I'm writing this as we're on the road to Miami....Oklahoma, that is. What's in Miami? As far as I know, it's an Indian reservation with a casino. It'll be a bit lengthy probably, given that it's a 6-7 hour trip from DFW.
I'm kinda worried about my classes. I received a less than failing grade on a paper for my research class. It's about how major depressive disorder can affect high school dropout and the choice to not go to college.
Indeed, depression can affect a person's motivation and self esteem so drastically that they no longer have the desire to go to school, or to stop doing the work- which leads too poor academic performance, another factor in school dropout.
It's really difficult to get the motivation to do much of anything when depressed, no matter at what point you're at in your life. Sometimes, facing this overwhelming exhaustion and dread might be the best thing a person can do when they are feeling this way, though. Getting out will get them around other people that could positive influence.
Being torn between the wish to get as far away from the depression as possible, coupled with the anhedonia depression brings, can cause a lot of conflict. It's not that the person doesn't want to get better; the problem is, everything, even the smallest task seems like a monumental and mountainous obstacle, which is really daunting and discouraging.
Warning: from this point on, there are some controversial issues discussed, not meant to cause anger or argument, just encourage thought. If you're easily offended, or don't want to read about something you don't agree with, I have some noncontroversial blogs posted, and I'll post another with this one. Again, I'm no expert, and I'm not trying to force my ideas on anyone; I'm just putting them out there. Here goes.....
People make a lot of assumptions about true clinical depression- including that it's only a bad mood that will pass, an assumption that could even become dangerous. The truth is, nobody should recklessly judge something without being exposed directly to it. If you've never tasted a hamburger, you can't properly tell me about it no matter how hard you try. If you've never been rock climbing, you can't describe the thrill of climbing to the top and seeing the view. Also, if you've never directly met a person, you can't assume what their personality or demeanor is like. That means even if you know them over facebook.
Truth is, everyone wears masks, and you never really know a person until you've met them and spent some time with them.
Once you do meet someone, it's not proper to really judge someone, but it's difficult to not have a perception or impression. Just remember that what you see isn't always the whole situation, and may be completely contrary to the truth.
Try to remember that we are all human, we all have our flaws; therefore there is no reason for one person to really judge another. We all make mistakes, and no, not even I am perfect (lol). Some make mistakes worse than others, but we all grow up in different environments and have different factors affecting us.
It's disappointing how intolerant some people are, and how some are even taught that too much tolerance is a bad thing. They need to know that it's acceptable to accept other people as they are.
There are many instances of this in history, and not just against those of different ethnicities. Women and children, religious differences, and even mental illness and the criminals have been discriminated against.
Women, of course, still are bound in life by stereotypes that date back as far as recorded history goes. Some countries are worse than others, but there isn't a nation in this world that doesn't have preconceived notions about the roles of gender.
One of the interesting things I found in doing research on the history of mental illness is something that is hardly spoken of- I didn't even know about it at all until I read Jodi Picoult's "Second Glance."
In the early 20th century, especially in the 1920s and 1930s, there was a movement called the "eugenics" movement. Basically this idea promoted the involuntary sterilization of criminals and those found to be "feeble-minded." This movement was especially strong in the US during that period. Many of those housed in institutions were prevented from reproducing, because scientists were suggesting that criminal behavior and mental illness were genetically inherited and passed from generation to generation.
The problem was when Hitler took hold of this idea, and proposed that keeping certain people from reproducing, and getting rid of those with the bad genes, would in a way "clean up" the gene pool. Anyone with much knowledge about history knows about Hitler, the Jews, and concentration camps.
Of course, at this point, Americans disconnected from "eugenics," but in some states it's STILL legal (really!!). There are also other procedures these days that could be considered to be related to eugenics.
Often when a woman is pregnant, especially if she is older or has a high-risk pregnancy, she might choose to have amniocentesis done, to see if they're having a healthy baby. If not, they are given the decision to abort-a very controversial decision. Who decides who has the right to live? What are the limits, benefits, consequences? What judgments will be made about the mother regarding her decision?
There are many factors to consider, which really could create a blog of its own. The mother's health as well as that of the fetus are crucial. What about if baby and mother would both live, but the baby's life would be significantly impaired or shortened? Does the mother let the child suffer? Here I will insert that yes, I am a fan of Jodi Picoult, lol. Her book "Handle with Care" addresses this, when a mother sues her obstetrician, who happens to be her best friend, in a wrongful birth lawsuit after her baby is born with what is more commonly known as brittle bone disorder. Quite a touching book, if you ever get the chance to read it.
Anyway, back on topic, If a baby is conceived through rape, that is a whole issue of its own- should she be responsible for all the medical expenses, as well as the daily reminder of the trauma? Even if she puts the baby up for an adoption, she still has to carry it with her for 9-10 months. In this case, there's nothing she could have done, and it's not her fault, she wasn't neglectful; however, should the fetus be aborted and not given a chance to live?
At what point is a fetus considered alive- when the egg is fertilized? When it plants itself? When it reaches a certain stage of growth? Does it know what is happening?
If a woman cannot care for a baby, or even just the doctors' visits associated with pregnancy, what should she do? Carry it to term without the proper care and risk her health and the baby's? Abort it? Even if it's aborted there are the regular checkup that go along with pregnancy.
My opinion (this is the only place I will insert opinion) is that it should only be available to those with high risk pregnancy where the mother or baby's life is in danger. Those who had no control over their pregnancy (rape victims in particular) should be given the option, but also be offered the medical expenses if she carries it to term to have it adopted or keep it (also her choice). These are the only cases in which it should be considered. [end rant]
Sorry if it's a bit much to read, it's been a long ride (6 hours) so I've had a lonnnnnng time to think. We're still not there, but I think this is enough to digest for one day.
And, at the end of the day, I find out that the free wifi access is only "free" for 24 hours.....what kind of bs is that? *sigh* I'm out for the night, auf weidersehen....