Septocalypse

The concCERN about what CERN is doing in September is so unfounded I nearly dismissed it. I recently heard conspiracy theories about how September 2015 is going to be really terrible and that we all need to prepare. 

In all fairness, the world also ended on 12/21/12 as the Mayans "predicted" - not going to lie, I did throw myself an apocalypse birthday party because that's my birthday. 

Now that the world had already ended, can it possibly end again? Conspiracy theorists seem to think so. September is to bring about CERN opening a hole into the Abyss referred to in Revelation, of the bible. The economy is supposedly going to have a massive debt bubble burst, and apparently a meteor is going to kill us all. Man, and all these kids just went back to school...

Let's look at these points individually and evaluate their legitimacy. 

CERN

So the current theory is that they will open up the abyss for the antichrist because they are going to create the God particle. It's so uninformed I am literally having to reorganize my thoughts as I write.

A few notes regarding the Large Hydron Collider (LHC):

1 - it doesn't create particles, it destroys them

2 - it isn't doing experiments this month, it's closing for upgrades and maintenance 

3 - it doesn't open or close anything

The LHC is largely responsible for helping verify the existence of the Higgs Boson, a.k.a. "The God Particle"

So what is a Higgs Boson?

Largely we aren't sure, but we know the function of a Higgs Boson and how it operates based on the observations of waves in the "Higgs field" if you will. We know that it is what "makes matter matter." That is to say it is the basis by which energy converts to matter and vice versa. Imagine a room with a light overhead. Light in this scenario would be energy and darkness would be mass. In this example, the Higgs Boson is the light switch. It is the smallest particle that we have been able to verify and we verify it by observing the wave. Physics has this property in the quantum level that says you can either observe something as a particle or as a wave but never both at the same time. It's called particle wave duality. Every particle is both a particle and a wave and observing one by default means you lose the ability to observe the other. 

Since the Higgs is the smallest we have observed, it's ridiculous to infer that we could make one. That's like saying you could build a Lego castle from a single Lego. 

ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE 

There is a lot of unrest regarding the economy for September. Theorists are siting a loss of 600+ points in the Dow as a sign.

Here is what they fail to mention. 600+ points as a loss happens every few years with a "recovery" right after. People panic and then realize the fears were unsubstantiated so the market bounces back.

The Chinese economy is slowing faster than thought and people panicked. The thing people forget is that superpowers of the world tend to have a savior complex. Even though the Chinese economy is slowing and suffering, generally other powerful markets move to stabilize the system. Not once has the global economy entirely collapsed. 

So when the Chinese economy slows we took a turn anticipating their recovery, and when it didn't we turned and recovered. In 2008, the flaw wasn't the 778 point loss in September. It was that combined with subsequent losses totaling around 2700 points from September to December.  That is a monster loss, considering the Dow is now only 15k points. 

In the wake of a weakened China we have seen our economy bolster for impact. The economy isn't falling out in September. 

BLOOD MOONS

I refer you to my other blog regarding Blood Moons.

PALASTINE

There are biblical prophecies regarding the land of Israel and the woe to those that separate God's land. 

Let's be honest. The Palestinian people had kept that land divided for nearly 2000 years. While I don't think making them their own nation will solve anything, certainly the land isn't changing hands soon. 

SUMMARY

I guess everyone likes a good piece of gossip and a controversy but there are people who jump on these trains and don't do research. It's dangerous to play games with people's minds like that. Hopefully this blog has informed you a little so that you can begin your own search for information.

Transphobia Everywhere

Today I saw an article online about a white gal who has made her skin darker and changed her hair to appear darker because she identifies as black. Two weeks ago I read an article about how a man changed his body to appear more like a woman because he/she identified/identifies as a woman

In our culture today, it is seemingly always pushing the boundaries of what seems more risqué and edgy. We push away traditional ideals and push for the newest and most "original" ideals. 

There is a convoluted and mixed mentality that somehow everything needs to be fair and right, but when was the last time anything felt fair? When is the last time things felt right?

I am 100% an advocate for equal rights for all people. I am entirely in favor of everyone being free to be who they are and not feel condemned by other people. Regardless of beliefs or personal convictions it is never anyone's right to make someone else feel like less.

With all the news about Caitlyn Jenner, it's really surprising to me that people will two weeks later treat this Rachel any differently.

Can anyone tell me what the difference is between feeling like a man or a woman feels like? How can anyone in a male body know what being a female is like aside from stereotypes? How can anyone who is white or black know what it is like to be another race aside from stereotypes?

Really, for Bruce to think or realize that he/she is a woman, those suppositions need to be premised on an idea of what a man is and what a woman is and an internal evaluation of which group he/she belongs to.

For Rachel to say she identifies as black versus white, there needs to be suppositions about what it means to be either of those things.

That said, I am outraged that two weeks ago everyone wanted to be on the pronoun train and supportive of someone identifying in a different group and today I noticed people from that supportive group making fun of another for their exact same cause.

The only difference between Bruce and Rachel is that Bruce identifies as a different gender and Rachel identifies as a different race.

If Bruce is transgendered then Rachel is transracial. Deal with it and respect people for people rather than their choices

Feeling Fat

GETTING FIT

Step By Step

For those of you that know me, you know that I have been both very large on the weight scale, and last year I was below 200 lbs - which was an accomplishment. At the time, it was really more out of a desire to win a competition. My wife and I attended a gym and they had a competition. The winner won a large volume of money so I found the motivation there. 

In order to win, I had to lose the highest volume of body fat percentage based on a scale and then it went to votes for overall most change. At the time, I felt like my body really wasn't changing much, although I did notice that I had some clothes fit much better. 

Since then (about a year ago) I have had another child and I have really let go of all of the things that I should be doing. I am using this blog post as a starting point. I am jumping back on the train this week, and I will update this in a few weeks, but here are some of the things that I learned. 

During that time I went from weighing 269 lbs to 195 in 90 days. Here are the tips I have:

1. DON'T JUST WORK OUT - VARY YOUR WORKOUTS

So the first thing to know is that you absolutely need to be working out. Sure there are diets, but the important thing to know is that the more muscle you have, the more calories you burn in your resting metabolic rate (RMR). That means, even when you're lounging on the couch, having more muscle will help you lose more weight. The way to get muscle is to work out.

You need to vary your workouts in several levels. Not only do you need to change what you are doing day to day, but after 3-4 weeks you want to change what your weekly order looks like. Your body is an amazing adapter and will adapt to your strategy.

My suggestion:

1. Get some index cards - write out what your workouts are on them
1. Each index card should be labeled on one side with a cagegory (cardio, biceps/back, triceps/shoulders/chest, core, quads/calves/glutes, circuit training, endurance training, stretching, etc.)
2. On the back side of each card should be a specific work out. 
2. Each category of workouts should be grouped together (all cardio goes in a stack, etc) and the categories are assigned to days of the week and rotated bi-weekly
3. When you are on any 1 given day, you shuffle the cards in that category, pick out cards until your workout is done. If you are doubling up, then you do so in rotation. (if you couple core every two days or cardio every two days, then you want to change which goes first each time)

This will help you switch up your workout routine and you can always add other cards in to your exercise routine.

2. EAT HEALTHY FOODS

So there are a million diets out there. Here is what I know. I've tried the "low fat" stuff, and it didn't work for me. I don't have much an issue with portion control, but I have always been a big boy. It wasn't until I went to my gym last year that they helped me figure out the problem - carbs. 

So it's not a problem to eat carbs but, for me, the balance of carbohydrates in comparison to everything else that I ate was way out of control. I could eat a whole pizza myself and not blink. I still can. I love carbs. What they let me know is that there is a difference between fast/slow and simple/complex carbs. What you want to aim for with carbs is the stuff that I don't like so much. Fast and simple. Fruits, veggies, legumes, and such. 

What they informed me is that you want to aim for a higher protein than carb intake. 

My suggestion: 

Don't avoid what you like as if it were going to completely spoil you. The goal should be to aim for a 2:1 protein to carb ratio. If you eat 1 carb, you also need 2 proteins by the unit. 3g carbs = 6g protein. Really simple. This means, you can absolutely have the awesome cupcake at the wedding. You can have the delicious cookie that the gal brought into work. Just make sure that you have protein to go with it. 

Avoiding what you want will make you want it that more and will completely derail you when you "slip" - but really you should allow yourself a "cheat" object of the day or "cheat" meal of the week. Your body is, again, amazing at adapting, so having one bad meal isn't ruining your whole day. Enjoy that there is freedom in maintaining the balance. 

3. *WHELP* WEIGH YOURSELF DAILY

So here's the thing, weight is not the only indicator of your health. When you first start working out, your weight may just as well increase because of gaining muscle faster than losing fat. If you are building muscle faster than your fat is being burned, the weight will go up and you are going to look down and keep your head down all day. Don't be discouraged. 

Understand a few things. 

1. Your weight (based on water, food intake and a few other things) can fluctuate around 3-5 pounds throughout the day. 
2. Weight is only one element of your health - so is body fat percentage, flexibility, etc. 
3. Your body will always have some water weight

So knowing those things, you can make a plan on how to know what you are doing and rate your improvement/set goals, etc.

My suggestion:

Weigh yourself, and measure your arms/legs/and waist on the same scale at roughly the same time every day. It should probably be in the morning. Use a scale that can roughly estimate body fat %. It will not be perfectly accurate

You want to weigh in the same place with the same scale to remove the error of the scale itself. Then you can say, "this scale at this place said I was 55 pounds and now it says that I am 53 pounds." This is the win. You are down 2 pounds. If you go to the gym and that one says you are 54 pounds, you didn't lose 1 less pound. That scale would likely have originally measured 56 lbs assuming you were weighing there at the same time every day also. You want to use a body fat scale because (even though it's not entirely accurate) you can measure over time the overall average change and as long as body fat, weight, or inches are going down then you are moving toward your goal. 

SUMMARY

Work out, eat healthy, and keep track. I personally was doing 2x/day work outs when I lost the weight before. I won't be that intense this time, but your frequency of work out is up to you. Anything that is more than what you are currently doing will mean progress, but make sure you do take a rest day. It's important for your body to be allowed time to recoup from all of the restructuring you are aiming for. 

I'll post another blog like this in about six months, but for right now I am at 250 lbs again and...feeling fat...

Battered People - Fearful Police - Violated Rights

THE PROBLEM WITH POLICE

and what to do about it

Swat at the Baltimore Riots 2015

I have never been a big fan of the police. Most of that is stigmatized from the upbringing I had and the fact that I've never been in a situation where I have needed the police to feel "protected" or "served" in any capacity.

More often than not, as a child and teen, I experienced it the opposite way around. In third grade I tripped a kid at the bus stop who asked me to so he could slide along some ice. I did, and he got a bloody nose. The next day the police came to the bus stop, put me in handcuffs in front of everyone (I was 10 years old) and placed me in the back of the squad car. They then took me down to the police station to wait for my parents.

The next thing I remember with police is walking home from school to see two squad cars sitting outside of the trailer that we lived in. My mom was wearing a white sweater and blue jeans as the police officers told her that they were taking us into protective custody until CPS determined that our home was safe for children again, which apparently was a few days later. I have received traffic tickets without ever having been pulled over, and once an officer pulled me over when I was doing nothing. It was an unmarked car and he just "ran my plates" and then said I was free to go?

I have known police officers to be very involved when you don't need it, but then when I need someone, they haven't been there.

There was a time when our trailer was being rattled violently in the night. My oldest brother called the police, and nobody sent anyone. The next morning, we woke up to news crews because the man who went around pounding on doors had committed a murder about a block and a half away after he was banging our door in.

That said, I am obviously biased a little bit on this side, so please understand that when I get to this point, it is a little slanted, but I will try to remain impartial.

Our country is currently at a point where it seems very obvious that the police have gotten out of control. The riots in Baltimore, Trayvon Martin, riots in Ferguson; they are all an indicator of a bigger problem.

The problem, in my opinion, can be looked at in very controlled segments:

1. Police officers, while their safety is very important, feel that they can use that as an excuse to do whatever they wish. 

In most of the cases where a police officer is "reprimanding" or "containing" a "suspect" the common defense is that they were taking the necessary actions to make sure they were safe. Let's look at some of the evidence:

http://www.wgal.com/news/video-footage-of-baltimore-riots/32602682

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO1SKC6dK7o

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2015/05/citizens-out-undercover-cops-infiltrating-anti-police-brutality-protest-in-wisconsin/

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/05/5_pa_state_troopers_battling_p.html

It's pretty obvious to me that there are several cases where the police seem to use excessive force to make sure they are safe. Sneaking into an anti-police brutality campaign as police officers is already a dead giveaway as to how far they will go. Given that there are forces with canisters of gas that can suppress a mob, it seems highly unlikely to me that anyone would need to beat someone in the head as in the last link here. POLICE OFFICERS ARE OVERCOMPENSATING FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY

2. Citizens are terribly under-informed about what their rights are and what to do to ensure they are given their rights.

If you are stopped by a police officer, it is YOUR RIGHT to know the reason. It is also YOUR RIGHT to remain silent. It is YOUR RIGHT to know if you are being detained, under arrest, or neither. It is YOUR RIGHT to have a lawyer present. It is YOUR RIGHT to not consent to a search. It is YOUR RIGHT to have recorded any PUBLIC interaction with a police officer. The trick is that many times police officers use different or deceptive language. To clear this up, here are some tips:

To ensure YOUR RIGHT to know why you were stopped, ask: "What seems to be the problem officer?" - asking it this way is letting the officer know that you don't believe there to be a problem, but that you are willing and want to hear about what the officer believes the problem to be.

To ensure YOUR RIGHT to remain silent, say, "I am respectfully and peacefully invoking my right to remain silent." - You need to ensure that you have the right, but you also want to make sure you don't set off any ideas that you are disrespectful or not willing to comply with their safety needs.

To Ensure YOUR RIGHT to know if you are being detained, under arrest, or neither, ask: "Am I being detained or arrested, or am I free to go?" -You want to ask this question with all three options, because if you only ask if you are free to go and you are told no, then you also have the right to know if you are being detained or arrested. There is a big difference.

To ensure YOUR RIGHT to your lawyer, say: "I am happy to speak as soon as I have my lawyer present." - You don't need to say anything more to ensure this right. It's afforded in the constitution.

To ensure YOUR RIGHT to not be searched, you need to be observant. Occasionally searches may begin without you being asked. If you notice a search is starting or if you are asked you reply, "I do not consent to any kind of search without warrant." -Police can get a search warrant from a judge, but you are not required to allow them to search whenever they want.

To ensure YOUR RIGHT to have a recorded conversation with a police officer, begin recording the minute you begin your interaction with the officer. Announce publicly, "I am recording this interaction with audio." If the officer asks you to stop recording, you should ask, "is there an active investigation?" - without an investigation to interfere with, you are allowed to record in a public space. If there is an active investigation and he asks you to stop, simply ask if you are free to go.

Knowing your rights is half of the battle. A police officer cannot tell you to stop recording in a public space unless it interferes with an investigation.

http://www.aclupa.org/issues/policepractices/your-right-record-and-observe-police/taking-photos-video-and-audio/

3. Many times when something is happening that is unfair to a citizen their immediate family or friends are unaware of their locations. 

One of the easiest ways to ensure that you have people aware of you, is to consent to an interview. When you do this, you have the right to set the terms of the interview with the police, including the location of the interview, parties present, which questions to answer, and you can cancel at any time.

Your strategy here would be to consent to an interview at that location, just as soon as your family arrives. You then contact the family and have them come to your location so there are witnesses. Then, when the interview begins, invoke your right to your lawyer. This way, you will have family aware of your location, you will not be relocated with a "rough ride" from the police, and you will not have to say anything until your lawyer arrives.

SYNOPSIS
While there are certainly a lot of racially charged problems in this topic, the main issue I see is a lack of information and the police being to fearful. It was once said, "the most dangerous person to hold a gun is a person who is afraid." In this time and age, I understand that there are a lot of risks to the police. I have seen the videos where police are killed for no good reason because of armed criminals and not taking safety measures.

It's becoming more and more obvious that the training for the police incites fear for them, which then makes them the most dangerous kind of gun holder. We have seen these actions time and again in the media.

I, for one, am really tired of feeling on the opposite end of the police. I am tired of the notion that their safety for some reason trumps mine, and moreover their concern about their safety outranks my actual safety.

Enough is enough. Know your rights. Take a stand.

My many many mothers

Whether you are Sue or Starr from church growing up, Shelly from the boys home, Lois and Angie from therapy, Debbie my foster mom, Robin from family therapy, Mary my mother in law, Marlene who worked with me at the grocery store, my wife, Jodi who herself had several foster kids, Mrs. Peik my guardian et lietem, Pastor Lisa, Sandy my childhood best friend's mom, or even just the random hand on the shoulder you are still a mother.

I have been a lot of places in my life and met a lot of people. I have seen very fantastic scenes in Times Square and also felt the the deep longing of looking outside from the sidewalk in at families that appear so well put together and happy. 

The one thing that I can say for sure is that everywhere I go there seems to be a motherly figure out there waiting to help. 

So for me, Mother's Day isn't about my literal mother. It's about Sue and Starr seeing the kid with the gears spinning too fast to know what was best for him. It's about Shelly taking me out to buy clothes because the other kids at the boys home had parental visits. It's about Lois and Angie always knowing me better than I know myself and having the word to say what I need whether I want it or not. It's about Debbie giving me second and third chances and still seeing the best in me. It's about Robin showing that supportive smile and asking introspective questions and using my own head to help me. It's about Mary, my mother in law, having a lot of inside knowledge to share and always being supportive despite my worst mistakes. It's about Marlene from the grocery store where I used to work, giving tidbits of advice and standing in at my wedding. It's about friends like Jodi who can look at where I have come from and just know and support without any context. It's about Mrs. Peik, checking in on me more than 10 years after presiding over me. It's about Pastor Lisa imparting wisdom to us and being a friend to my wife and I. It's about Sandy wanting to make sure that I was always comfortable despite her many other distractions. More than anything, nowadays it is about the loving, nurturing, and confident person that is my wife.

Over the years, I've noticed a trend among the different places I go. No matter where I am or what company I am with, there is always that woman who sort of "becomes" that mother figure to me.

I think there is something naturally in every woman that leans out to others and wants to be that for people in need. Mother's Day is a day where I celebrate all of the great things that these many women have done in my life.

That being said, all of those women didn't need to be a mother to be celebrated. They simply looked at my case and took it upon themselves to be a mother to me. All of the women who cannot or have not had children also have the ability and longing to do the same thing.

So rather than make this simply a "Mother's Day" post, I am making this a thank you to women post because there has been several women who have played the motherly role for me in my life. Most of all I would like to shout out to my wife, my mother in law, and my foster mom for being three of the most stable women in my life and showing me what true compassion looks like. From a kid who can sometimes struggle with it, we do appreciate it. Even when we don't say it, please know we do. 

Swipe Right If You Love This Blog

Our world is increasingly pushing toward the mobile interface and ease. This comes in the face of working harder and experiential interfaces. While every progression in the human experience is very personal to a generation and beneficial, there are definitive drawbacks to moving in any given direction also.

I recently was at a restaurant in Chicago with my family, and as we are waiting for our food I notice this gal sitting in a booth with another guy there and she isn't even speaking with him. She is taking selfie after repeated selfie. The selfie itself didn't seem all that bad to me. It was curious to me how her face contorted with each new picture, proving not only her dissatisfaction with the previous ones, which only varied in micro-expression, but also the complete disregard for her setting.

I am a millenial myself, and I definitely understand wanting to post pictures of where you are at and your happenings. We all want to share what we are doing in life and let our friends know. It's a relationship element that everyone wants - people sharing events and life stories. There is a social element of that which seems evident to me, but it is becoming more and more obvious that my generation and the next one are abandoning many of the benefits of the past in exchange for the future benefits.

I think it's a well-backed argument that the benefits of traditional social relationships are more weighty than those of the mobile world. I personally have a few rants to give off about some specific things that I find problematic. Please feel free to indulge:

1 - Selfie-nation: I have no issue with selfies. I have a problem with people losing the experience they are having for the mobile experience. That particular gal sacrificed her experience with another flesh and blood person at a place in an iconic town for some "likes" on facebook or instagram. Similarly, people regularly sacrifice actually WITNESSING events in exchange for posting tons of pictures online for everyone to see. I think we all know that most people are clicking on "like" or saying things like "oh cute!" and then on to the next one. I, for one, would much rather have the experience. I view my life as collecting various experiences. Some of them are good and some are bad, but they all belong to me. They are all memories and events that I can recall and visit again in my mind. Despite even the worst parts of my assorted life, I wouldn't trade my origins or experiences for a "like" or a "share."

VALUE YOUR EXPERIENCES AND LIFE - You only get them once.

2 - SnapChat: I realize that I am getting into some debate with this up front. In the advent of social media and pursuing the best way to relate, there are many false pretenses that are generated with services like SnapChat. The idea that a picture has "gone away" digitally is inaccurate. Once something is posted online or in a mobile interface, it can be retrieved. The idea that there are chat rooms where people randomly are sent videos and services where pictures are sent "anonymously" create a problem where people aren't able to see the cause/effect relationship to their actions. When you take those selfies and videos of yourself in less than savory dress, you are exposing it to hundreds of thousands of people. It's not just your "friends" that can have access, despite what your "settings" say on facebook and such. The services here are not specifically the problem. The problem is that people forget the direct consequences of their actions.

USE CAUTION WITH PICTURES/VIDEO - once you put it out there, it's out there

3 - Tinder - The idea here is completely deplorable to me. Sex in general has always been a commodity, so to say that it is "becoming" one is inaccurate. I think the big problem is that sex has long been both a commodity and a very relational and personal thing. It's a very strong bonding ritual and unifies two people in a way that nothing else can. Tinder's line of thinking is purely devoid of all of that interaction. It's absolutely grotesque that someone can go to an application, look at a picture, swipe their finger to the right, and (assuming the other person does also), they will agree to sleep with one another. It strips the experience of the integrity of getting to know someone. You lose all of the deep emotional connections of knowing someone and the things that make sex a wonderful and beautiful thing. In an easier way of saying what I mean, you are giving up all of the relational and personal aspects of sex and exchanging that for a true "commodity," where it is simply a transaction.

PRESERVE THE VALUE OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCES - Sometimes the old way of doing things is better and carries intrinsic value. Once you lose it, you can never get it back.


In general, I think there is a general sense that older methods are not deserving of the same respect as new methods. There is definitely a value to new experiences. Online dating, facebook, snapchat, and other interfaces certainly add a wider availability to create connections, but the important thing to remember is that the generations before us have held value also. There is something about opening the door for my wife that gives me a deeper satisfaction. There is something about pulling the chair out for her and holding her hand that holds more value. It has nothing to do with her "ability" to do those things, but has everything to do with the respect and love that I feel for her. Those actions convey a deeper level of respect and honor, and I think that is something sorely missing from the way that we currently experience things in a mobile world.

On the other end, there is something about coming home to my wife and a cooked meal that cannot be explained. It's not about the convenience. It's not about being chauvinist or any kind of agenda. It's something that she chooses to do for me and that respect is something that older generations understood.

I guess what I am getting at is that for every advance we have in pursuing the future, there is also a deep value to the way of the past. We didn't get to where we are now as a community and people without standing on the shoulders of those generations. While there are a lot of things that were messed up with race and gender issues, there are nuggets of gold in there that should not be thrown out with the refuse of the past.

Fathers Don't Have Enough Say About Abortions

I recently saw a post online about abortion and I was really provoked into evaluating the situation further.

The post was doing the same old debate about how some people argue about abortion and the varying disparities in opinion of what constitutes "life," "rights," and "choice."

Ultimately, I think the main problem with any/all childbearing law is that exactly none of those three options are explored fully, and the laws are all unfairly kedged to popular media. Instead of looking at everything from a slanted viewpoint, let's evaluate the topic of abortion from these three standpoints and show a few different sides.

LIFE

In the arena of life, this can possibly affect all three parties involved. The mother's life is certainly changed and her life is significantly valuable. The father's life is very much also changed, not just financially, but emotionally, and mentally also. The child obviously has a stake in this category also.

Here are some basic statements that I think are true:

• At whatever point you call something life (conception/heartbeat/brain signals/etc), it should be entitled to whatever potential that life provides
• A mother has the right to decide what she wants to do with her body and her future
• A father also has the right to decide what he wants to do with his body and his future

If those are all true, the concept of life is a bigger picture than simply "when does a baby become a baby" or "is the mother or the baby more important" and it becomes something that is more complex. It's an evaluation of what this life has the potential of being, how that potential affects the lives of the people who conceived it, and how that triad plays a role in the community around it. 

So when you are speaking with people about "What Constitutes Life" please be sure to acknowledge that ALL of the lives involved with this are exactly that - involved. 

The argument comes in when people argue at what point actually begins. Some people argue that life begins when the full body of the baby is formed. Others argue at the first heartbeat. Others argue at conception. 

I think to really get at the heart of what the issue is, you need to get to the dirty and gritty truth of the question. The real question is, "at what point is is still okay to completely mangle something that may potentially become a human being and when is it no longer acceptable?"

In my personal opinion, I would argue that the question is rather superfluous, because nobody really wants to do that, but I would also wager that most people can agree that once something can FEEL it's morally reprehensible to do something so painful to something. At that point, I make the argument that the "life" point is when the zygote/fetus/baby/etc has nerves that can actually send signals.

If your argument is to the contrary, understand that you are saying you feel it's okay to intentionally mangle and liquify potential life while it is able to feel every moment. 

Current law doesn't take into thought AT ALL what the actual thing inside the mother FEELS. It is based on viability outside of the womb, but that's really not considering the LIFE inside her if you agree that being able to feel presumes life.

RIGHTS

On the subject of rights, let's talk about equality and making everything fair for everyone. I talk about it this way, because the general consensus is that everyone should have equal rights. There are again, three parties involved here. 

The Baby/Fetus/Zygote/etc. - Once this "thing" inside the mother attains the luxurious status of "alive" it now attains all of the rights that are attributed with that. Since people are consenting to this, the general argument is "when does life begin" - because nobody wants to be accused of ending a life, particularly a "young" life because it has potential. Personally, I would then question that even further and get to the idea that once something has potential for life it now has the potential for all of what is entailed by that also. Once something has "life" it has rights.

The Mother - the mother has all the rights of being alive, which carries the rights to her body, the rights to her future, the rights to her finances, and the right to make choices. Certainly a pregnancy carries a hefty physical choice along with mental/emotional and financial choices. 

The Father - The father should have all the rights of being alive also, carrying the right to his body, his future, his finances, and his choices. There is a very big mental/emotional and financial toll for him also. 

The problem with law currently is that it affords rights to the potential child only when it becomes viable outside the mother. It hardly affords the father any rights, and the mother has nearly 100% rights. Let's look at this in several situations:

1 - The mother decides she cannot financially support a baby (Potential child and father have no say): She can abort, give up for adoption, apply for government aid, etc.

2 - The father decides he cannot financially support a baby (Father and potential child have no say): Too bad. The mother can decide to keep a baby he may have used protection against and his finances, emotional, and mental futures are all altered without his own permission. 

3 - The baby has reached a point where nerves are present and working (father and potential child have no say): Too bad. The mother has 100% legal rights to blend those nerves up as much as she likes, even if she simply doesn't feel like she can financially support them.

In these three scenarios, the current laws are OBVIOUSLY neglecting both the potential child and the father. 

CHOICE

I think the main problem with the concept here is not what DEFINES choice, but more of a WHEN is the choice defined. Many times people say that the mother doesn't have a choice, the father doesn't have a choice, etc. 

Choice for childbearing is a two part decision and is fluid in my opinion. Simply, if a guy isn't using protection against it, then he is conceding that he is accepting to potential childbearing. If a woman isn't doing something to prevent it also (pill, implant, ring, female protection, etc) then she is equally culpable at that point in time. 

The true point of choice for a guy is always leading into the romance. Any situation after that is already outside of his control and thus outside of his ability to choose. For the gal, the choice making still has a few steps before there is even a third party. 

A woman could take a morning after pill, use cleaning methods, and other precautions to make pregnancy a less likely option by a vast margin. 

The law currently acknowledges only the mother's choices at the point where she is pregnant. It doesn't look at actions from the guy and doesn't look at preventive measures taken. 

WHAT IS THE FIX?

I don't think that I have a universal answer to the question. I do have a few ideas as to things that should rectify some of these questions. Here is a list of things that I think would help - maybe not fix entirely:

1 - Life should be defined as whenever something has working nerves. At that point it can potentially feel and morally and ethically deserves to not feel pain. 

2 - Men should be offered a parental rights and responsibility waiver once they are informed they are going to be a father. At that point, they should (prior to the child being aborted/adopted/birthed) be able to know, just as much as a mother is allowed to abort at any point before "viability," whether they want to and can support the child. At that point, they can make the decision and then definitively give the mother another piece to making her decision. 

3 - Women should be given a deadline (window of days) to announce to potential fathers that they are potentially a parent in order to facilitate the father's right to waive

I am not a chauvinist nor a feminist, but as I look at the current law it becomes more evident that the potential child and potential father are distinctly disadvantaged in this situation. Women, by all means, should have the right to control their own bodies. At the same time, that shouldn't come at the expense of the rights of the majority of everyone else involved. 

That's the way I see it.