can think of something incorrectly but we just sort of collectively accept our wrongness about it.

The 1984 episode has been making the viral rounds, prompting people to share how much they miss Alex Trebek. The beloved, long-time "Jeopardy!" host died in 2020 at age 80 after a 20-month battle with pancreatic cancer. He worked up until the point where he couldn't anymore, even while undergoing chemotherapy. His final episode included a touching tribute honoring his 37 seasons with the game show, the end of an illustrious and iconic era.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

trivia
Family

When his young son was bullied for wearing pink this dad had a truly badass response

"Men need to be the example for young boys."

Photo credit: Canva

All kids need examples of what's possible.

We often hear about how binary gender norms affect young girls, but any man who’s ever been made fun of for being sensitive or liking “girly” things during childhood can tell you they influence young boys as well. And perhaps the worst offense of these arbitrary limitations is the way they keep individuals from truly knowing and expressing all parts of themselves, which can lead to a slew of interpersonal problems late in life.

Boys in particular are often taught from an early age to shun the qualities in themselves considered to be feminine—things like empathy, compassion, having strong emotions, etc. It’s so well documented now how not nurturing these qualities leads to isolation and loneliness in adulthood, and yet messages like “boys don’t cry” or “pink is for girls” still persist.

Artist, TikTok creator and Doug Weaver (@dougweaverart) recently made a few excellent points as to why adult men need to be the example for young boys if we truly wish to see a change.

In a stitched response to a video where a mom lamented that she knew how to help her daughter “fight back” against gender norms, but not her son, Weaver argued that above all, it’s important for young boys to see grown men “defy” the expectations culture puts on them.

“Society will try to beat boys down until they fall in line,” Weaver said, sharing his own experience of seeing his son come home from school after being bullied for wearing pink and liking unicorns (which, of course, are “for girls” only).

Weaver said that the only solution he saw was to “pinkify” his own life, and be that example his son so desperately needed.


@dougweaverart @Mel | Med Student raising boys is scary, because we know just how much society is built to tear them down. #men #masculinity #parenting #boydad #greenscreenvideo ♬ original sound - dougweaverart

“I added so much pink to my wardrobe,” he explained, saying that he even painted his nails pink so that he’d be seen as the “problem” instead of his son.

“They don’t say anything to me. If they’re not brave enough to confront the color pink, they’re not going to confront me.”

Weaver added that the larger conversation he tries to have with his son is how this is a “fight worth having,” not just for men with feminine qualities but for “but for everyone society tries to reject.”

He then used this example: a boy who secretly wants to wear a dress to school, but doesn’t to avoid getting bullied. Weaver said that solution only works temporarily, since the dress is only a small manifestation of a larger aspect of the boy’s identity, which he would be repressing to fit an expectation.

“They’re getting bullied for what they wear now, they’re going to get bullied for who they are later. And if changing their clothes made the bullying go away when they were younger, they might think that changing their personality will make the bullying go away when they are older.”

What’s more, for this hypothetical boy, for Weaver’s son, and for any boy really, there’s something very vital that’s lost in chasing this idea of masculinity.

“The people who want to take colors from him also want to take his creativity,” Weaver explains “They want to take away his kindness, they want to take away everything that is soft in his life. His feelings and his emotions. They wanna take away his ability to love people who are different from him.”

Yep, that hits the nail of the head perfectly.

And that is why Weaver prioritizes being the example for his son, because “if he sees people criticize me from time to time, and he sees how unaffected I am by it, that is an example to him of the strength and tenacity that it takes for anyone to just be their authentic self.”

And, perhaps more importantly, Weaver is teaching his son that he will be loved and accepted, no matter how he expresses himself. Imagine a world in which all children were taught this valuable lesson.

From Your Site Articles
kids
Humor

Senior living TikTok star proves there's life after 80 with hilarious skits

The 85-year-old is responsible for over 4 million views and counting.

commonwealthsl/TikTok

Most creators on TikTok are 18-24 years old, and a good chunk is even younger than that. Social media is definitely a young person's game. 85-year-old Nancy Weatherford never got the memo.

A resident at the Commonwealth Senior Living facility in Danville, Virginia, Nancy recently volunteered to be featured on the center's TikTok page. Over 4 million views later, she's been dubbed the 'TikTok Queen'. And she's exactly the influencer we all need right now.

It started with a funny video of Nancy and her fellow residents dancing to "Pretty Girls Walk" by Big Boss Vette.

@commonwealthsl

Pretty girls walk like this at #CSLStratfordHouse 😍 #seniorlivingcommunity #prettygirlswalk


It was one of Commonwealth's first breakout video, racking up over 12,000 views.

Commenters were obsessed immediately. "I wish more facilities did this. They are so happy," wrote one user.

And then came this hilarious skit of Nancy "interrogating" fellow residents to find out who ate her powdered donuts! This one went over a million, and Commonwealth's follower count began to grow as people started to look forward to the residents' videos.

@commonwealthsl

Don’t eat her powdered donuts #CSLStratfordHouse #welcomehome #seniorlivingcommunity #donuts

All in all, the mini-skits and dance routines put on by Nancy and her fellow Commonwealth residents have racked up over 4 million views.

“We call Nancy our little TikTok queen, because our first one went viral instantly,” Heather Dehart, Sales Director for Commonwealth Senior Living told WDBJ. “Now, we have so many followers, and they look forward to it."

The videos have such an infectious joy. So much of what's found on TikTok and other social media can feel hollow and fake. The videos made by the Commonwealth seniors are as authentic as it gets. Just a group of friends having a blast together, which, by the way, may be having an excellent effect on their physical health.

Bhere's a lot more to the videos than just the laughs and the big view counts.

Generating content for the TikTok account is bringing the residents together and giving them joy — regardless of if the videos go viral or not.

“It gives them something to do. It gives them a purpose. When they have family members call from different states and say, ‘oh my goodness, I saw the fun you‘re having on Tiktok.’ It makes them then ask, ‘when are we doing the next one, because my family wants to know,” said Dehart.

Nancy was, understandably, apprehensive about moving into a senior living community ager her husband passed away. One of the most inspiring aspects of the videos is seeing how at home she and her friends feel there now.

Senior living centers, or nursing homes, don't always have the best reputation. They can be drab, lonely places. Depression is frighteningly common.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

“Being older is fun," Nancy says. "Maybe young people think, ‘ugh,’ but we have a lot of fun, too."

From Your Site Articles
seniors
Trending Stories