upworthy

earth

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.

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


Canva

It's so much more than fun.

True
Nike's Made to Play

If you've ever watched kids on a playground running around and laughing, you might think they’re just having a great time.

It's hard to imagine that something so fun could help them succeed at the more serious life stuff. But that is, in fact, exactly what playtime is doing.

Research has actually proven time and time again that regular play is integral to kids' success in school, social situations, and, eventually, the careers that they choose to pursue.


So the next time you see kids giggling while they hang on jungle gyms or dig around in a sandbox, you might not want to just write it off as silliness — they're actually learning the fundamentals of adult behavior.

Here are 21 reasons you should encourage the kids in your life to play more all year long.

1. Kids aren't made to sit still. They're made to play.

Human kids are born with a natural desire to play, and it helps them learn important skills. That said, today's kids are way less active than their parents and generations were before them. However, if you give the kids in your life the opportunity to play, you're doing your part to help reverse this unhealthy trend.

2. Playing helps kids stay active, and active kids do better in school.

Active kids tend to have increased concentration, go to school more regularly, and are usually better behaved once they get there. In fact, studies suggest that they’re noticeably more attentive and less distracted right after an active play session.

So in a way, encouraging play is just as useful as paying extra for a tutor, if not more so.

3. They’re also more well-adjusted overall.

Kids who play regularly tend to have healthier eating habits and more confidence than inactive kids because they’re running on endorphins that boost mood and improve behavior.

Imagine, just by letting them go hog wild outside once a day, you might have the most well-adjusted kids on the block!

team, collaboration, education, investing in health

A group of children pulling a rope in a game of tug-o-war.

Photo by Anna Samoylova on Unsplash

4. And play can give them a major mood boost.

Research suggests that being more physically active can improve a kid’s self-esteem, mood, and social interactions all at once. If your kid mopes around the house, complaining that they have nothing to do, why not seize the opportunity and send them outside?

5. Play encourages healthy brain development, especially in younger kids.

You know how little kids seem to create fantastical worlds every time they play? All that creative thinking is helping them expand their imaginations in a super productive way. It's like cognitive strength training — not only are they building up their dexterity and physical strength, but by interacting with other kids in this way, they're also establishing emotional strength.

6. And that emotional strength pays off down the line.

Did you know that emotionally intelligent people tend to be more successful? According to analysis by Egon Zehnder International, it’s one of the most common attributes of thriving senior executives. This is where that starts.

7. Meanwhile, not playing could actually shorten kids’ lives.

According to the World Health Organization, physical inactivity is the fourth-leading risk factor for death worldwide. However, so far, that stat doesn't seem to be scaring people enough to get kids moving. Hopefully this list will encourage some parents to start changing that!

8. The sitting epidemic is very real, especially in our country.

In America alone, physical activity in kids between the ages of 9 and 15 has dropped by 75%. What better reason is there to make use of the longest day of the year?

sitting, physical activity, play, habits, risks

Kids have replaced physical activity with sedentary playing.

Photo from Pixabay

9. But American kids aren’t the only ones who are affected by inactivity.

According to the World Health Organization, 80% of 11- to 17-year-olds around the world fail to meet the minimum requirements of physical activity: 60 minutes a day. If the trend continues, your kids could live five years less than you.

10. And kids get a little less active every year.

Children are the most active at age 6, and then they tend to start slowing down. By the time they're 19, many kids are as sedentary as 60-year-olds, according to The Washington Post.

While this sounds scary, a little extra playtime now can reverse this trend.

11. That said, kids who start out active tend to stay active.

It’s pretty simple — starting such a habit at a young age is proven to help kids carry that habit with them into adulthood. And if they're active adults, odds are they'll encourage their kids to be active too — and just like that, you've started an extremely healthy chain reaction.

12. Child-driven play is also where kids learn skills they'll need as adults.

One of the biggest questions asked in job interviews is if you work well with others. That's not a skill you acquire in high school or college — it starts much earlier, on the playground. When left to their own devices, children develop the confidence they need to take control and make decisions. They also learn how to share, negotiate, and resolve conflicts in a diplomatic way.

13. Boys are twice as active as girls.

In fact, by the age of 14, girls drop out of team sports twice as often. Reasons for this include everything from a lack of athletic opportunities to social stigmas against sporty girls.

That’s why it’s so important to get girls moving early — so they’ll be more inclined to stay in the game down the road.

girls, depression, success, motivation

A young girl swings on the monkey bars.

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

14. But when girls do stay active, it makes a huge difference.

Those who keep playing usually get giant doses of confidence and coping and decision-making skills. Simultaneously, risks of depression, stress, and other dangerous behaviors like eating disorders tend to drop off.

15. Plus, active girls tend to become successful women.

A 2015 study of 400 female C-suite executives found that over half of them played sports at a university level. What's more, Fortune found that over 80% of female Fortune500 executives played a competitive sport at some time in their lives.

Can you see these powerhouses as little tikes on the blacktop during recess? They must've given every boy a run for their money.

16. That’s why it’s so important for them to have motivators they can look up to.

Research suggests that when girls have positive female role models in their lives, it sets them up for a better future. Unfortunately, in 2017 only 28% of youth coaches were female. If more women can be that role model for their kids, nieces, or kids in their neighborhood, they’ll be making a major impact on them.

17. Regardless of gender, though, when it comes to test scores, active kids set the curve.

When regular play is part of a child's life, it can help them stay attentive and put focused energy into their studies. And there are stats to prove it. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), students who are regularly active tend to have higher grade point averages and lower high school dropout rates. In fact, active kids have been shown to score up to 40% higher on tests than inactive kids.

18. Regular activity also gives your kid a better chance at a more successful career.

No matter what career path your 8-year-old chooses in the future, playing everyday now could give them the boost they need to land the job of their dreams. In fact, studies suggest physically active kids are 15% more likely to go to college and earn an average of 7-8% more money than an inactive kid.

bonding, healthy parenting, play, learning

A father at play with his daughter.

Photo by lauren lulu taylor on Unsplash

19. What’s more, play is a great way for parents and kids to bond.

Kids learn games from their parents, and vice versa, which always makes for an incredibly adorable good time.

And, since school recess has been cut back, encouraging play is largely up to parents these days. Over the past two decades, schools across the country have cut down recess significantly — in some cases, entirely.

The more parents can motivate their kids to get moving outside of school, the more they'll counteract this unfortunate rollback.

20. But if parents get in the way of kid play too much, it can offset its benefits.

If you dictate how they should play, you might actually hinder all the positive effects playtime can have. Giving up that control might be hard, but it can also be a game changer in kids' development.

21. Play is so important that it is recognized by the United Nations as a fundamental human right.

Because the name suggests it's not productive time spent, it's easy to let playtime become a privilege or reward. But regular active play could be the difference between a happy, healthy, successful adult and one who struggles to get through the day.

If a prestigious, international organization like the U.N. understands that and puts its importance on par with food and shelter, it's time for parents and schools everywhere to pick up the play baton and run with it — and encourage their kids to do the same every day.

This article originally appeared on 06.21.18

Science

How rock cairns became a weird wilderness battleground

And why we should resist the urge to build—or topple—the ubiquitous rock towers.

Rock cairns are everywhere, but they're not as harmless as they look.

For the past several years, largely thanks to Instagram culture, rock cairns—those carefully balanced towers of rocks that look like something straight out of a Zen garden—have become ubiquitous across the natural landscape. It's not terribly surprising, really. There's something satisfyingly primitive about balancing rocks on top of one another, and the urge to create art and order out of the wildness of nature is a decidedly human instinct. Plus, they just look cool.

But according to environmental experts, that's not a good enough reason to make them.

Rock cairns have become a wilderness battleground of sorts, with people loving to make them but many places making it illegal to erect them in natural areas. Even the freedom-loving state of Texas, where you can basically build a tower of guns as high as you want, has made building rock towers illegal in its state parks.

Why? As it turns out, stacking rocks isn't as harmless as it may seem.


While no one is really worried about hurting rocks themselves, non-living as they are, there are entire ecosystems living under rocks that get disturbed when people build cairns. Rocks around waterways are particularly important for wildlife, as insects, fish, crustaeans and other animals lay eggs or make their homes under them. Even the algae that forms under and around rocks is an important part of river ecosystems, and when people pick up rocks to pile into a cairn, all of that gets disturbed or destroyed.

What about if you're stacking rocks nowhere near a river? Well, in mountainous areas, rocks also help prevent erosion. An increase in erosion can increase pollution, decrease soil fertility and lead to more runoff, which can impact waterways and ecosystems down the line.

You may be thinking, "Yeah, but there are millions of rocks. Surely moving a few to make a cool, meditative rock cairn isn't going to destroy the environment." What it really boils down to is the "leave no trace" idea of protecting our natural areas. One person's actions might have a minimal impact in the grand scheme of things, but what if everyone did it? Additionally, moving rocks from the wrong place can lead to rock and mudslides, which directly endangers humans as well.

The other problem with building rock cairns in random places is that real, official ones in specific places serve an important purpose. When built by authorities like park rangers, they are used to delineate a hiking path. Cairns, when purposefully placed by people who know the whys and hows and wheres of creating them, keep hikers safe by orienting them to official trails.

That's one reason why, despite the righteous urge to do so, people shouldn't topple cairns built by others, either. Yosemite National Park recently shared a video of a ranger knocking over a huge cairn and seemingly encouraged people to do the same, but in some places, cairns have been placed purposefully by parkrangers. A cairn in the middle of a river? Not likely a trail marker. But out in the woods? Probably best to leave the toppling of those ones to the experts.

It may seem like people who rail against cairn-making are just grumpy buzzkills making a mountain out of a molehill—or a rock pile, in this case. But protecting the environment involves all of us taking actions both large and small. As the saying goes, when we know better, we do better, and experts have been asking people to refrain from moving rocks out of their natural places to protect the natural environment.

If you want to build a cairn in your own yard with landscaping rocks, go ahead and balance those stacks to your heart's content. But out in the wilderness and in protected park lands, leave the rocks where they are, knowing that you're helping keep the Earth itself in balance for all of her creatures.

A Minnesota city has issued a notice to residents to please stop releasing their unwanted pet goldfish into local lakes and ponds because they are turning into Frankenfish and messing with the natural order of things.

Okay, they didn't say Frankenfish, but take a look at the monstrous size of these goldfish. Not exactly the little fishbowl friends you find at the fair.

The city of Burnsville, Minnesota posted the plea on Facebook and Twitter, explaining what a recent fish survey had found in a local lake. "Large groups of goldfish have been observed in recent years on the lake. At high populations, goldfish can contribute to poor water quality by mucking up the bottom sediments and uprooting plants," the post said.

"You see goldfish in the store and they're these small little fish," Caleb Ashling, Burnsville's natural resources specialist, said in an interview, according to MSN. "When you pull a goldfish about the size of a football out of the lake, it makes you wonder how this can even be the same type of animal."



There's a common myth that goldfish will only grow to the size their enclosure allows. While there is some truth to that, according to Tropical Fish Magazine, the limited size of at-home goldfish has more to do with water quality than aquarium size. The reality is that common goldfish can grow very large in size—up to 18 inches—and their impact on ecoystems they aren't designed for can be significant.

"A few goldfish might seem to some like a harmless addition to the local water body – but they're not," wrote the Minnesota department of natural resources earlier this year.

The city of Eagan, Minnesota, has experience with the problems invasive goldfish can cause. Several. years ago, some goldfish dumped into a pond at Eagan's Central Park resulted in a population spun out of control, which muddied the waters and harmed native plants. It took three years of effort and a great deal of expense to rid the pond of the issue.

"We tried netting them out," Koehle says, "and we got thousands of them, but we couldn't get them all," said Eagan water resources specialist Jessie Koehle, according to Minnesota Conservation Volunteer magazine. Eventually, we had to use rotenone to reclaim the pond, killing all the fish and starting over."

"It can be a pain to figure out what to do with a goldfish that you don't want," Koehle said. But releasing them into a lake or pond isn't the best solution, even if it seems like the kindest one. It's also against the law to introduce fish into bodies of water where they don't naturally live.

The city of Burnsville recommended that people rehome pet fish with responsible caregivers rather than release them out into nature. That's good advice for fish owners no matter where you live. One little fish may not seem like a big deal, but when it results in an explosion of an invasive species, it can wreak havoc on ecosystems and cause real harm to other living things. If your fish didn't come directly from the pond or the lake you're looking at, don't put it there. Keep pet fish in tanks, and keep the balance of nature intact.