What Happens when the Right Wing Agenda Talks to the Left? Is there a Middle?
According to his facebook page, Huge is a born and bred in Havana, Illinois and is a member for the LDS church. He considers himself a Christian and a member of the GOP, Based on his posting he is a strong supporter or Mitt Romney and all his policies and holds a strong dislike for President Obama. Why do we care at all about Huge and his world views?
I wouldn’t, but Huge decided that he needed to comment to this Huff Po article written by Cristina Page I shared. So we had quite the exchange.
And I use this as an example, not to shame Huge or get back at him, but to show the weird level of polarization that we face in the most important dialogues needed in this country. I count myself in this because I can see that I went to prove him wrong about everything before I bothered to find out where he stood. I still don’t agree with him, even when given him the chance.
To be fair the original blurb that went along with the link read:
“…a good question for Romney during tonight’s debate would be about his beloved Ann Keenan, snuffed out so early, and the lessons her death taught him. And more pointedly, why is he planning to deliver American women to her fate.”
I know I was on the defensive and after the first comment did view Huge as “an enemy” based on what he choose to say. I also tried to be very optimistic and to respond his accusations as honestly as possible.
I did not call him names.
Huge said: “
I would have liked to have read the article, but it kept sending me to another page. Romney’s church promotes life. From what I was able to read, your Huffpost link was extremely bigoted against that point of view. There really is no tolerance on the extreme left”
My Reply: T
he link is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/over-her-dead-body_b_1971181.html and the post is a cautionary one about what happens when abortion is illegal and women lose the right to make safe medical choices and they DIE. I find there is WAY less tolerance on the right made in the name of God. Romney’s church also promotes adoption and will not be getting my vote.
Huge said: “
So you are an anti-religious bigot. What about the millions of women who regret killing their baby for the rest of their lives??? What about all the of women that are maimed and ruined for life by being pushed into killng their own child? Do you really think mass abortion is a sound choice for birth control when so many other methods are available? I think you hate yourself and other women.”
My Reply: OK, Huge, we can play this game. Not sure WHY you have chosen to engage with your own personal pro-life agenda on a page that documents the grief and loss due to unnecessary adoption relinquishments. Assuming that you either want to be a troll and stir up the pot or you just aren’t bright enough to bother doing a bit of research before you decide to “Like” a page on FB or, even worse, you are trying to somehow “save” us all.
So to answer your questions:
1) No, not an anti religious bigot. I dig God, but religious freedom means that I don’t get to force others to live by my beliefs. It also means that I make choices depending on whether or not other people respect the true meaning of that religious freedom or not. I do not like others pushing their agenda on my life.
2) No, I do not think that “mass abortion” (whatever the hell that is? Is that like the Wal-Mart abortions? Is that like lining women up and sharing a coat hanger?) is a choice for birth control. I think that a safe medical abortion is a necessary evil that is important to have in place should birth control fail. See it should go like this so we have plenty of safe guards in place BEFORE we get to the point where there is a pregnancy: education, access to birth control, morning after pill. However, should a pregnancy occur and should a woman determine that she does not wish to continue that pregnancy, then yes, she should have the right to control her own life. Not your life, not my life, but HER life. If she wants to have an abortion, then I hope and pray that she can get one safely and without judgment.
3) Ok what about the women? Let’s talk regret first. I think we SHOULD regret abortions. I don’t think that anyone should be able to take it lightly, or frivolously. It’s not a freaking picnic. It’s unfortunate. The abortions themselves are relatively unpleasant. It’s usually sad, yet scary and often, somewhat relieving, when over. I now that women have different grief responses to termination. I have had different grief responses of my own based on where I was in life at the time. Yes, that means I have terminated pregnancies and I am not ashamed to say so. My greatest fear now is that I might be considered in the last generation of women who were able to make those choices. I want my daughter to control her own body.
When you mention the women who are “are maimed and ruined for life”, I am assuming that you are not talking about the women who underwent illegal and unsafe abortions that resulted in sterility, infections, and death? You mean the ones that are so grief stricken over the loss of their pregnancies that were terminated? My heart goes out to them. Really. We can say that they are sisters of loss who also were not fully prepared of the range of emotions that would be the consequences of their choice. It’s a long, hard road to travel. Not only is there grief and sadness over what was lost, but the loss is invisible to the rest of the world. There is much anger, too, because we made the “choice” and so in many ways, we blame ourselves.
I KNOW you do not have the ability to “think” anything about me based on any kind of reality. If that is what you think, then I’m going to go for the “you are just not so bright” reasoning to write off your laughable assumption that “I think you hate yourself and other women.”
I think YOU hate women.
I often get the very strong feeling that many people in the US, and often the ones who use the name of God as some kind of shield, really HATE women. I’m not sure why and I’m not sure what it is that you all want, but I don’t like it. The way I see it:
They push abstinence only agendas, ignore that fact that abstinence only doesn’t work, and act like they are surprised when teens have sex ( which is biologically normal and really now, after centuries, should be expected) .
They want to reduce funding for birth control access, including allowing insurance companies to not pay for it or employers to not offer it.
They want to destroy Planned Parenthood who provides the NECESSARY health care for many women in the US along with abortion access. If you respect women then how come we can’t have access to pap smears and mammograms too?
They expect a woman, when she does conceive to be a slave to her body and carry the pregnancy. The unacceptable answer to an unwanted pregnancy is place the child for adoption.
Want to talk about women who are “are maimed and ruined for life”? Mothers and children are not interchangeable. It’s a documented FACT that women who relinquish face lifelong repercussions from adoption separation. I do NOT find this platform to be acceptable.
I fear a country where we damn a woman for having sex unless it is based on a man’s needs. I fear a country where women are reduced to being chattel and slaves to our fertility. I fear a country where we have no options but to have sex, get pregnant based on the cycles of the moon and be forced to carry pregnancies to term. I fear a country where the answer to those impregnated women is to remove their children and give the baby to the highest bidder. I fear a country where women have no choices.
Does that answer your questions? Are there more?
And please note, I will not tolerate a less than respectful dialogue on my page.
Huge said: “Your bigotry does allow you to see the point of view of others. You truly don’t understand a respect for life, do you? It must be sad in your dark world of hate where you choose to dismiss a candidate because of his membership in America’s fourth largest religious group.”
My Reply: Oh no. I have WAY more reasons for dismissing Mittens that just the fact that he is a Mormon! In fact, his religion does not affect my decision in the least. We elect a man, not his church. I only brought up what his church promotes because you did in your first comment: “Romney’s church promotes life.”
I’m amused by your repeated use of the word “bigotry”. As the word is defined by “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.” I am not sure you understand the correct use. If I was completely intolerant of your ideas, I would have just deleted your comments and banned you from this page. I would not have bothered answering your assumptive questions. I would not have tried to find any possible iota of common ground.
On the other hand, you have passed some pretty harsh judgments based on the fact that I support a women’s right to control her fertility in a way that she sees fit. If there is a bigotry shoe, your foots fits in there better than mine!
Huge said: “You were the one that made the bigoted comment about Romney’s religion. I’m glad you are ashamed of it. ( ETA: no I am not!) Perhaps you need to look up the definition of tolerance as well as of bigotry. I really don’t think many Americans are as extreme on this issue as you are. Allowing babies to be killed for positively any reason at any term in a pregnancy is pretty extreme, and of course shared by B. Hussein Obama. You apparently think it is fine to crush the skull of an independently viable baby in its mother’s birth canal as does Obama. ( ETA.. yeah no. Late trimester abortions should only be OK when the life of the mother is at stake and the pregnancy is not really viable)You apparently think it is fine for parents to choose to kill their baby because they wanted a boy not a girl. (ETA.. yeah No, actually, not one bit!) That is indeed very extreme! I really find 1.5 million abortions per year in America to be extreme, dangerous, and the ultimate in disrespect for life, motherhood, and even rational healthcare. I respect the choice of birth mothers who choose to carry their baby to term to help satisfy the huge demand of very qualified couples who are not able to have their own baby. I have friends that had to travel to Siberia three times to finally get their daughter.”
My Reply: Then Huge.., WHY are you HERE? This page does NOT support your view. And you sure won’t be convincing anyone here to share your ideas.
Huge said: It appeared on my time line. There was no mention of being completely closed to reason, logic, or facts. I certainly agree that your hate and bigotry blinds you and that you cannot logically defend it. These things appear on the timelines of many. You call me names, post bigotry, hate, and illogic, but don’t assume that everyone is so closed minded and unbendable. Few Americans share your complete extremism. Most are somewhere in the middle, as am I. Conception and life are very serious decisions. So is major surgery. Personally, I wouldn’t deny a rape victim having her womb cleansed within 24 hours. I wouldn’t want to made a decision for others on whether or not to carry a Downs syndrome child to term, though I’m very fond of a Downs syndrome cousin who was born the same year I was. I also wouldn’t oppose a medical decision to save the life of a mother. What I do find completely barbaric and stupid is huge numbers of abortions just because having a baby becomes inconvenient. I think it’s extreme that some think an underage girl should be able to make that decision without her parents’ knowledge. I also think it is extremely disrespectful and in violation of our long history of religious tolerance to make those who oppose birth control and abortion to provide it or pay for it. I don’t oppose birth control, but don’t think those who do should have to violate their conscience. I’ve worked in a food pantry, and most patrons have satellite or cable TV, cell phones, and money for cigarettes and booze. It looks to me like seven bucks a month for birth control should fit in there, too.
My Reply: Well, I am sorry that it appeared on your timeline in such a manner that you did not opt in for such messaging. We do have one friend in common and I can only assume that someone’s Facebook setting allowed her to share it with you. That I cannot control. If you like, I will add you to the banned user list and that should prevent you from ever seeing a post from here again.
Outside of that; I really don’t have an argument for what you believe. You have a right to believe that (tolerance) and I can’t say that I disagree with much of what you say from “serious decision” on with the exception of birth control being provided to all based on THEIR religious beliefs as opposed to the providers. My feeling is that if you are in a position where you CAN provide such services, then it is one’s RESPONSIBILITY to do so and let people make their choices based on their beliefs. I will agree that in a perfect world, there will be less abortions. I would say we differ on how to get there. For instance, without affordable healthcare options, the pill does average MORE than $7 a month (The price of a contraceptive pill in Chicago pharmacies varies from $9 (Trinessa, aka generic Tricyclen, at Target pharmacy) to $84 (Loestrin 24 at Kmart pharmacy) a month. A “third tier co-pay” on a birth control pill, such as Loestrin 24, can still run up to $40 a month.) I disagree on what should happen when the pill or other methods of birth control fail. I do NOT support adoption as an option because it IS cruel to women and exploitative I believe in honoring the bonds of motherhood and support keeping mother and child together.
Now, not to be argumentative, but you called me a bigot first: “So you are an anti-religious bigot” . You brought hate into the conversation: “I think you hate yourself and other women”. This was after I answered your questions about the HuffPo link and what it was about. Facebook does not have other “warnings” that could be used. It’s quite easy to look at the about page, click the link to my website and read all about where I am coming from and my views. It’s called.. what’s that word Mittens likes… “personal responsibility”.
Huge said: “I think you degrade those birth mothers who choose freely to give their child life and choose for that child an environment better than she can provide under the circumstances. I’ve known quite a few adoptive children who truly deserved their lives and have been very successful and contributing in life. I know of a couple of very difficult circumstances as well, but that happens in other families as well. Providing a child with a stable family with both a father and mother present is one of the best gifts a mother can give. It is one of the best predictors of a child’s future success. Society is ever changing, but in most cases it is still advantageous for a young woman to seek a suitable spouse without another man’s child involved. I also respect mothers who choose to keep their child despite inconvenience. I know some who chose abortion and killing their child has haunted them for the rest of their days.”
My Reply: Sorry Huge, but now you are in my zone when it comes to living life as a birthmother. When it comes to voluntary infant adoption as practiced in this country as an option for an ill timed pregnancy, there is nothing more degrading than saying that removing a child from the mother to provide a household made up of two strangers is a betterment to the welfare of the child. To the infant, the mother, even if younger, poorer and unmarried, cannot be replaced with something of equal or greater value. Losing our children to adoption based on false promises, lies, bad advertising, force, coercion, exploitation and fear also haunts women for the rest of their days. What’s worse, many have found that they child is no “better”, even economically, due to the separation from family. So all the mothers suffering was for naught.
Huge said: That may be your feelings, but there is no reason not to respect the choices of other birth mothers or to fail to recognize that killing an unwanted baby also scares many other women for life. Calling me names doesn’t change any of that. Many young girls recognize that an unplanned pregnancy can end or limit their chances for education and the kind of marriage they want, as well as the fact that they would be unlikely to be able to do a good job of providing for a child emotionally, spiritually, and physically at age 16. Perhaps the situations of some are different, but they should be able to choose without being demonized.
My Reply: They should also be able to choose without being denied the facts so they can make an informed choice. The fact is, and this is not MY feelings, but FACT, adoption is a 5.8 billion dollar a year industry that relies on supply and demand to transfer parental rights from those who are resource-less to those who can pay for the privilege. I know HUNDREDS of women who feel like this about adoption : while you are, right now, promoting erroneous stereotypes about the women who DO relinquish.
I don’t demonize.. it’s called providing the truth hopefully BEFORE it’s too late. Think of it like an unforced trans-vaginal ultrasound. Or, providing understanding to deal with the lifelong repercussions of adoption loss. Surely the mother who did choose life and relinquish deserves the same support and understanding as all the women scarred from abortion loss?
I’m getting tired of playing with this guy now. I’m sure he’ll come back telling me that “I hate all adoptive parents” and some story about a beaten abused crack baby that was shoved into a ash tray by her mother. I know it’s probably useless to even try to disarm some of the inbred stereotypes that he must hold dear, but I just don’t GET it.
I Just Don’t GET it the Right Wing Agenda
I don’t understand how people can think this way. I want to. I am almost fascinated by where they come from and what makes them think like this. Where do they LEARN It? Church? Fox News? Mittens’ knee?
And I really am not that far off from actually agreeing with Huge abut some things. When he spelled out his beliefs, I’m OK with most of them, so I understand that he is NOT really a fanatic. OK, he was quite assumptive, but he’s probably a really nice guy in real life, who maybe lacks some internet etiquette skills and needs to learn real life examples of people practicing tolerance. OK, maybe he needs to listen to the answers to his questions and accept those answers. OK, maybe he has just drank that weird Kool-aid.
I don’t know the guy, but I know plenty of people like him. I see people I know posting strong anti-Obama stuff and I watch the news. I don’t understand how people can actually think that Mitt Romney is the Man. I just don’t understand how they don’t see the true level of hate thrust towards women and the complete disregard for people who are “beneath” them.
I’m going to be truly scared for the next three weeks.
I Feel the Hate
Over the last year, I have been increasing aware of just how HATED I feel as a woman in this country. We watch the news and sometimes I find myself about to cry. It’s not that the story is sad, but that there are people who THINK these things, that SAY these things, who are RESPECTED as policy makers? I just FEEL hate.
I don’t know why they hate women so. I suppose I could muse on vagina envy and fear of the power of creation. Are they jealous because we make babies and they cannot? Do they all just hate their mothers? I don’t know why it’s a men verses women world. WHY DO THEY HATE WOMEN???
I do know what I see and the future that it really seems people like Mittens and Paul Ryan want.
Abstinence Only Policies for Sex Ed in Schools
GOAL: Reduce teenage pregnancy rate and prevent transmission of STDs
FACT: It’s proven fact that states that prescribe abstinence-only sex education programs in public schools have significantly higher teenage pregnancy and birth rates than states with more comprehensive sex education programs.[i] [ii]
OUTCOME: Abstinence Only Policies FAIL to meet the goals intended. \
LOGICAL RESPONSE: Bring back real sex-ed to all teens in order to reduce unplanned pregnancies and keep kids reproductively healthy.
But we cannot do that because then it means that we are “condoning” sex before marriage or getting teens all curious to go try on condoms or something. The way I look at it, people have been having sex during their teens since the beginning of time. It’s actual kind of biological, even instinctual. I mean, we get our periods and become “reproductively-able” in our early teens because then, we’re supposed to start procreating. Now I understand that as a society we have changed and no longer do we culturally support a teen pregnancy, but our bodies have clearly not caught up to our minds on this issue. So doesn’t it make sense to accept that ..OMG.. teens might, despite all we tell them, have sex. Wouldn’t it be better to then, teach them the to use the tools and make the best decisions possible so they don’t have to live a life filled with consequences of their choices? Shouldn’t we be teaching them to be personally responsible, rather than hoping that they have strong enough faith and willpower to pray against their natural instincts? Wouldn’t it be kinder to acknowledge the sexual behaviors as normal, rather than moralize and vilify those who are “weak”.
BIG PICTURE: We are separating the wheat from the chaff. Dividing women into either Madonnas or Whores. Those who give into their lusty desires shall reap what they sow; the “good’ girls will go on to exemplary lives, the boys carry no evidence of sin.
Prevent Accessibility to Affordable Birth Control on “Moral” Grounds
GOAL: Religious Freedom: Allow health care provider or a health facility a “moral clause” so they shall not be required to provide an item or service under a group health plan or health insurance coverage if the provider or facility objects to doing so on the basis of a religious belief or moral conviction. IE: if you are a nurse at a Catholic Hospital, they won’t provide an insurance plan that has a co-pay on the Pill.
FACT: Human beings have constantly sought ways through history to control their reproduction. Pebbles were used as an early form of IUD. Successful use of birth control prevents unplanned pregnancies. An overwhelming majority of Americans — virtually all women (more than 99 percent ) aged 15–44 have used at least one contraceptive method — rely on contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancies and limit the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases. In fact, the Guttmacher Institute estimates that contraceptive services provided at publicly funded clinics helped prevent almost two million unintended pregnancies. Without funding from Medicaid and Title X, “abortions occurring in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher among women overall and among teens; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.”[iii]
OUTCOME: Missouri is trying to override the Governor’s veto on a bill that would allow the denial of birth control coverage. Wait for more pregnancies, about another 2 million of them.
LOGICAL RESPONSE: In the name of religious “freedom”, we are going to allow the beliefs of an organization or even a company’s CEO decide whether or not we can have control over our fertility? Is this going to be a common place interview question now, “So, at any time now, or in the near future, do you feel you will morally oppose my decision to limit the numbers of children I give birth to based on my using birth control?” True religious freedom means that I get to choose what I believe and You get to choose what you believe and neither one is damn for it. OK.. if you don’t believe in birth control because your church says it’s a sin, then don’t TAKE IT. But as I said to Huge, if you are in a position where you CAN provide such services, then it is one’s RESPONSIBILTIY to do so and let people make their choices based on their beliefs. Just as someone could counter and say “well get another job” or ” pay for it yourself”; I counter with, “then don’t have employees”.
BIG PICTURE: This political fight, along with overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, the attacks on Planned Parenthood ( and the planned defunding by Mittens should he, shiver, get elected) means that these people want to be able to stop allowing access to birth control because they don’t WANT women to control their fertility.
When I ask why?
The only logical answer is that they want to be able to impregnate women when THEY want to which is, for many on the right, only in the marriage bed and under their “acceptable” values AKA only the rich deserved to have sex. I don’t really believe it’s because “God said so”. At least , not MY God.
Stop Funding Planned Parenthood
GOAL: Keep federal money away from the evil abortion providers
FACT: Planned Parenthood provides sexual and reproductive health care, education, and information to nearly five million women, men, and adolescents worldwide each year. One in five women in the U.S. has visited a Planned Parenthood health center at least once in her life. Planned Parenthood health centers focus on prevention: 76 percent of our clients receive services to prevent unintended pregnancy. Planned Parenthood services help prevent more than 584,000 unintended pregnancies each year. Planned Parenthood provides nearly 770,000 Pap tests and nearly 750,000 breast exams each year, critical services in detecting cancer. Planned Parenthood provides more than four million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Three percent of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services.[iv]
OUTCOME: A increase annually of 584,000 unplanned pregnancies: 770,000 women go without Pap tests:750,000 pair of breasts are unexamined; 4 million people walk around with STDs; 3% of abortions are sent to other providers or the back alley.
LOGICAL RESPONSE: You want to prevent abortions, they also want to prevent abortions. Access to birth control prevents abortions. But I know that’s not making sense to these people. I know they think that If people are reliant on Planned Parenthood then it’s their own damn fault for being too lazy or poor to afford a real doctor. Or wait, what was that? Pay for your own birth control, you slut!
BIG PICTURE: They don’t WANT women to control their fertility or even be healthy.
I really have a HUGE hard time understanding why ANYONE with a vagina would vote for Romney.
Overturn Roe v Wade
GOAL: Outlaw abortions and save the unborn
FACT: There has always been some form of pregnancy termination throughout history. As long as people have procreated, they have also sought ways to terminate that and assert that control. In the US, there are about 1.2 million abortions performed annually. There is every indication that about half the states would make abortion illegal within a year of Roe being struck down, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenges abortion restrictions around the country, puts the number at 30 states. For one thing, abortion bans already on the books in some states would suddenly kick in. And some Republican-controlled state legislatures would outlaw abortion immediately.[v]
OUTCOME: 1.2 million unplanned pregnancies would be carried to term annually. 74% of those women will have a child that interfered with work, school, or other responsibilities; 73% of those mothers cannot afford another child; 48% are having relationship issues or are single parents. [vi] Other women will become sterile or die due to back alley abortions.
LOGICAL RESPONSE: It has been shown that worldwide, when women have control of their fertility, their lives are better. They are able to care for themselves and the children they do have. They are better educated and have better jobs, but it seems that in the US we don’t know that. So we deny education, access to birth control and then deny abortions. We want women to be without choice and pregnant based on the whims of their ovaries and some handy sperm. Then we will vilify the single mother for trying to raise a child outside the two parent household. We also hate her for any assistance she might need. In fact, she should just stop trying and accept the fact that the baby deserves better than her.
I’m not sure what we are “saving” the unborn from. They are damned by a life of horror with their floozy, sex loving, weak minded, lazy, don;t know how to get birth control single mothers. We know that “pro-life” actually is more “pro-birth” because we don;t care about what happens to the kids after wards..except, of course, to complain that they end up on welfare or something.Then, we can complain about that too or even better, take away the kids and fed them to the adoption industry! After all, that’s what the Mormon “God” teaches.
BIG PICTURE: More Babies for Adoption. The supply just got real juicy.
Keep Women Making Babies
GOAL: Make “God” happy? More Babies for Adoption? More babies? Impressive piles of off spring? I’m not sure. Not allow women to have sex unless they are married, ready financially and really “deserve” to be a mother.
FACT: The political and religious “policies’ outlined above will follow to this outcome: only the rich will be able to pay for the privilege of having sex in socially acceptable ways. Anyone else, the fear of pregnancy consequences will make it very difficult to, do I dare say , enjoy, the act. Personally, MY God will not like this at all.
OUTCOME: Well, since people WILL keep on having sex, ( biology and all that instinct, believe that they can get away with it, think the black market pills they have will work) they will conceive and that will lead to more babies. I’ll assume that someone like me, cursed or blessed with uber fertility, will have about 13 children by now. And yes, I will be poor and exhausted and probably not very happy nor productive or even sane, but that doesn’t matter because somehow, I don’t get the idea that they really CARE about people like ME. (or you, or my kids, or your kids) LOGICAL RESPONSE: Move to Canada.
BIG PICTURE: Ask me in three weeks and I will tell you if we are screwed or not. Here’s a hint though, if Mittens wins….yeah, seriously screwed. And your daughter’s are screwed too. And your granddaughters, too.
I wonder if Bain Capital has investments in any adoption agencies? I know the LDS church does.
All kidding aside.( And I feel that I must mock least I lose my freaking mind) if the overall GOAL of all this “Policy” is not to make women become completely subservient to man and his religious “views” than someone clue me in.. coz I just don’t get it. I want to understand where the “other side” is coming from, but in the end, I just do not get it
I agree…you have more patience than I ever will.
I have watched this mentality creeping in for years now and my only question is if it happens – what will the next BSE be called.
The writing has been on the wall for years – the maternity homes are set up and being used already. I think I still have a horrifying house rules book for one of them – including being required to wash the floors on your hands and knees.
I could not have done it Claud, I simply have no patience for the ignorant, so called Christians who proclaim so long and so loudly that women are less than.
As a Canadian, you’re more than welcome here. 🙂
Anyway, I am often bemused when, just like the fmom is possibly single and without support, as a snapshot, at that particular time of the adoption, and is assumed to always stay that way, it is also assumed that adoptive parents will always stay together.
My aparents went through a (nasty) divorce when I was seven. My afather, enjoying his newfound “freedom”, took off. I found myself being raised by . . . a single mother.
I remember asking my amom when I was 29, “So, let me get this straight. It wasn’t OK for me to be *born* illegitimately, but it was OK for me to *live* illegitimately?”
I will never forget the look on her face, as if I’d physically slapped her.