Family---What makes a family?

Okay guys---Soapbox time!  I had someone say something to me yesterday that hurt me on their behalf and made me start thinking about something.  I know--those who know me well, are smiling, shaking your heads and saying hang on, cause here it comes!  :-)  Not sure how long this will be, cause you know when my fingers start talking, they don't always know when to shut up...So here goes--BTW--if you recognize yourself in this--I probably am not writing about you but I would pay attention if it strikes a nerve.

Family---What makes a family? Define Family.

Does blood make family?  No, not really.  If you really think about it, blood makes you relatives.  If you are connected to someone by blood, are they automatically your family?  No, because look at the parents that walk away from their kids at a very young age or give them up for adoption.  Are those people still family?  No, they are relatives.  The family is the ones that take those kids and raises them as their own.  The adoptive parents are the family.  Just because you share blood with someone does not make them your family.  Giving birth or making a child does not make you a parent.  It makes you capable of creating life, which is a given for every living thing. 

 What about the caretakers that physically or emotionally abuse kids or the elderly?  If those caretakers share blood with them, are they family? Or is family someone that they live with that cares for them lovingly and tenderly, whether they share blood or not?

 What if the people they live with "love" them as long as they conform to their belief system and their behavior types and that "love" is withdrawn when the child/person has independent thoughts and beliefs of their own?  Is that love?  Is that family?  Say you have a person live with you for several years, does that person become part of your family or are they just a very long staying guest?  Is that person left out of major family decisions because they not “blood-family”?  In a medical emergency, who gets to go back with a person or speak on the behalf of a person?  A blood-relative? or the person that they want with them, that loves them and that they love?  Who determines the care of an individual, the nearest blood relative, or the person that shares a bond of love? (If you don’t have a medical directive stating who determines your care in the event that you cannot speak for yourself, or you are under 18 years of age, guess what? Without legal orders stating otherwise,  your nearest BLOOD relative speaks for you, even if they don’t know what you want or perhaps even care enough to take your wants and needs into consideration.  They can speak based on what they want or believe.)

So really?  Who is family?  What is a family?  According to dictionary.com,  they  define family as primarily  blood related.  I copied and pasted their definition here.  

­­­­­­­­­­a basic social unit consisting of parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not: the traditional family.

a social unit consisting of one or more adults together with the children they care for: a single-parent family.

the children of one person or one couple collectively: We want a large family.

the spouse and children of one person: We're taking the family on vacation next week.

any group of persons closely related by blood, as parents, children, uncles, aunts, and cousins: to marry into a socially prominent family.

all those persons considered as descendants of a common progenitor.

Okay, you bring together a man and a woman (unrelated by blood-we hope-ha) and they get married.  They have children together.  They have a family.  Are the man and woman family?  They created children together.  Does that make them family?  They can get divorced—are they still family?  So if you don’t share blood, you can walk away and wha-la—no longer family?  But if you share blood, you can walk away and come back at will and expect to have just as much say so as if you never walked away?  Do you love everyone that you share blood with?  Are you required to pretend to love someone you share blood with? 

What about adopted kids?  They don’t share blood with you.  Legally they become part of your family, but are they really?  They don’t share your blood. 

What about a gay couple?  They may not be able to become legally family but they commit to each other, just like a man and woman.  They raise kids together.  Are they family?

What about your best friend that you have shared everything with for years and years?  They are not blood.  Are they family?

So technically, according to the dictionary definition, family is either blood related, or legally bound to another.  Okay, now what about love?  When does love make a difference?  Does it?  What if you have two siblings, you “love” them both because you “have” to, but you actually like one of them and don’t like the other one.  When did love become a requirement towards someone that you don’t even like?  Do you have “family” members that you “love” but really you can’t stand the sight of them?  If you were not blood related, would you even speak to them?  Would you choose to be part of their lives?  Do you have some “family” members that you would cry if they died, but only because they have been bound to you by blood for your entire life or not cry at all?  Is there someone out there that you love, not bound to you legally or by blood, that the very idea of them hurting or dying makes you unable to breathe?  Are they family? 

If you are bound by blood, does that give you the right to walk in and out of a person’s life as if it were a revolving door?  If you walk out on your child, can you just walk back in like nothing ever happened and expect love and respect that is “owed” to you because you are their parent?  Can you walk out of your parent’s life and walk back in at will and expect them to not have reservations about trusting you?  Now—a parent—some parents, will always love their child, regardless—but having said that, there are some parents that did not want the child in the first place and that child is lucky that they were not an abortion statistic, or they were a failed abortion.  But, after a few years, can that parent just walk back in and take over that child’s life as if they had never left them in the first place? Or on the other hand, after a few years, can you just dump that child you gave birth to and not care what happens to them?   What if that child has been adopted or simply cared for and is perfectly happy in their new life with their new “not blood” family?

Okay—I got off on a lot of questions and different aspects of “family” but really, put some thought into those questions.  How do YOU define family?

The words I said yesterday to the young lady I was talking to was, “Blood does not make family.  Hearts do.”  I woke up several times last night with the question running through my mind, “What truly makes a family?” 

There are a lot of people out there that have ex-in-laws and what about those of us who have a grandchild born without the parents being married.  The grand child is family because we share blood but what about the mother or father of the child?  Are they part of our “family” because we share a common blood relative?  (Now lucky for me, I happen to love the mother of my grandchild dearly but what about those who don’t?) 

Here is another one, not many people know that I was married a long time ago before I met and married my husband.  Since we shared no children, we are no longer required to communicate.  I still stay in touch with most of my ex-in-laws and care deeply about their well-being.  One in particular, still to this day, calls me Aunt Patty and will tell you real quick that I am his aunt and a very important part of his family.  And I might add, he is extremely protective when it comes to me and my kids.  We don’t share one tiny bit of blood, but he is and always will be part of my family.  His mother and I still consider ourselves sisters, even though we are technically not even sisters-in-law anymore.  No blood, no legal document—yet family we are, and family we will stay.

One of my sons became close to two boys when we moved here. Our families became close as a result.  They have been part of our lives for 10 years.  The boys are not as close as they once were, because they grew up and developed different lives.  Those boys still consider me like a second mom just as my son does their moms.  Are they family?  My answer would be yes.  They will be part of our lives until the end.  Maybe we don’t see each other on a daily basis, but I will never stop loving them, regardless to what they do or say or accomplish or not accomplish.  I love them without reservation and without conditions.  Their moms feel the same way about him.  I feel that way about the moms as well and know in my heart that they feel the same about me.

Would you lay down your life for someone? Maybe that is a definition of family… Would you lay down your life for someone that is not blood related?    It is so easy to say, “I would lay down my life for you.”  But really think about that statement.  Would you?  Would you, really?  (Now, I know we could go off on the tangent of heroes that lay down their life for strangers and all that but let’s stay with the idea of family.)  Would you stand in front of someone and knowingly let someone kill you if it meant that other person could continue to live?   I have several “blood” family that I would not give my life for, but I also know a very limited few “non-blood” people that I would die for willingly.  I know the majority of my “blood” relatives would tell me, “ha, you are on your own, I will not die for you”.  I know a few that would die for me without even having to think about it.  Is there anyone out there not related to me legally or by blood that would stand there and die for me?  I guess I can’t answer that for sure but, ‘probably not”, would be my answer.  Maybe one or two, but I cannot say that without a doubt. Does that mean I don’t have family outside of blood?  No, not really.  I have several people that love me without condition.

Perhaps that is part of the definition of family, loving someone unconditionally.  What conditions do you put on your love for others?  You may say, “I love unconditionally”, but do you?  What does that mean?  Do you love them for a while and when the novelty and newness wears off, do you not love them so much?  When you find out that they are as human as you are with all the faults and traits as every other person, do you love them less?  When you find out that their deep held beliefs don’t agree with yours, do you love them less? You might say, what does that have to do with family? Well, that is the family that comes into your life when you least expect it and without a blood connection. 

Do you love them less if you find out that, what?..lets say..you have loved someone for years and consider them part of your “family” and then you find out that they spent time in prison before you met them… say prison for something really bad,  but the person you have known all these years is nothing like what they were when they committed those acts.  Do you love them less, do you stop loving them altogether? 

Or how about, someone you have loved for years, and then you find out they are gay?  Do you love them less or stop loving them?  Do you judge them because you disagree with them?  Do you kick them out of your “family”?  What if they lived with you for years and although they are the same person today that they were yesterday, today you found out that they were gay?  They haven’t changed, your knowledge and your view of them changed. 

How about this one, one day the person you have loved for years, is revealed to be a former prostitute and addict?  She has lived a life with a secret past, do you love her less?  So your judgment of a person stands in the way of your love, what if that person is blood related to you?  Do you love them differently or are you less willing to turn your back on them because you share blood?  If you apply the above examples to a blood relative, you may say, “but I would have known those things about them if we were blood related”.  Not necessarily, they may have lost touch with your relatives for an extended period of time or as in the example of a gay person, you just may not have known.

Okay, here is another one, you have blood family that you have never met.  You speak to them on rare occasion on the phone or Facebook or not at all.  Do you love them?  Are they family?  I would say, technically, yes, you share blood or a legal bond with them.  But really?  No.  Is it okay to step into someone’s life that you share blood with and expect them to automatically love you and to automatically make room in their life for you? Do you automatically love them?  How is it that sharing blood is an automatic assumption of love? How is it an automatic assumption that you can just walk in and take the “title” that blood gave you as if it is your right?    

I guess there as many definitions of family as there are people but put some serious thought into it.  I have. I have thought about what constitutes family a whole lot in the past several months.   After saying those words yesterday, “Blood does not make family, the heart does” I put a lot more thought into it.  Mainly, because of the response I got back.  She said, ” apparently I don't have the heart for it..I guess I just have to live this way for good.. I won't have family, I won't be family.. fine”  A river of pain lies behind those words.  A life filled with pain, disillusionment, and abandonment.  Those words echoed through my dreams in a way that I can’t explain without telling her story; her story that is not mine to tell. 

As I asked myself all those questions, I looked closely into my heart for the answers, honest answers.  Some of the answers were not as picture perfect as I might wish for them to be.  But in doing so, I got to know and define my thoughts and beliefs on this topic quite thoroughly. 

So, I have decided that my definition of family is still exactly what I said, Blood does not make you family; your heart does.

Amendment 26

I have been doing lots of reading on this and here are a few of things that have caught my attention.  First- if you research how many places offer abortion services in MS- there are 2; One in Jackson and one in Hattiesburg. I also did a search of the surrounding states--I will not give numbers on each and every one--however, I will say there are more than 2 in Memphis alone. That takes care of the northern part of MS.  For people in the southern part of the state, Alabama has a few that are close enough for them to simply cross over into Alabama. So, I conclude that this amendment will not cut down on the number of abortions in MS. The ambiguity of the amendment seems to leave much open to interpretation, as evidenced by the intensity of the debate.

Second, I have seen the point brought up regarding the rights of the mother’s life as opposed to the rights of the fetus.  If the mother’s life is in danger: Should she continue to carry the baby and die? Should the baby either be taken early with the possibility of not surviving, or should the baby be aborted?  That is a double edged sword type question.  Who’s right’s take precedent? The living breathing mother who possibly has other kids or is a productive member of society, or a baby that is going to have to be cared for by someone else in the event of the mothers death, a baby that may possibly be awarded to the state. (All kinds of theories and possibilities can be the outcome)  Point being, that answer should not be mandated by a law but on a case by case basis that takes all circumstances into consideration.

Then, along those same lines of the mother’s life being in danger, I have seen people bring the question of capital punishment into the debate. This seems unrelated on the surface but I guess if you really think about it, it seems several people who support capital punishment are supporting this amendment.  Now, I am not about to open up that hot debate, I will simply say, if you support one then you probably should not support the other.  Other than that, I will leave that alone for a later date.

Here is another question that takes a look at whose rights take precedence.  Think about this question, that on the surface has no relation to the topic of personhood, but a question nonetheless.  If someone is threatening your life and you kill them, it is self-defense if you kill them in the process, correct? If someone was threatening your family and/or your property, meaning they had broken into your home and you killed them, that too is self- defense, correct?    Call 911, yes, I will be happy to take your call and send help as quickly as I can, but what if you are forced to defend yourself before help can arrive?  Do you stand there and let this person take your life or a family member’s life or do you do everything in your power to protect yourself?  How is that different than a mother whose life is in jeopardy aborting the child? Innocent child, yes but a threat to the mothers life.   A case can be made for self-defense or justifiable homicide, as can a case for pre-meditated murder, depending on how you look at it.
 

What happens in the case of Invetro Fertilization?  When a couple is trying desperately to have children, should they not have the right to take advantage of this scientific process?  (Now on this issue it can open a whole set of questions about should this process be used at all, but that is not where I am going with this line of thought as pertains to the proposed amendment) Since I do not know all the facts about this process, my logic may be flawed.  By the very nature of the process of mixing sperm and eggs in a Petrie dish there will be numerous fertilizations occur, correct? By the definition of the amendment these are now awarded the title of “personhood”.  Since it is not feasible to implant each and every one of these little “people”, what happens to the rest of them?  If they are frozen, you can end up with lots of little frozen people. If they are discarded, several little people have been murdered.  So what do you do with them?  Implant them and endanger the mom, or give her more kids than she can possiblely care for? How about creating pseudo wombs to grow them to viability?  Then you are growing people and creating a black market for selling people. (Ridiculous? Yes, Maybe---but it does open that door.) But think about it, what DO you DO with them?

Taking on the thought of abortion in the event of rape or incest---I can only say, if a woman wants abort that child, she will do so.  She will travel whatever distance necessary to abort it.  If she cannot travel that distance, she has more than one option available to her.  She can look on the internet and purchase any number of herbs or natural growing plants that will likely cause spontaneous abortion or simply find out which ones will do the job and go looking in the wild, there are any number that grow naturally in MS.  She can endanger her own life by going back to the pre “roe vs. wade” era and use a wire clothes hanger or have someone do it for her.  Think that won’t happen? It did before and will again.  There will be an underground abortion network faster than you can say amendment 26. So does the amendment prevent abortions? No, it just changes how they happen.

Oh and let’s not forget the ultimate abortion—suicide of the mother.

I see a lot of women supporting this amendment. The question I have seen raised is how much do we, as women, want the government involved in our bodies and health care decisions.  I have seen the statement, you cannot legislate morality. Valid points and questions that we have to consider in our own conscious.  Does this amendment cross the line of invasion of our health care decisions? The questions have been raised as to how this amendment will affect our birth control choices so let’s take a look at that.

 You chose to either use birth control or you don’t.  If you use birth control, how does it work and what are your choices of method?  If you do not use birth control, then you end up with lots of kids and all the arguments that go with the pros and cons of that thought. Let’s skip that for now, shall we?

Birth control:

 Withdrawal method, well, we know the dependability of that method.  

Condom, the safest and one of the most dependable methods especially if used with a spermicide, not to mention the fact that it protects against STD’s. Will everyone use them? No.  If the moment gets intense and you don’t have one available, will you stop and go purchase one?  Maybe.  What about the teenagers?  Should they be having sex? No. Will they have sex?  Yes.  Will they stop and go purchase one? Probably not.  If the young man (boy), or girls for that matter, have one in their wallet or purse, how long has it been there?  If they even have been educated regarding safe sex and given the means of protecting themselves in that moment of… well… not all have been educated.  Teaching abstinence is a great thing but education on what to do in the event that they chose not to abstain is important too.  But that is a whole other debate.  The point being, condoms are known to fail.  I only speak to the above two points in an effort to address the natural response to a birth control argument that can be brought up against other medical methods.

Now, to the point in question of how a woman’s choice of birth control can be affected.   Admittedly, birth control has not been a question that I have had to face in a very long time (my husband and I chose a more permanent solution to our question of birth control)  so it has come a really long way since the days of a limited number of birth control pills available.  From what I have read, the question of how birth control pills work is relevant.  They prevent a fertilized egg from being implanted, being the one I have seen most often addressed.  Does this amendment prevent the use of this pill?  Well, if the moment the egg becomes fertilized it is considered a person, then it would by the very essence of the law make this pill unavailable.  The morning after pill which I believe is referred to is RU486, it will not be available any longer.  Perhaps it is unwise to use this as a regular method of birth control but what about in the case of sexual assault or birth control failure (i.e. broken condom)?  Let’s not address the morality of the broken condom argument but let’s do look at the instance of sexual assault or stated in its more graphic term, rape.  First, let’s ask a few questions?  Have you ever been raped? Have you ever been forced to have sex with someone that you are in a relationship with? (That is still rape but some women are coerced into sex against her will by emotional blackmail or threat of losing their “loved one”.) Now let me say before I go on, regardless to what you think about a woman being “weak” enough to fall for that, or that they should go ahead and leave that person that is “forcing her by verbal emotional coercion or any argument you can use towards this type of behavior, the fact remains that it happens.  You may say, “No way would that happen to me”. Great.  That still does not change the fact that being forced to participate in sexual intercourse happens to women every day.  But let’s look more closely at the physical force that is more clearly defined as rape or sexual assault.  Should that woman not be allowed to be given the “morning after pill” by a medical professional to prevent her from becoming pregnant?  Should she be forced to suffer for nine months carrying this baby that, through no fault of her own, she has growing inside her body?  Should she bring this unwanted child into the world and give it up for adoption?  There are lots of people out there that want a child more than anything in the world.  Should she keep this unwanted child and every day be reminded of what happened to her?  What if her well-meaning family will not allow her to give it up for adoption?  At what point does her anger get turned on the child with the result being child abuse. 

So many of the people that are supporting this amendment are citing religious convictions and quoting multitudes of verses to support that view.  The people opposing it are citing separation of church and state along with defending their right to not have someone else’s religious views forced on them.  This area of the debate gets to be a red-hot, emotionally-charged, core-belief attack and retaliation.

I am very hesitant to even speak to this part; however, it is at the very core of this amendment.  This is the heart and soul of this amendment.  So regardless to what I have said before in this essay, if I don’t discuss this aspect, I have not addressed the issue appropriately.  So here we go---both sides. 

In defense of the amendment, the Christians, almost exclusively although I have seen a few other religious views represented in defense of the amendment, are citing that life begins at the moment of conception; the very moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg being the definition of conception.  The egg is already a living cell, as is each of the millions of spermatozoa. They come together to formulate a living cell that has the potential, but not certainty, of becoming implanted in the lining of the womb that has been prepared to receive it.  Now at this point, it is the will of God as to whether He allows this living cell to become implanted or not.  To a Christian, this Will is all knowing and the ultimate authority on what happens and does not happen.  That in essence sums up the Christian belief. Now of course this could go into a real long dissertation on the beliefs of a Christian regarding Jesus and how to be saved and all that goes with being a Christian.  I am only referring to the Christian belief as it pertains to this amendment.  God says, “I knew you while you were yet unformed in the womb” (I did not look up the exact words but I think I have it correct as a quote-if I did not quote it exactly then it is a very close paraphrase) By using the verse that states God knew you before you were “unformed” it refers to the fact that He knew you before you were in a recognizable form inside the womb.  This seems to be the basis of a large part of the conviction that personhood begins at the moment of conception.  This conviction appears to be short and simple.
 

The people who debate against this notion have a whole range of arguments.  The main one seems to be, “Do not impose your religious convictions on me.”  They cite freedom of religion very vigorously.  I have even seen the comparison made to the imposition of Sharia Law in a small town in America.  I have also seen the argument made that Christians in their vigorous push to legislate according to their beliefs are as fanatical as the Islamic extremist that would rather kill than tolerate.  Now these statements, in essence may be viewed and discounted as ridiculous.   However, when you look closer, you see that their point is we, as Americans, have the right to choose our religion or lack-thereof.  Christians do not want Islamic law (I use Islamic Law only as an example because it is the one that is most talked about these days) imposed on them just like people of other religions (or lack of) do not want Christian “law” imposed on them.

Now I am staring at the screen and thinking what else to say so that usually means I am done.  I have been thinking about this topic for a long time and have read lots of opposing views. The questions that I have written about are the ones that gave me pause.  I have tried my best to write from an outside point of view by not making any of it personal and attempting to present more than one point of view. Hence, the continued use of the third person style rather than the first person style.   Whatever your views, beliefs or thoughts on this amendment, please exercise your right to vote. 

Until next time-

 I wish you love, joy, peace and

Gentle Breezes,

Patty

Welcome to my first Blog.

Hi everyone.
This is my first installment in the Blog that I was assigned to create in one of my classes.  I thought for a long time about what to write and finally decided that since I tend to have very random thoughts, I would take random topics and present them from several points of view.  One of the things my closest friends tell me is that I don't just listen when people talk, I hear them.  I hear what is not said and rarely do I try to impose my own view on them.  I "see" through their eyes and do not judge. Since my husband of 21 years has told me the same thing even way back when we started dating,  I guess it is just part of my nature.  I don't think about "trying" to do it, it just happens.  I have found over the years that I also love a good debate. Sometimes I research topics just for fun to see what all sides think. In a good discussion, I have been known to take the opposite point of view, just to make others think.  I can debate either side and leave my personal beliefs out of it (most of the time).  I have often said that people get so caught up in their own selves that they forget that others have valid thoughts and opinions too.

So...with that in mind, don't be surprised if I take on a topic that you are shocked to see me defend.  Just because I can defend another person's point of view, does not mean I agree with it.  One of my main goals in writing this is to present controversial topics, unusual thoughts and points of views and hopefully open people's minds to each other.  I will say this again, just because I can defend something, does not mean I believe it or necessarily agree with it.  What I do defend, on a personal level, is the right of each and every person to have their own thoughts and beliefs.

I am starting to get excited about the prospect of writing this.  I hope you will enjoy reading it. When you come here, bring an open mind. Small minded judgement is not welcome here.  If you don't like what I write, don't attack me for it, simply leave.  I will not tolerate hate or mean spirited people intruding on a space that is meant for enlightenment and acceptance.  That is where I do draw a personal line.

Have a great day everyone!

Just because it is different, does not make it wrong.
Patty