Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, September 12, 2009
Politics If You Could Go Back In Time And Kill Hitler Before He Was, You Know, Hitler...
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 4:11 PM
...would you do it?
It's a common thought experiment—usually conducted late at night, in a dorm room, after everyone is stoned—and the answer is almost always yes. Because, dude, think of all the lives you could save! And the war you could prevent! No invasion of Poland, no occupation of France, no Holocaust! And saying yes is easy—sure I'll go back in time and kill baby Hitler!—because you can't go back in time and kill baby Hitler. So it's not like saying yes means you're gonna have to slip into Mr. and Mrs. Hitler's house in Braunau, Austria, in the middle of the night and smother cute little baby Adolph in his crib.
Every time I see a sign comparing Obama to Hitler, I think about that old would-you-kill-Hitler thought experiment. Surely it wasn't just us theater fags at the University of Illinois who asked each other that question. Lots of people have played this game: If you had a chance to kill Hitler before he seized power—or even after he seized power but before he could enact his evil agenda—would you do it?
Do these douchebaggers believe that Obama is Hitler? Or just some of them? And if some of them do believe that Obama is Hitler... would they do it?
2
Dan's fetish with imagining all the people that want to kill Obama is getting tedious.
You're projecting, Dan, and it ain't pretty.
You're projecting, Dan, and it ain't pretty.
3
It's funny - when the gay civil rights movement is even remotely tied to the civil rights movements of Black-Americans, the republican right-wingers are outraged. They think them homosexuals are demeaning the past civil rights movements by equating this current struggle with one that was clearly more great and more valid.
Yet here they are comparing Obama (and the country he is President of, i.e. the United States) to Hitler (and the country he was leader of, i.e. Germany). So... are they saying that the Holocaust was nothing more than Hitler wanting to give everyone health care? Boy, was my history teacher wrong!
Yet here they are comparing Obama (and the country he is President of, i.e. the United States) to Hitler (and the country he was leader of, i.e. Germany). So... are they saying that the Holocaust was nothing more than Hitler wanting to give everyone health care? Boy, was my history teacher wrong!
4
I hate the comparison, and I despise the poverty of spirit it must take to equate Obama to Hitler.
5
The Adolph Hitler / Time Travel / Assassination paradigm is an issue debated amongst speculationists and historians to this day, though the information age has brought together more people and more data to hash out some pretty clear ideas. Hitler was only part of the problem; the question arises also as to who would take his place to fulfill the need of a charismatic leader. Depending on who it was, not only could WWII proceed as destined, but unimpeded by Hitler's brash stupidity in his later years (attributed commonly to Parkinson's) Germany may have won against the allies. Similarly, the final solution may not have been prevented or even slowed, since antisemitism was prevalent throughout all of western civilization, even the US.
A good overview of the paradigm can be found here. The Real Life section in examples covers the contemporary arguments pro and con.
Like Cheney with respect to Bush, there were more vile, more ruthless creatures in the Nazi party than Hitler, though he was, indeed, a tough act to beat.
A good overview of the paradigm can be found here. The Real Life section in examples covers the contemporary arguments pro and con.
Like Cheney with respect to Bush, there were more vile, more ruthless creatures in the Nazi party than Hitler, though he was, indeed, a tough act to beat.
7
Would it be heroic to murder someone before he'd done something deserving of it?
Can I get a guarantee that in killing him no other person rises to replace him? Would offing Bill O'Reilly and/or Glenn Beck put an end to the march of the selfish half-wits?
Removing a building block from history has all kinds of consequences.
Can I get a guarantee that in killing him no other person rises to replace him? Would offing Bill O'Reilly and/or Glenn Beck put an end to the march of the selfish half-wits?
Removing a building block from history has all kinds of consequences.
8
I suspect that what most of these clown know about Hitler is derived from John Wayne movies, reruns of "Hogan's Heroes", and the rambling of some now dead old bore who was in the army during the WWII, but spent all his time stateside typing forms - and made himself out as a hero every night in the American Legion bar once he got out.
Papa Vel-DuRay was in the war in Europe (Army Air Corps!), and he always said the people who bragged the most about the war were the ones who never did anything in it.
Thus we have the absolutely ludicrous idea that Barak Obama is even remotely like Adolph Hitler.
Papa Vel-DuRay was in the war in Europe (Army Air Corps!), and he always said the people who bragged the most about the war were the ones who never did anything in it.
Thus we have the absolutely ludicrous idea that Barak Obama is even remotely like Adolph Hitler.
9
All you sloggers need to quit whining and get your asses out in the streets and at town halls and everything else and FIGHT for the shit you thought Obama was going to give you. You danced in the streets when Obama was elected. Where in the fuck are you now when it's time to stand up to this crazy MINORITY?
Bill Maher has it right on (despite the sexist comment):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/12…
Bill Maher has it right on (despite the sexist comment):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/12…
10
I was not dancing in the streets. I was drinking in my basement with a bunch of elated neighbors, but I get your point.
11
The Liberals slaughter 800,000 little tyrants in their mothers' belly's every year.
So just where's the big moral dilemma over killing baby Hitler?
So just where's the big moral dilemma over killing baby Hitler?
12
I'm almost glad the right wing does this. It really exposes them for the fools they are. But even better is the fact that tens of millions of people of color know what this about. The right wing wants to call him the "N" word, but can't, so they resort to Hitler. But normal, rational people know this comparison is ludicrous.
13
10 admit it by the time the results were in at 6:30 you were passed out blind drunk in the basement.
14
12
right.
the blacks know the only fair shake they will get in this country is from white yuppie faggots.
right.
the blacks know the only fair shake they will get in this country is from white yuppie faggots.
15
@2 - sure, I'll just turn off my entire knowledge of the history of reactionary violence in the United States. And I didn't just read this morning, which refreshed me on the historical context of who delivered the violence, and how, and who they did it to:
http://www.ferris.edu/JIMCROW/brute/
What's even more frustrating is the un-theoretical concept killing of Hitler AFTER he had made it clear he really needed killin'. Most Germans weren't of that mindset. (Nothing like external enemies to unify a nation... not that yesterday was 9/11 or anything...) What frustrated me greatly while watching "Valkyrie" last year was that they plotted, plotted, plotted, but nobody was committed enough to Germany/mankind to do a suicide attack. The moral stakes were (for once) actually that high. But a point made in the movie that bears pondering is that just taking out #1 nut wasn't enough, there were other very high ranking maniacs that had to be dealt with simultaneously.
Yep, Uriel, I also am continually grateful at how Hitler lost the war for us. If that nut weren't continually meddling with his competent military, they might have held out quite a while longer, and long enough to have nukes.
Recently read a book about the Nazi atom bomb project. When our physicists first figured out that such a thing really was buildable, Einstein requested an audience with FDR, got it, convinced him of the importance, and, long story short, huge effort, HUGE $$$ input, great success. (Whee.... )
German physicists who first figured out how it could be done, did the opposite: their gut reaction? DON'T TELL HITLER. Don't ask for funding! He'll start imposing 6 mo. deadlines and killing us if we fail! And that was the early 40's. They got a slow start.
In real life, seen that on a much more picayune scale: people scurry about and hide things and keep secrets when the boss is a flaming asshole.
More...
http://www.ferris.edu/JIMCROW/brute/
What's even more frustrating is the un-theoretical concept killing of Hitler AFTER he had made it clear he really needed killin'. Most Germans weren't of that mindset. (Nothing like external enemies to unify a nation... not that yesterday was 9/11 or anything...) What frustrated me greatly while watching "Valkyrie" last year was that they plotted, plotted, plotted, but nobody was committed enough to Germany/mankind to do a suicide attack. The moral stakes were (for once) actually that high. But a point made in the movie that bears pondering is that just taking out #1 nut wasn't enough, there were other very high ranking maniacs that had to be dealt with simultaneously.
Yep, Uriel, I also am continually grateful at how Hitler lost the war for us. If that nut weren't continually meddling with his competent military, they might have held out quite a while longer, and long enough to have nukes.
Recently read a book about the Nazi atom bomb project. When our physicists first figured out that such a thing really was buildable, Einstein requested an audience with FDR, got it, convinced him of the importance, and, long story short, huge effort, HUGE $$$ input, great success. (Whee.... )
German physicists who first figured out how it could be done, did the opposite: their gut reaction? DON'T TELL HITLER. Don't ask for funding! He'll start imposing 6 mo. deadlines and killing us if we fail! And that was the early 40's. They got a slow start.
In real life, seen that on a much more picayune scale: people scurry about and hide things and keep secrets when the boss is a flaming asshole.
16
Well, I'm with you there, @11. I really think we should try to at least double the number of abortions. There's too many unwanted kids being born, and they just end up being a hassle.
And, for the record, I haven't "passed out blind drunk" since college. I went to school in a reasonable state (i.e. not Washington) where the drinking age was 19, and we got all of that out of our system early.
Of course, it's 21 there now - just like everyplace else. Thanks, Reagan.
And, for the record, I haven't "passed out blind drunk" since college. I went to school in a reasonable state (i.e. not Washington) where the drinking age was 19, and we got all of that out of our system early.
Of course, it's 21 there now - just like everyplace else. Thanks, Reagan.
17
This reminded me of a video of Al Franken and Ann Coulter I especially like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=susZ2ceEH…
18
George Bush and Adolf Hitler are responsible for the deaths of ten of thousands of people, Hitler more. Neither Bush nor Hitler pulled a trigger to do the awful deeds, yet innocent people died. Hence both men share some thing horrible in common. Obama and Hitler share only one thing in common that I can tell, they both smoke. It's yucky but not horrible.
21
It's too bad that such disgusting displays are not taken as what they really are, treasonous acts against the republic, nothing more. What's the difference between such iditos and Benedict Arnold? When you go batshit crazy and start calling the President of the United States names and comparing him with Hitler and Lenin, how in God's name is that not consider an act of sedition? You well know that if that had been a bunch of black people doing that against any other president all hell would've been broken loose but since it's those heartland people those white blue collar workers, they're not borderline on committing a criminal act no...no, heavens no, they're just discontent and expressing their "frustration" that's all. They don't mean no harm) Bullshit!
22
Um, Hitler didn't smoke, and banned smoking in public. He was also vegetarian after the death of his first wife and a teetotaler. He did try cocaine, though.
23
Smoke that Pot! @11, Addressing your question (as opposed to your misogynist potshot), baby Hitler wasn't the problem. Röhm would have likely recruited someone else, such as the dashing ace pilot Göering. In fact, doing so may have saved Röhm's life in the Night of Long Knives. Hitler's ambitions weren't conceived in a vacuum, but rather refined in the inner circle of the Nazi party.
Göering would have been more inclined to listen to his generals, to not deploy his rocket scientists (or the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra for that matter) on the front line. He would have also negotiated armistice with the allies sooner, hence the German empire and the Third Reich would have continued to exist after the war.
As for the cheap shot, considering that abortion-provider hating conservatives make for another 400,000 terminated pregnancies per year at the very centers they harry year around, the abortion obstructionist front is made of hypocrisy. You want to solve the problem, reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Obstructing access to health services will only drive us to respect you less.
Oh, and incidentally, as feti, they're parasites, not tyrants.
baverill @17, that video is made of win.
Göering would have been more inclined to listen to his generals, to not deploy his rocket scientists (or the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra for that matter) on the front line. He would have also negotiated armistice with the allies sooner, hence the German empire and the Third Reich would have continued to exist after the war.
As for the cheap shot, considering that abortion-provider hating conservatives make for another 400,000 terminated pregnancies per year at the very centers they harry year around, the abortion obstructionist front is made of hypocrisy. You want to solve the problem, reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Obstructing access to health services will only drive us to respect you less.
Oh, and incidentally, as feti, they're parasites, not tyrants.
baverill @17, that video is made of win.
24
17
That is a good clip.
Franken said he would be Hitler and not do the Holocaust.
From 1933 (when Dachau opened) until 1945 Hitler killed six million Jews.
In 12 years America slaughters 9.6 million unborn children.
Will Senator Franken do anything about the American Holocaust?
That is a good clip.
Franken said he would be Hitler and not do the Holocaust.
From 1933 (when Dachau opened) until 1945 Hitler killed six million Jews.
In 12 years America slaughters 9.6 million unborn children.
Will Senator Franken do anything about the American Holocaust?
25
Given the acceptance of handicap people everywhere, let alone in the western world in the 1920's, all you would have to do is break or maim little baby Hitler's legs. I don't think I could just go in and kill a baby but with enough liquor and the knowledge the he would go on to cause the death of millions of people, I could at least take care of the little guy's legs.
26
"In 12 years America slaughters 9.6 million unborn children."
PRO-CHOICE PROPAGANDIST!!!!!!
Think of all the women who menstruate, and literally flush millions of babies down the toilet each month.
Or the MEN and their disgusting masturbation, just wiping potential babies off their torso with kleenex (or, better yet, paper towels. Kleenex leaves cummy shards on your cock)
ALL EJACULATE AND MENSTRUATION FLUID SHOULD BE CAPTURED AND COMBINED AND INJECTED INTO WOMEN OF CHILDBEARING YEAR!!!!! IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE SURE WE CAN SAVE ALL THE BABIES!!!!!
PRO-CHOICE PROPAGANDIST!!!!!!
Think of all the women who menstruate, and literally flush millions of babies down the toilet each month.
Or the MEN and their disgusting masturbation, just wiping potential babies off their torso with kleenex (or, better yet, paper towels. Kleenex leaves cummy shards on your cock)
ALL EJACULATE AND MENSTRUATION FLUID SHOULD BE CAPTURED AND COMBINED AND INJECTED INTO WOMEN OF CHILDBEARING YEAR!!!!! IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE SURE WE CAN SAVE ALL THE BABIES!!!!!
27
23
Actually (and intuitively) abortion is disproportionately a Liberal thing. Demographic studies find the missing slaughtered potential little Democrats killed since Roe to be a measurable phenomenon in American electoral results. So if we follow Cat's advice and double the harvest of the butchers (sorry-that's unfair; if we "double the harvest of the Caring Health Care Professionals Sworn to Do No Harm") we add to Republican rolls and reduce further the number of Democrats 18 years hence.
In a demographic race pitting the Abortionists and Homosexuals against the 'keep'em barefoot and pregnant' breeders I think I'll take the breeders.
Actually (and intuitively) abortion is disproportionately a Liberal thing. Demographic studies find the missing slaughtered potential little Democrats killed since Roe to be a measurable phenomenon in American electoral results. So if we follow Cat's advice and double the harvest of the butchers (sorry-that's unfair; if we "double the harvest of the Caring Health Care Professionals Sworn to Do No Harm") we add to Republican rolls and reduce further the number of Democrats 18 years hence.
In a demographic race pitting the Abortionists and Homosexuals against the 'keep'em barefoot and pregnant' breeders I think I'll take the breeders.
28
Ah, birds and bees, you assume that all offspring will be as unenlightened and misinformed as their parents. Historically (I know that's a hard concept for you, but there it is) that's wrong.
There's no assurance that a baby born to a "pro-life" family will adopt their parent's views. I'm living proof of that.
Nice try, though. You get a big blue star for trying!
There's no assurance that a baby born to a "pro-life" family will adopt their parent's views. I'm living proof of that.
Nice try, though. You get a big blue star for trying!
29
However there's a pretty good chance that a baby killed by Mommy and never born to a pro-abortion family will never adopt their parent's views.
30
Dan: no, we biology dorks there played the same game--though admittedly in less attractive apartments.
31
Teabaggers...passe
Birthers...old hat
Truthers...pah-leeze!
Today's Youthquakers are
BULBERS!
Are there Bulbers? Haven't you ever wondered if the rush to Compact Fluorescent bulbs, the curlicue shaped bulbs that are supposed to save you pennies a day on your electric bill and show up the Deniers by cooling the Earth, and increasing your heating bill by dollars a day was foisted on us by Greens working in tandem with the Lighting Elite to draw us in to purchasing ever more expensive and elaborate bulbs?
http://you-read-it-here-first.com/viewto…
Birthers...old hat
Truthers...pah-leeze!
Today's Youthquakers are
BULBERS!
Are there Bulbers? Haven't you ever wondered if the rush to Compact Fluorescent bulbs, the curlicue shaped bulbs that are supposed to save you pennies a day on your electric bill and show up the Deniers by cooling the Earth, and increasing your heating bill by dollars a day was foisted on us by Greens working in tandem with the Lighting Elite to draw us in to purchasing ever more expensive and elaborate bulbs?
http://you-read-it-here-first.com/viewto…
32
I notice 'anti-choicers' who shriek about the poor, slaughtered innocents don't adopt or foster those poor innocents who aren't slaughtered. I also know they rant about the terrible sin of those damn murdering whores...until it comes time to cough up child support, welfare, food stamps, pre-natal care, or preschool then they're bitching and whining about how unfair it is they have to support all those un-wanted babies even if it's their unwanted baby.
Remember folks, the only righteous abortion, is their abortion (or that of their girlfriend, who'd stick them for $986.00 for the first child with $548.00 for every additional child per month for the next 18 years, not including cost-of-living increases). Everyone elses' abortion is murder and abortion doctors are worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot combined...unless their teenage daughter (or their teenage son's girlfriend) is knocked up. Then of course that abortion is okay.
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-ta…
Remember folks, the only righteous abortion, is their abortion (or that of their girlfriend, who'd stick them for $986.00 for the first child with $548.00 for every additional child per month for the next 18 years, not including cost-of-living increases). Everyone elses' abortion is murder and abortion doctors are worse than Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot combined...unless their teenage daughter (or their teenage son's girlfriend) is knocked up. Then of course that abortion is okay.
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-ta…
33
This best answer to this question, as determined by the vlogbrothers, is the evil baby orphanage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtATGzpTO…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtATGzpTO…
34
32
Hey!
If you aren't willing to raise my kid
or pay me good money to raise it myself
then don't say a word when I KILL IT.
Hey!
If you aren't willing to raise my kid
or pay me good money to raise it myself
then don't say a word when I KILL IT.
35
It's been three hours since the Huskies ended a Longest in the Nation 15 game two year losing streak and won a football game.
Anybody on Slog care?
Anybody on Slog care?
36
#22 THANK YOU SWEET HEART. That proves it right there, Obama and Hitler have NOTHING in common.
President Obama really should stop that smoking habit, I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for his bad health habits...
President Obama really should stop that smoking habit, I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for his bad health habits...
37
Find someone who still has a VCR and rent The Last Supper - the one with Caneron Diaz, not Jesus. It's about a group of students who take the conversation beyond just theory.
39
Birds and Bees... etc. etc. ad nauseam, this discussion is getting old. So long as the abortion obstructionist community will consider no other tactics than impediment to service, they aren't for real. As Y.F. Redux's link demonstrates, to some it's a tea party, and to others, it's ignorance and / or apathy.
It's also misogyny, given the issue of contraceptive and abortion access is (as Jon Stewart put it) a matter of sovereignty regarding a woman's person. Just as nobody owns your corpus, the state cannot regulate what a woman does with her own.
In the meantime, there are plenty of ways to reduce the number of abortions in this country without moralistic regulation of medical procedures and open harassment of patients. Choose one (e.g. guarantee of insurance or state-provided contraception) and promote it. Until then your angst for the unborn is bullshit.
And get an education. The baby-killing analogy is old, cliché and belies a lack of scientific awareness of human birthing process; feti are not children.
It's also misogyny, given the issue of contraceptive and abortion access is (as Jon Stewart put it) a matter of sovereignty regarding a woman's person. Just as nobody owns your corpus, the state cannot regulate what a woman does with her own.
In the meantime, there are plenty of ways to reduce the number of abortions in this country without moralistic regulation of medical procedures and open harassment of patients. Choose one (e.g. guarantee of insurance or state-provided contraception) and promote it. Until then your angst for the unborn is bullshit.
And get an education. The baby-killing analogy is old, cliché and belies a lack of scientific awareness of human birthing process; feti are not children.
41
"However there's a pretty good chance that a baby killed by Mommy and never born to a pro-abortion family will never adopt their parent's views. "
Well, since it was never alive to begin with, who cares? Or should we delve even deeper into the twisted psyche of the "pro-life" crowd?
Well, since it was never alive to begin with, who cares? Or should we delve even deeper into the twisted psyche of the "pro-life" crowd?
43
I'd also like to add that 'pro-choice' women don't generally have abortions. They use birth control and contraceptives and condoms. They are not ignorant about sexual health and generally only have planned pregnancies while married or in LTR. The 'frequent flyers' or repeat customers at abortion clinics are all the very religious God-botherer types. They fuck like rabbits and pray they don't get knocked up....not like those slutty girls who have monogamous sexual relationships with boyfriends and use birth control.
48
Funny you should mention this, Mr. Savage, as it was a running theme/joke at tonight's Bar Room Writers Initiative at Barca. I saw Mr. Constant was there. I wonder did he enjoy it?
49
There are babies born withput brains. There are babies born with two heads. Horrible deformities are on the increase. Should millions of dollars be spent on keeping these babies alive? If you think so than pony up the money. Churches should be taxed to support the massive expenses brought about by anti-abortion non-sense. First in line should be the Vatican. Pay the fuck up or shut the fuck up!
50
@39
"So long as the abortion obstructionist community will consider no other tactics than impediment to service, they aren't for real."
Hope that works for you.
Squeeze your eyes really tight shut
and put your fingers in your ears
and repeat:
"they aren't for real"
"they aren't for real"
"they aren't for real"
"they aren't for real"
"they aren't for real"
"they really really aren't for real"
"So long as the abortion obstructionist community will consider no other tactics than impediment to service, they aren't for real."
Hope that works for you.
Squeeze your eyes really tight shut
and put your fingers in your ears
and repeat:
"they aren't for real"
"they aren't for real"
"they aren't for real"
"they aren't for real"
"they aren't for real"
"they really really aren't for real"
51
@28
You are right:
(LA Times Jan 22, 2008 story)
"Thirty-five years after Roe vs. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, opponents are pouring resources into building new generations of activists. Young people are responding with passion.
"Today's students and young adults have grown up in a time when abortion was widely accessible and acceptable, and a striking number are determined to end that era.
"Pew Research Center polls dating back a decade show that 18- to 29-year-olds are consistently more likely than the general adult population to favor strict limits on abortion. A Pew survey over the summer found 22% of young adults support a total ban on abortion, compared with 15% of their parents' generation.
"Looking specifically at teens, a Gallup survey found that 72% called abortion morally wrong, and 32% believed it should be illegal in all circumstances. Among adults surveyed, only 17% backed a total ban."
you'd have to cut and paste the link>>http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition…;
You are right:
(LA Times Jan 22, 2008 story)
"Thirty-five years after Roe vs. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, opponents are pouring resources into building new generations of activists. Young people are responding with passion.
"Today's students and young adults have grown up in a time when abortion was widely accessible and acceptable, and a striking number are determined to end that era.
"Pew Research Center polls dating back a decade show that 18- to 29-year-olds are consistently more likely than the general adult population to favor strict limits on abortion. A Pew survey over the summer found 22% of young adults support a total ban on abortion, compared with 15% of their parents' generation.
"Looking specifically at teens, a Gallup survey found that 72% called abortion morally wrong, and 32% believed it should be illegal in all circumstances. Among adults surveyed, only 17% backed a total ban."
you'd have to cut and paste the link>>http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition…;
53
39
Actually the old "baby killing!" schtick still works pretty darn well, thanks. Especially when supplemented with some graphics.
Not every one is
a cold blooded
stone hearted
feelingless liberal hipster-
see @51 above.
Actually the old "baby killing!" schtick still works pretty darn well, thanks. Especially when supplemented with some graphics.
Not every one is
a cold blooded
stone hearted
feelingless liberal hipster-
see @51 above.
54
49 we are unpersuaded and unmoved by your argument, which is itself proof that many people function perfectly well in society without brains.
55
HITLER is the outcome of extremely troubled time. It would have been in our interest to kill Gavrilo Princip who killed the Archiduke Francois-Ferdinand and triggering WW1, the treaty of Versailles and Hiltler....and wouldn't have been better to pay Adolph some art lessons to cultivate and expand its artistic talent... Imagine the Met, The Tate, the Quai d'orsay museum holding a retropective : AH the early years!!!!!
56
During George Bush's first term the president of the NAACP compared him to the KKK. We all know black folks HATE the KKK and would like to have nipped that in the bud. SO was he calling for his assassination, right? Bush was referred to as a war criminal many times... so were people who said this responsible if he was assasinated?
57
@56, had GWB ever been "assasinated" [sic] during either of his terms, Cheney would have been the most likely suspect
58
I'm totally pro-abortion because it kills off tens of thousands (if not more) of blacks that would grow up to be future murderers and rapists.
59
Damn it. I used my one time-travel opportunity to bitch-slap Lord Alfred Douglas...and I regret nothing!
60
even Igor knows... @52, Dr. Golob? Are you referring to Jonathan Golob or someone else?
Every biologist that specializes in pre-natal development I've read notes that life begins before conception...and that most zygotes (around 80%) spontaneously miscarry on their own. Conception may prove a convenient spiritual marker to define personhood, but it's impractical when looking at the mechanics of pregnancy. The fertilization = individuality marker also brings unfortunate implications as to divine opinion regarding abortion, or human life in general, for that matter.
It also has unfortunate implications as to the implied respect for the zygote's host. I take you believe, then, following through with the belief that life begins at conception that the rights of this life supersede those of the woman carrying it? Reducing the value of a woman down to her uterus is pretty misogynistic, don't you think?
Every biologist that specializes in pre-natal development I've read notes that life begins before conception...and that most zygotes (around 80%) spontaneously miscarry on their own. Conception may prove a convenient spiritual marker to define personhood, but it's impractical when looking at the mechanics of pregnancy. The fertilization = individuality marker also brings unfortunate implications as to divine opinion regarding abortion, or human life in general, for that matter.
It also has unfortunate implications as to the implied respect for the zygote's host. I take you believe, then, following through with the belief that life begins at conception that the rights of this life supersede those of the woman carrying it? Reducing the value of a woman down to her uterus is pretty misogynistic, don't you think?
61
chaya760 @55, Before the Great War, Europe was ready to go up like west-coast brush-lands in a heat wave. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was a convenient spark. Something else would have happened if he was spared.
62
I wonder if... @50, It seams you're already practicing the head-in-the-sand technique. Do you really think that abortions will magically just go away if they were criminalized? Or do you think they're a fad like zippers on blue jeans? Is your solution to unplanned pregnancies really well, it's your fault for getting pregnant?
You know what I meant. Obstructionists aren't interested in a real solution to the problem. Considering their ruthless behavior, one would suspect, rather they thrive on the conflict. It's an excuse by which spiteful folks bully vulnerable women, medical caregivers and innocent bystanders. That is when they're not bombing them, gunning them down or burning down buildings.
There are plenty of actual solutions that will reduce, or even end the abortion issue; cheaper or state-provided contraception, better contraception, comprehensive sex education, serious consideration of rape as a (preventable, rehabilitatable) crime, state subsidization of child rearing, or ectogenesis.
But the fact that obstructionists are so unwilling to consider tactics outside their known repertoire of harassment and political pressure (and that they couldn't care less about a live infant) seems to imply saving lives isn't the real agenda. More likely it's about keeping women in their traditional maternal-homemaker role, or about punishing promiscuous lovers by forcing them to endure the consequences for their carnal misdeeds.
Disturbingly, most of the elective abortions the obstructionists prevent are in the lower classes, which means your tax dollars pick up the tab for the care and upbringing of these unwanted tykes, either through the insufficient welfare or foster care systems...that is until the street gangs recruit them into their fold.
More...
You know what I meant. Obstructionists aren't interested in a real solution to the problem. Considering their ruthless behavior, one would suspect, rather they thrive on the conflict. It's an excuse by which spiteful folks bully vulnerable women, medical caregivers and innocent bystanders. That is when they're not bombing them, gunning them down or burning down buildings.
There are plenty of actual solutions that will reduce, or even end the abortion issue; cheaper or state-provided contraception, better contraception, comprehensive sex education, serious consideration of rape as a (preventable, rehabilitatable) crime, state subsidization of child rearing, or ectogenesis.
But the fact that obstructionists are so unwilling to consider tactics outside their known repertoire of harassment and political pressure (and that they couldn't care less about a live infant) seems to imply saving lives isn't the real agenda. More likely it's about keeping women in their traditional maternal-homemaker role, or about punishing promiscuous lovers by forcing them to endure the consequences for their carnal misdeeds.
Disturbingly, most of the elective abortions the obstructionists prevent are in the lower classes, which means your tax dollars pick up the tab for the care and upbringing of these unwanted tykes, either through the insufficient welfare or foster care systems...that is until the street gangs recruit them into their fold.
63
Some people actually... @53, Indeed, you guys are plenty fond of graphics of fetal chunks blown up the size of houses, splashed on the sides of trucks and mobile billboards and then displayed in school zones for all the children to see. That's a real class act you got there.
It's a great tactic for appealing to the gut, I suppose. Some of us stone-hearted feelingless liberal hipsters reserve our empathy for those who are already alive, and the same types of visuals could be applied to saving our men and women from the carnage they have to endure fighting that old illegal war on false pretense. Y'know, how about the smeared remains of an eight-year old grenadier that an American father had to gun down on the streets of Baghdad? Or some photo ops of the guys that come back with half a head courtesy of a close encounter with an IED?
The fact is, most of us liberal hipsters know that that sickening visuals are an underhanded game, and wouldn't stoop so low any more than we'd lie about gay infecting the children to push prop 8 through the ballots. But also, while those tactics may create the emotional outrage intended in the short run, it builds resentment and animosity towards the messengers in the long run. Animal rights activism, for example, may never recover from what PETA has done for the cause.
But at least you're willing to admit that calling it baby killing, or chanting abortion is murder is, indeed, a schtick. Perhaps it is through these methods that countless young people are being swayed to oppose abortion. More likely, it's due to a lack of awareness of the reality of the situation. Abortion, like conceptual war, or mining or natural predation are ugly, ugly truths that are easy to oppose, until they become necessary to prevent a greater evil. Few present-day pacifists say we shouldn't have gone to Europe to combat the Axis war machine. Few teens know what it is to bear a fetus with anomalies incompatible with life.
More...
It's a great tactic for appealing to the gut, I suppose. Some of us stone-hearted feelingless liberal hipsters reserve our empathy for those who are already alive, and the same types of visuals could be applied to saving our men and women from the carnage they have to endure fighting that old illegal war on false pretense. Y'know, how about the smeared remains of an eight-year old grenadier that an American father had to gun down on the streets of Baghdad? Or some photo ops of the guys that come back with half a head courtesy of a close encounter with an IED?
The fact is, most of us liberal hipsters know that that sickening visuals are an underhanded game, and wouldn't stoop so low any more than we'd lie about gay infecting the children to push prop 8 through the ballots. But also, while those tactics may create the emotional outrage intended in the short run, it builds resentment and animosity towards the messengers in the long run. Animal rights activism, for example, may never recover from what PETA has done for the cause.
But at least you're willing to admit that calling it baby killing, or chanting abortion is murder is, indeed, a schtick. Perhaps it is through these methods that countless young people are being swayed to oppose abortion. More likely, it's due to a lack of awareness of the reality of the situation. Abortion, like conceptual war, or mining or natural predation are ugly, ugly truths that are easy to oppose, until they become necessary to prevent a greater evil. Few present-day pacifists say we shouldn't have gone to Europe to combat the Axis war machine. Few teens know what it is to bear a fetus with anomalies incompatible with life.
64
62
Do you think that murders have magically gone away just because they were criminalized?
Rape?
Robbery?
Jaywalking?
Should we throw up our hands?
Fire all the cops and hire anger managers and personal finance advisors?
You spend an inordinate amount of time telling us what other people believe and think and are interested in and thrive on and could care less about.
It's really simple.
Some people object to innocent helpless babies being slaughtered at the whim of the adults who should protect them.
All your "actual solutions that will reduce, or even end the abortion issue" sound like very promising projects for you bleeding heart Liberals.
You work that side of the street and we'll work this side.
Do be sure to let us know how they are coming along...
Do you think that murders have magically gone away just because they were criminalized?
Rape?
Robbery?
Jaywalking?
Should we throw up our hands?
Fire all the cops and hire anger managers and personal finance advisors?
You spend an inordinate amount of time telling us what other people believe and think and are interested in and thrive on and could care less about.
It's really simple.
Some people object to innocent helpless babies being slaughtered at the whim of the adults who should protect them.
All your "actual solutions that will reduce, or even end the abortion issue" sound like very promising projects for you bleeding heart Liberals.
You work that side of the street and we'll work this side.
Do be sure to let us know how they are coming along...
65
63
Yes, stone-hearted feelingless liberal hipsters are a noble breed.
Eager to shield from young impressionable eyes the gory sickening reality of abortion.
The German civilians forced to view the concentration death camps after the war were also appalled. Damn insensitive American GIs. Not playing fair.
Maybe we're old fashioned but we think if you're insist on KILLING it you should at least have the balls to take a peek at it.
Yes, stone-hearted feelingless liberal hipsters are a noble breed.
Eager to shield from young impressionable eyes the gory sickening reality of abortion.
The German civilians forced to view the concentration death camps after the war were also appalled. Damn insensitive American GIs. Not playing fair.
Maybe we're old fashioned but we think if you're insist on KILLING it you should at least have the balls to take a peek at it.
66
Hey all you red state folks, It's worth pondering that the top ten highest abortion rates in the US are in traditionally conservative states. Nine out of the ten states with the lowest abortion rates are traditionally liberal states.
We're better at keeping our fetuses alive than you.
But we should all be shamed by the European countries that have socialized medicine. The Netherlands abortion rate is %15 of the USA's.
Trying to make the USA a better place is treason according to you Right-Wingers. Socialized medicine and sex education help prevent abortions. Because despite your histerical idiotic name calling, no-one wants to increase the number of abortions.
We're better at keeping our fetuses alive than you.
But we should all be shamed by the European countries that have socialized medicine. The Netherlands abortion rate is %15 of the USA's.
Trying to make the USA a better place is treason according to you Right-Wingers. Socialized medicine and sex education help prevent abortions. Because despite your histerical idiotic name calling, no-one wants to increase the number of abortions.
67
Atlanta Police LGBT Liaison Officer Dani Lynn Harris said there was a complaint of illegal activities at the Eagle. After the complaint was made undercover officers were sent to the Eagle where they discovered enough information to secure a warrant for the raid.
In an interview with Southern Voice on Friday morning, Harris said the APD officers followed the same procedures they would have used for raiding any other nightclub.
In a third interview late Friday, Harris said that the raid originated from two anonymous complaints: one to the mayor's tip line and the other to Crimestoppers. The complaints alleged that Thursday is "sex night" at the club and that gay men were having sex not only in the club but outside as well, she said.
“The original complaint received is that on Thursday night at the club is sex night. … It's saying the club is a sleezy place on Thursday all that goes on is solicting of sex," Harris said.
According to Harris, the complaints claimed that the club owners retaliated against neighbors by pointing speakers at residential apartment complexes nearby and playings sounds of gay men having sex.
In an interview with Southern Voice on Friday morning, Harris said the APD officers followed the same procedures they would have used for raiding any other nightclub.
In a third interview late Friday, Harris said that the raid originated from two anonymous complaints: one to the mayor's tip line and the other to Crimestoppers. The complaints alleged that Thursday is "sex night" at the club and that gay men were having sex not only in the club but outside as well, she said.
“The original complaint received is that on Thursday night at the club is sex night. … It's saying the club is a sleezy place on Thursday all that goes on is solicting of sex," Harris said.
According to Harris, the complaints claimed that the club owners retaliated against neighbors by pointing speakers at residential apartment complexes nearby and playings sounds of gay men having sex.
68
Reality, etc., etc. @64, 65 I take by inference of your comparisons, you consider women's rights to their own person and to comprehensive gynecological health care as heinous as murder, rape, robbery and (if I beg SLOG's pardon) jaywalking?
Regarding what I've said about what obstructionists say, do, think and feel, I've had certain amounts of experience. Do you disagree with any of it? If so, what?
In the meantime you seem to continue to repeat the same plight, that abortion is killing, (this coming from the same side of the fence that insists waterboarding is not torture). Your presumption that Personhood begins at conception is not an axiom, my friend; it's a minority opinion without basis. See 60, above. Repeating the same tripe over and over doesn't make it true.
Regarding your dismissal of the solutions I've suggested, you demonstrate my case. Like your last man in office, you choose to stay the course whether it works or not.
Regarding what I've said about what obstructionists say, do, think and feel, I've had certain amounts of experience. Do you disagree with any of it? If so, what?
In the meantime you seem to continue to repeat the same plight, that abortion is killing, (this coming from the same side of the fence that insists waterboarding is not torture). Your presumption that Personhood begins at conception is not an axiom, my friend; it's a minority opinion without basis. See 60, above. Repeating the same tripe over and over doesn't make it true.
Regarding your dismissal of the solutions I've suggested, you demonstrate my case. Like your last man in office, you choose to stay the course whether it works or not.
69
@55
I certainly agree with you, Central Europe , especially, in the early 1900 was brewing with problems relating to the right of minorities and other problems. The assassination was the spark that ignited a war which would have become unavoidable, but you know Uriel the what if scenarios are an exercise in wishful thinking.... I wonder, on my side, if I hadn't be raped and molested what I would be today?
I certainly agree with you, Central Europe , especially, in the early 1900 was brewing with problems relating to the right of minorities and other problems. The assassination was the spark that ignited a war which would have become unavoidable, but you know Uriel the what if scenarios are an exercise in wishful thinking.... I wonder, on my side, if I hadn't be raped and molested what I would be today?
70
I would like to volunteer for not killing Hitler. Were it not for Hitler, I would not have my family. My wife's mother grew up in post war Germany. Her grandfather was a conscripted German soldier who spent years in Siberia. Her parents met because her father was serving on a base in Germany that certainly would not have been there had WWII not been twenty years prior. My father was conceived before my grandfather went to seve in the Pacific theater, so I think I am safe in terms of existence, but my wife vanishes with no Hitler.
Of course, in reality, we probably all vanish and are replaced with different people if Hitler were to be removed from history. The fact that I can't draw as direct a link from Hitler's existence to my own as I can for my wife does not mean it is not there.
I will be content with leaving history alone and keeping my wife and children.
Of course, in reality, we probably all vanish and are replaced with different people if Hitler were to be removed from history. The fact that I can't draw as direct a link from Hitler's existence to my own as I can for my wife does not mean it is not there.
I will be content with leaving history alone and keeping my wife and children.
71
chaya760 @69, to me time-travel scenarios are less a matter of wishful thinking than they are an exercise in cause and effect. As per the anthropic principle, we take for granted the course of history we've experienced, no matter how improbable given events were. (The humane version of Hitler assassination, for example is securing his admittance into the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts. Goodbye Adolph Hitler, fascist dictator, hello Adolph Hitler, painter and architect)
As Learned Hand points out, though, we enjoy many repercussions of the second world war, though I don't tend to consider the interpersonal effects. Rocket technology spawned the space race which, in turn, drove a need to miniaturize electronics. Cryptanalysis spawned the development of electromechanical computers which brought about the information age (though this is debatable; Babbage's hypothetical analytical engine might have brought the age sooner, and much computer tech was classified after the war due to secrecy issues). And there's a big list of technologies we enjoy that emerged from development of the atomic bomb.
Speaking of war cryptanalysis...
Regarding wishful changing of the past, I'm sorry to hear that you were raped and molested. Indeed, we're still discovering in contemporary psychology the degree to which our childhood traumas affect our adult lives. There are certainly plenty of my own circumstances I would edit if I could.
As Learned Hand points out, though, we enjoy many repercussions of the second world war, though I don't tend to consider the interpersonal effects. Rocket technology spawned the space race which, in turn, drove a need to miniaturize electronics. Cryptanalysis spawned the development of electromechanical computers which brought about the information age (though this is debatable; Babbage's hypothetical analytical engine might have brought the age sooner, and much computer tech was classified after the war due to secrecy issues). And there's a big list of technologies we enjoy that emerged from development of the atomic bomb.
Speaking of war cryptanalysis...
Regarding wishful changing of the past, I'm sorry to hear that you were raped and molested. Indeed, we're still discovering in contemporary psychology the degree to which our childhood traumas affect our adult lives. There are certainly plenty of my own circumstances I would edit if I could.
72
68
60
ah my dear boy-
desperately trying to change the subject...
which is: "when does human life begin?".
not "personhood",
not seeking "divine opinion",
not wondering how many fairies fit on the head of a pin...
it is simple biological question
(painfully simple for some, it seems)
and one easily answered definitively.
we men of science mustn't fear the truth-
it shakes the confidence of the mouthbreathers.
I find your assertion that acknowledging when human life begins "has unfortunate implications as to the implied respect for the zygote's host" to be unduly pesimistic, lacking faith in humanity and science.
60
ah my dear boy-
desperately trying to change the subject...
which is: "when does human life begin?".
not "personhood",
not seeking "divine opinion",
not wondering how many fairies fit on the head of a pin...
it is simple biological question
(painfully simple for some, it seems)
and one easily answered definitively.
we men of science mustn't fear the truth-
it shakes the confidence of the mouthbreathers.
I find your assertion that acknowledging when human life begins "has unfortunate implications as to the implied respect for the zygote's host" to be unduly pesimistic, lacking faith in humanity and science.
73
If the parasite can't live independently of the host, the host' has the option to terminate the parasite.
It's really as simple as that.
Life IS worth living - and being in control of your life is a key element of living a happy successful life.
It's really as simple as that.
Life IS worth living - and being in control of your life is a key element of living a happy successful life.
74
Hey Chaya760,
I'm glad to read you. Hugs, I'm so sorry to read that you've been raped and molested. Lots of us understand your pain, and at times wish we could edit part of our own life history.
As, to this whole cause and effect experiment. My answer was and still is, I'd befriend little Adolph with the hope that I'd become a source of comfort and encouragement to him, and awaken the good that exisited within him.
Take care.
I'm glad to read you. Hugs, I'm so sorry to read that you've been raped and molested. Lots of us understand your pain, and at times wish we could edit part of our own life history.
As, to this whole cause and effect experiment. My answer was and still is, I'd befriend little Adolph with the hope that I'd become a source of comfort and encouragement to him, and awaken the good that exisited within him.
Take care.
75
73
the child in question is the same species as the mother/"host" and not a "parasite".
the child was created by and placed there by the mother/"host", the "parasite" analogy is biologically false and ethically obscene.
"Being in control of your life IS a key element of living a happy successful life."
exercising that control by not causing a pregnancy when you are not ready to be a parent is a vital application of the principle.
unplanned pregnancies that are terminated by killing the child are the epitome of living life totally without control and the antithesis of living a happy successful life.
the child in question is the same species as the mother/"host" and not a "parasite".
the child was created by and placed there by the mother/"host", the "parasite" analogy is biologically false and ethically obscene.
"Being in control of your life IS a key element of living a happy successful life."
exercising that control by not causing a pregnancy when you are not ready to be a parent is a vital application of the principle.
unplanned pregnancies that are terminated by killing the child are the epitome of living life totally without control and the antithesis of living a happy successful life.
76
74
...then I would have read to him from the Bible (in the original Greek and Hebrew, of course) showing how wicked the filthy Jews were and explaining that God would be OK with pretty much anything he decided to do; genocide or sodomy- it's all good...
...then I would have read to him from the Bible (in the original Greek and Hebrew, of course) showing how wicked the filthy Jews were and explaining that God would be OK with pretty much anything he decided to do; genocide or sodomy- it's all good...
77
@73
So when my parasitic 27 year old step-son can't get a job I can off the little maggot instead of having him mooch off of me?
this is great...
So when my parasitic 27 year old step-son can't get a job I can off the little maggot instead of having him mooch off of me?
this is great...
78
"unplanned pregnancies that are terminated by killing the child are the epitome of living life totally without control and the antithesis of living a happy successful life."
Perhaps that's true, in your worldview. That is why I would advise you to not get pregnant until you are ready.
However, there are others for whom the circumstances are different. Why should your morality inform the others? Abortion will always be here. Isn't it morally superior to have it controlled than just a free for all?
Perhaps that's true, in your worldview. That is why I would advise you to not get pregnant until you are ready.
However, there are others for whom the circumstances are different. Why should your morality inform the others? Abortion will always be here. Isn't it morally superior to have it controlled than just a free for all?
80
What if we just solve the problem for both genders. We have the government gather up all males pubscent and older, bank their sperm, and then have them them all castrated? Voila, no unplanned pregnancies, and thus no need for abortion services.
Of course, the males will need to have testosterone hormone therapy following castration.
Of course, the males will need to have testosterone hormone therapy following castration.
82
I wonder if anyone's thought about the potential clash here for white supremacists.
They like Hitler.
Comparing Obama to Hitler is making him look better to them.
Of course a few decades ago the hysterical comparisons would have been all about communism, and I see that memory lingers on somewhat. (Remember desegregation being similarly branded as communism?)
Dan, you are preoccupied with Obama being in danger of assassination - remember what Harvey Milk said, if it happens it happens, you can't worry about it.
They like Hitler.
Comparing Obama to Hitler is making him look better to them.
Of course a few decades ago the hysterical comparisons would have been all about communism, and I see that memory lingers on somewhat. (Remember desegregation being similarly branded as communism?)
Dan, you are preoccupied with Obama being in danger of assassination - remember what Harvey Milk said, if it happens it happens, you can't worry about it.
84
Life. It's worth living @72, we've had this conversation before.
Your simple biological question, as you put it, when does human life begin? isn't as simple as you imagine, nor is it in the realm of biology. In fact you'll find it simpler to explain why Pluto is no longer a planet (though that's astronomy). But I'll bite; please, explain to the class: In biological terms, when does human life begin, and why do you choose that marker over any other?
From what I remember from biology class, it's all life. An unattached spermatozoon, life. An unfertilized egg cell, life, the embryonic lining that is sloughed off every month by a woman, life. A drop of blood from your finger, life. The neuron in your brain that gets you to vote republican, stupid life, but still, life. If it's all life before fertilization, and after, what's the determining factor that gives one thing rights but not the other?
We're not talking about when life begins, because it never begins so much as continues, and (eventually) achieves individual viability separate from its host. Hence the most (simple) logical biological choice to determine individuality occurs is when life can do just that: separate from its host and continue to live and breathe (i.e. without life support). If you're wanting to consider points of development before this one to define individuality, then you have to talk about how a society (that's us) decides a life achieves its own identity, hence, we're discussing personhood.
I wasn't changing the subject, I refining the question. Personhood isn't my word, it's the word used amongst those theorists that discuss this sort of thing.
By the way, I didn't say that acknowledging when human life begins has unfortunate implications as to the implied respect for the zygote's host, but that equating fertilization to individuality does. (See the difference?) When you or the state decides that a wad of tissue has more rights than the women in which it gestates, that in my opinion, is pretty morally fucked up.
You actually think that's unduly pessimistic and lacking faith in humanity and science? To the contrary, I think that letting women choose their own destinies and their own health options shows plenty of faith in humanity. The lack of faith seems to be by those who think we need laws to force decisions upon them.
More...
Your simple biological question, as you put it, when does human life begin? isn't as simple as you imagine, nor is it in the realm of biology. In fact you'll find it simpler to explain why Pluto is no longer a planet (though that's astronomy). But I'll bite; please, explain to the class: In biological terms, when does human life begin, and why do you choose that marker over any other?
From what I remember from biology class, it's all life. An unattached spermatozoon, life. An unfertilized egg cell, life, the embryonic lining that is sloughed off every month by a woman, life. A drop of blood from your finger, life. The neuron in your brain that gets you to vote republican, stupid life, but still, life. If it's all life before fertilization, and after, what's the determining factor that gives one thing rights but not the other?
We're not talking about when life begins, because it never begins so much as continues, and (eventually) achieves individual viability separate from its host. Hence the most (simple) logical biological choice to determine individuality occurs is when life can do just that: separate from its host and continue to live and breathe (i.e. without life support). If you're wanting to consider points of development before this one to define individuality, then you have to talk about how a society (that's us) decides a life achieves its own identity, hence, we're discussing personhood.
I wasn't changing the subject, I refining the question. Personhood isn't my word, it's the word used amongst those theorists that discuss this sort of thing.
By the way, I didn't say that acknowledging when human life begins has unfortunate implications as to the implied respect for the zygote's host, but that equating fertilization to individuality does. (See the difference?) When you or the state decides that a wad of tissue has more rights than the women in which it gestates, that in my opinion, is pretty morally fucked up.
You actually think that's unduly pessimistic and lacking faith in humanity and science? To the contrary, I think that letting women choose their own destinies and their own health options shows plenty of faith in humanity. The lack of faith seems to be by those who think we need laws to force decisions upon them.
85
Self Control is Great... @75 Most mothers receive absolutely no benefit from pregnancy. It hinders their ability to function physically, cognitively and emotionally. They eat more and can work less. It ages them significantly. The process is painful and can cause unwanted scarring and mutilation. In fact, until only very recently, childbirth complications were a top killer of women. I think it still manages a pretty high body count despite contemporary medicine and our, ahem, first world healthcare system.
So a pregnancy looks, smells, sounds and tastes (yuck!) like a parasite.
Its only benefit pregnancy has to society is the potential that it will yield an upstanding member and contributor, in twenty years or more. The only benefit to Mum is knowledge of a job well done (or scorn, if not), and maybe a grateful progeny who won't throw her into a sleazy retirement home when she gets old and dotty.
Note that this is a bit of a change from oh, a century ago, when kids could work on the fields at six and all the aunts, uncles and grandfolks lived on and managed the same prairie. Industry changed all that.
So, yep. It's a parasite.
Why don't you know all this? Oh, perhaps it's because you're not a mother, and have never been pregnant. Did you know that over 70% of abortion-access obstructionists are men? Guess how many of them are pregnant?
Incidentally, neither a zygote nor a fetus equate to a child. Whenever something comes out of your head based on that premise, the rest is bunk.
So a pregnancy looks, smells, sounds and tastes (yuck!) like a parasite.
Its only benefit pregnancy has to society is the potential that it will yield an upstanding member and contributor, in twenty years or more. The only benefit to Mum is knowledge of a job well done (or scorn, if not), and maybe a grateful progeny who won't throw her into a sleazy retirement home when she gets old and dotty.
Note that this is a bit of a change from oh, a century ago, when kids could work on the fields at six and all the aunts, uncles and grandfolks lived on and managed the same prairie. Industry changed all that.
So, yep. It's a parasite.
Why don't you know all this? Oh, perhaps it's because you're not a mother, and have never been pregnant. Did you know that over 70% of abortion-access obstructionists are men? Guess how many of them are pregnant?
Incidentally, neither a zygote nor a fetus equate to a child. Whenever something comes out of your head based on that premise, the rest is bunk.
86
84
letting women choose their own destinies and their own health options shows plenty of faith in humanity.
however when they use that choice to kill other humans society is morally compelled to intervene.
letting women choose their own destinies and their own health options shows plenty of faith in humanity.
however when they use that choice to kill other humans society is morally compelled to intervene.
87
85
Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host.
Different Species.
sorry your experiences with Motherhood have been so tramautic.
Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host.
Different Species.
sorry your experiences with Motherhood have been so tramautic.
88
85
Most mothers I know view their pregnancy as the highlight of their life. They looked forward to the opportunity to bear children and were grateful they were able to. They endured the physical trials cheerfully and saw them as inconsequential compared to the joy and deep satisfaction of being a mother. They anticipated many years of joyful association with the children they bore.
Maybe the people you know aren't doing it right?
Most mothers I know view their pregnancy as the highlight of their life. They looked forward to the opportunity to bear children and were grateful they were able to. They endured the physical trials cheerfully and saw them as inconsequential compared to the joy and deep satisfaction of being a mother. They anticipated many years of joyful association with the children they bore.
Maybe the people you know aren't doing it right?
89
84
when did you, the homo sapiens that bears your genetic makeup, come into being?
when the sperm from your father met the egg from your mother and mixed their DNA to form a new member of the species.
the sperm and the egg were alive but they weren't you and they weren't homo sapiens.
spermatozoon, an unfertilized egg cell, the embryonic lining, a drop of blood, a neuron: all living cells but none are homo sapiens- they are pieces of a homo sapiens.
the union of sperm and egg creates a new 'individual'.
it is 'alive'.
it is 'homo sapiens'.
sure, it won't separate from it's mother for some time but that is not a determining condition of 'life'- you just made that up.
when mom sloughs cells or bleeds those are pieces of her, her body.
but the union of sperm and egg inside her is no longer her-
it is a new member of the species.
when to grant that member 'personhood' and what rights, if any, to grant it are ethical and legal questions.
but the biology is simple.
when did you, the homo sapiens that bears your genetic makeup, come into being?
when the sperm from your father met the egg from your mother and mixed their DNA to form a new member of the species.
the sperm and the egg were alive but they weren't you and they weren't homo sapiens.
spermatozoon, an unfertilized egg cell, the embryonic lining, a drop of blood, a neuron: all living cells but none are homo sapiens- they are pieces of a homo sapiens.
the union of sperm and egg creates a new 'individual'.
it is 'alive'.
it is 'homo sapiens'.
sure, it won't separate from it's mother for some time but that is not a determining condition of 'life'- you just made that up.
when mom sloughs cells or bleeds those are pieces of her, her body.
but the union of sperm and egg inside her is no longer her-
it is a new member of the species.
when to grant that member 'personhood' and what rights, if any, to grant it are ethical and legal questions.
but the biology is simple.
90
85
see 2a, 4 and Idiom
child (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1.
a. A person between birth and puberty.
b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.
2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.
5. A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham.
6.
a. An individual regarded as strongly affected by another or by a specified time, place, or circumstance: a child of nature; a child of the Sixties.
b. A product or result of something specified: "Times Square is a child of the 20th century" (Richard F. Shepard).
Idiom: with child- Pregnant: "She's with child".
if you ask a woman her relationship to the mass of cells inside her she will tell you it is her 'child'.
see 2a, 4 and Idiom
child (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)
1.
a. A person between birth and puberty.
b. A person who has not attained maturity or the age of legal majority.
2.
a. An unborn infant; a fetus.
b. An infant; a baby.
3. One who is childish or immature.
4. A son or daughter; an offspring.
5. A member of a tribe; descendant: children of Abraham.
6.
a. An individual regarded as strongly affected by another or by a specified time, place, or circumstance: a child of nature; a child of the Sixties.
b. A product or result of something specified: "Times Square is a child of the 20th century" (Richard F. Shepard).
Idiom: with child- Pregnant: "She's with child".
if you ask a woman her relationship to the mass of cells inside her she will tell you it is her 'child'.
92
Killing is Bad @86, so it is you who lack faith in humanity. I for one understand that early term elective abortions happen because a woman knows she's not ready to be a mother yet, either because she cannot provide for a child or because the circumstances of her life are too complicated for her to be able to provide the levels attention and care a newborn require. Y'know those things about which obstructionists cannot be bothered to concern themselves.
Late term elective abortions (the ones that debatably involve taking a life) are usually due to fetal anomalies incompatible with life (that's the technical term for it, which is why that phrase keeps reappearing), which is to say, sure, she could carry the tyke to term after which he'll die after a stint (it could be days or years) on life support, undergoing heroic level surgeries with a prognosis of near zero, and meanwhile racking up astronomical medical bills, bankrupting the mother. None of the kids that are spared survive to majority, or have anything you or I would consider a normal, or even pleasant life. When your fellow Operation Rescue obstructionists harass clinics in Wichita, when O'Reilly would denounce Dr. George Tiller as Tiller the Baby Killer, when your man Scott Roeder shot and killed Dr. George Tiller in cold blood while in church, these were the lives, the continuation of which, they championed.
Neither of the above classifications, by the way, take into consideration non-elective abortions, i.e. ones that are performed because a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. Obstructionists aren't big on preserving these procedures either (plenty of which were performed by Tiller, incidentally), preferring that a pregnant harlot die for her promiscuity, or as a consequence of rape.
Real paragons of virtue and humanity, your bedfellows are.
More...
Late term elective abortions (the ones that debatably involve taking a life) are usually due to fetal anomalies incompatible with life (that's the technical term for it, which is why that phrase keeps reappearing), which is to say, sure, she could carry the tyke to term after which he'll die after a stint (it could be days or years) on life support, undergoing heroic level surgeries with a prognosis of near zero, and meanwhile racking up astronomical medical bills, bankrupting the mother. None of the kids that are spared survive to majority, or have anything you or I would consider a normal, or even pleasant life. When your fellow Operation Rescue obstructionists harass clinics in Wichita, when O'Reilly would denounce Dr. George Tiller as Tiller the Baby Killer, when your man Scott Roeder shot and killed Dr. George Tiller in cold blood while in church, these were the lives, the continuation of which, they championed.
Neither of the above classifications, by the way, take into consideration non-elective abortions, i.e. ones that are performed because a pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. Obstructionists aren't big on preserving these procedures either (plenty of which were performed by Tiller, incidentally), preferring that a pregnant harlot die for her promiscuity, or as a consequence of rape.
Real paragons of virtue and humanity, your bedfellows are.
93
someone might be able... @87 and English vocabulary... @90 way to go, cherry-picking definitions to suit your porpoises.
Regarding parasitism, neither difference in species nor geneological ties are contingencies for whether or not a relationship between two organisms is parasitic. In fact, the term parasite comes from ancient Greek parlance, feeding beside, one who eats at another's table in exchange for amusement or flattery.
Regarding a child being defined as a fetus, or with child being a term for pregnancy, these are terms of intentional optimism, when even pregnancies that continued to late term would conclude stillborn. Most feti didn't survive pregnancy. Most infants didn't survive toddlerhood. Most children didn't survive to majority. So, in fact, in such times it was very clear what the difference was between a fetus and a child, namely, time and a lot of good fortune.
Regarding parasitism, neither difference in species nor geneological ties are contingencies for whether or not a relationship between two organisms is parasitic. In fact, the term parasite comes from ancient Greek parlance, feeding beside, one who eats at another's table in exchange for amusement or flattery.
Regarding a child being defined as a fetus, or with child being a term for pregnancy, these are terms of intentional optimism, when even pregnancies that continued to late term would conclude stillborn. Most feti didn't survive pregnancy. Most infants didn't survive toddlerhood. Most children didn't survive to majority. So, in fact, in such times it was very clear what the difference was between a fetus and a child, namely, time and a lot of good fortune.
94
one more time, with feeling @89, you appear to be of the belief that if you say the same things over and over again, but with added emphasis (i.e. with feeling), that somehow it will become true. Or at least that I'll come to believe it. Oh, now I get it; you say it with such conviction, you must be right.
Um, not so much.
But you get points for trying; you would have convinced President George W. Bush. He liked emphatic people.
As above, just because a new genetic combination happens with fertilization doesn't make it any more alive or human (i.e. homo sapiens) than before. Mutations happen all the time and are comparably as new and unique genetic combinations, and are not regarded as so special. These are not conditions that make one thing life or alive or human or individual and not the other.
Considering how few fertilized ova, or zygotes actually achieve and maintain implantation, it seems that nature doesn't regard them so special either.
So, who's making stuff up here?
To answer your question, when did [I], the homo sapiens that bears [my] genetic makeup, come into being? In my opinion, it was when my brain's higher functions booted up about twenty-two weeks into gestation. By the same definition, it is when those functions cease activity that my organs are harvestable for transplants to those that need them. Just as our society defines when someone is dead by their brain activity, it makes sense to me that we define when they are alive the same way.
Um, not so much.
But you get points for trying; you would have convinced President George W. Bush. He liked emphatic people.
As above, just because a new genetic combination happens with fertilization doesn't make it any more alive or human (i.e. homo sapiens) than before. Mutations happen all the time and are comparably as new and unique genetic combinations, and are not regarded as so special. These are not conditions that make one thing life or alive or human or individual and not the other.
Considering how few fertilized ova, or zygotes actually achieve and maintain implantation, it seems that nature doesn't regard them so special either.
So, who's making stuff up here?
To answer your question, when did [I], the homo sapiens that bears [my] genetic makeup, come into being? In my opinion, it was when my brain's higher functions booted up about twenty-two weeks into gestation. By the same definition, it is when those functions cease activity that my organs are harvestable for transplants to those that need them. Just as our society defines when someone is dead by their brain activity, it makes sense to me that we define when they are alive the same way.
95
@ 90 Actually if you ask me about the mass of cells currently located in me I would tell you I'm GOING to have a baby. I have a child, he's 2 and he talks to me. But this thing is me is currently just a fetus.
@88 Have you ever been pregnant? I don't run around spouting that I hate pregnancy, but um it pretty much sucks. Sure I'm excited to eventually have a baby, but pregnancy sucks.
@88 Have you ever been pregnant? I don't run around spouting that I hate pregnancy, but um it pretty much sucks. Sure I'm excited to eventually have a baby, but pregnancy sucks.
96
Apple Pie is also nice @88 of course it might be that there's still a stigma about having an unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancy means sexual activity without intending to conceive which is (still) usually interpreted to mean the girl is a slut. So, few women are inclined to confide their underlying feelings about the whole ordeal.
Oh, and there's also the part where it's considered cruel of the mother to her own offspring to not want them or to resent them in any way. And the blame for having the kid in the first place is invariably levied on the mother in question, even in rape cases.
So of course expectant moms say they're happy, happy, happy they're pregnant, that it's the best thing to have happened to me. Alongside enjoying all the jolly fun symptoms that come with pregnancy is the anticipation of the squalling, hungry, high maintenance life partner they'll be caring for, for the next twenty years.
To put it in perspective, of course having a kid under the right circumstances isn't all bad. Children can be a lot of fun, and yes, participating in their upbringing, helping them learn to walk, talk, interact, survive, create and participate are some of the most heartwarming moments human experience has to offer. But these instances are exceptions to the rather arduous norm of day to day living, especially when circumstances aren't right, i.e. Mom is living in poverty, as per most cases in which elective abortion is considered.
One would think, if obstructionists wanted pregnant women to carry to term, they'd provide incentives to raise the kid right when support elements (i.e. childcare assistance, financial support, food, safe shelter, supplies, etc.) weren't in place. But nope. Obstructionists tend to be a stingy lot with their tax dollars when it comes to promoting the general welfare, including assistance to families with newborns.
There's a reason why we've introduced surrender sites in most states, why infanticide is a significant enough problem to drive us to implement infant surrender sites, and why incidents of family-annihilation are not isolated occurrences. These are problems that directly correspond to unwanted children.
More...
Oh, and there's also the part where it's considered cruel of the mother to her own offspring to not want them or to resent them in any way. And the blame for having the kid in the first place is invariably levied on the mother in question, even in rape cases.
So of course expectant moms say they're happy, happy, happy they're pregnant, that it's the best thing to have happened to me. Alongside enjoying all the jolly fun symptoms that come with pregnancy is the anticipation of the squalling, hungry, high maintenance life partner they'll be caring for, for the next twenty years.
To put it in perspective, of course having a kid under the right circumstances isn't all bad. Children can be a lot of fun, and yes, participating in their upbringing, helping them learn to walk, talk, interact, survive, create and participate are some of the most heartwarming moments human experience has to offer. But these instances are exceptions to the rather arduous norm of day to day living, especially when circumstances aren't right, i.e. Mom is living in poverty, as per most cases in which elective abortion is considered.
One would think, if obstructionists wanted pregnant women to carry to term, they'd provide incentives to raise the kid right when support elements (i.e. childcare assistance, financial support, food, safe shelter, supplies, etc.) weren't in place. But nope. Obstructionists tend to be a stingy lot with their tax dollars when it comes to promoting the general welfare, including assistance to families with newborns.
There's a reason why we've introduced surrender sites in most states, why infanticide is a significant enough problem to drive us to implement infant surrender sites, and why incidents of family-annihilation are not isolated occurrences. These are problems that directly correspond to unwanted children.
98
Hackensacker @97 someone mentioned The Last Supper up @37, above. I saw snippets and know the premise, but never saw the whole thing, myself.
99
"One would think, if obstructionists wanted pregnant women to carry to term, they'd provide incentives to raise the kid right when support elements (i.e. childcare assistance, financial support, food, safe shelter, supplies, etc.) weren't in place. But nope. Obstructionists tend to be a stingy lot with their tax dollars when it comes to promoting the general welfare, including assistance to families with newborns."
An ideal system for providing the 'support elements' needed to raise kids already exists. It is the 'family' (which, for the sake of those too hip to grasp simple concepts, is a husband and a wife and what ever kids they may have)
Two adults who have prepared themselves for marriage and parenting by getting some education and life skills before becoming parents( -yeah, I know I'm dreaming here...).
Two adults, a complementary pair, who bring different sets of nature endowed skills and aptitudes to the task of parenting. Two adults who look forward to parenting and are doing it out of love, not because of a birth control failure.
A family like this will provide the support kids need to get a chance to turn out half way decent.
The family is under assault from many fronts and losing the battle. Families like I describe are increasingly rare in our culture.
The Liberal response to the breakdown in the family is to erect a host of government programs to take the family's place. These cold impersonal substitutes are not adequate replacements and are ruiniously expensive.
In a society where more and more children are fathered by and born to under educated unmarried immature people lacking life skills the demand for social service grows and grows but the pool of competent wage earners to pay taxes to fund it shrinks. It is a downward spiral that reinforces and strengthens it's pull with each increasingly disfunctional generation. Our society is firmly in the draw of that black hole.
The solution is to return to cultural values that promote and foster the 'family' and return responsibility for raising children to the adults who bring them into the world. The prospects for such a turnaround are bleak.
The best way to "promote the welfare" of kids is to create a society where they will have two functional parents.
More...
An ideal system for providing the 'support elements' needed to raise kids already exists. It is the 'family' (which, for the sake of those too hip to grasp simple concepts, is a husband and a wife and what ever kids they may have)
Two adults who have prepared themselves for marriage and parenting by getting some education and life skills before becoming parents( -yeah, I know I'm dreaming here...).
Two adults, a complementary pair, who bring different sets of nature endowed skills and aptitudes to the task of parenting. Two adults who look forward to parenting and are doing it out of love, not because of a birth control failure.
A family like this will provide the support kids need to get a chance to turn out half way decent.
The family is under assault from many fronts and losing the battle. Families like I describe are increasingly rare in our culture.
The Liberal response to the breakdown in the family is to erect a host of government programs to take the family's place. These cold impersonal substitutes are not adequate replacements and are ruiniously expensive.
In a society where more and more children are fathered by and born to under educated unmarried immature people lacking life skills the demand for social service grows and grows but the pool of competent wage earners to pay taxes to fund it shrinks. It is a downward spiral that reinforces and strengthens it's pull with each increasingly disfunctional generation. Our society is firmly in the draw of that black hole.
The solution is to return to cultural values that promote and foster the 'family' and return responsibility for raising children to the adults who bring them into the world. The prospects for such a turnaround are bleak.
The best way to "promote the welfare" of kids is to create a society where they will have two functional parents.
100
Good gravy, Leave it to Beaver @99, you've got to be fucking kidding me. You actually believe that drivel? I thought I was naïve. Perhaps, I still am for believing there's an ounce of reason left in your brain.
Your ideal of a family never worked consistently, even during the eras that a single breadwinner could actually support a household of four to five occupants (2.5 children). Since the eighties, it's become typically necessary for all adults to work to sustain such a house, leaving the children of those eras (like myself) without parental guidance. Ever heard the term latchkey kid? That's us.
Your model also depends on employment and fair compensation being readily available to the adults in question. Most middle-class families are one paycheck away from homelessness or foreclosure. They don't have savings because after covering necessities there's nothing left to save. Unemployment between jobs averaged 8-10 months (in the current recession, it's 15!). Minimum wage isn't even enough for a single healthy person to survive in an SRO apartment. Notably, this is a situation that is aggravated anytime a Republican administration takes over.
Your model also depends on the ability of families to cooperate, to stay functionally cohesive, and to be able to resolve all their interpersonal differences, which has proven impossible in over 66%-70% of the cases, a situation that is worsened by society holding sexual activity contingent on marriage; in such cases people marry sooner without knowing their actual compatibility with their partners.
Then you presume that a single homemaker is adequate to take care of one or more children, which has proven time and again not to be the case. Parental fatigue is a significant cause of (often violent) intra-household disfunction. In the past, we've relied on communities and extended families, neither of which are consistently available to parents.
And then you presume that people will willingly sexually abstain until they are done with education, i.e. out of college. It doesn't happen. 70% of the population is sexually active by the time they are nineteen. The rest follows leaving the geeky few who are so driven to (usually technical) work that they don't bother until their thirties or later. But for the humans that live in the real world, no amount of preaching the gospel or abstinence-only sex education is going to slow our young people from fucking like, well, young people.
The conservative model of the traditional (post industrial) family has never worked, even in those eras about which you get all nostalgic. The reason we liberals turn to government institutions to create such resources is that often they don't create themselves, and conservatives would gladly leave those without to perish in the elements. In this light it becomes especially conspicuous when, in our dearth of functional households, conservatives seek to restrict who can form families, i.e. same-sex couples. And then you try to force those that aren't prepared to raise a family to have children, should they get accidentally pregnant. You have an odd way to express your compassion for life.
We're not talking about Hummelware figurines in a display case, but the naked apes that make up our society. This isn't The Sims, it's the real world. Dude, it's time you put down that Kool-aid cup. You've obviously had enough.
More...
Your ideal of a family never worked consistently, even during the eras that a single breadwinner could actually support a household of four to five occupants (2.5 children). Since the eighties, it's become typically necessary for all adults to work to sustain such a house, leaving the children of those eras (like myself) without parental guidance. Ever heard the term latchkey kid? That's us.
Your model also depends on employment and fair compensation being readily available to the adults in question. Most middle-class families are one paycheck away from homelessness or foreclosure. They don't have savings because after covering necessities there's nothing left to save. Unemployment between jobs averaged 8-10 months (in the current recession, it's 15!). Minimum wage isn't even enough for a single healthy person to survive in an SRO apartment. Notably, this is a situation that is aggravated anytime a Republican administration takes over.
Your model also depends on the ability of families to cooperate, to stay functionally cohesive, and to be able to resolve all their interpersonal differences, which has proven impossible in over 66%-70% of the cases, a situation that is worsened by society holding sexual activity contingent on marriage; in such cases people marry sooner without knowing their actual compatibility with their partners.
Then you presume that a single homemaker is adequate to take care of one or more children, which has proven time and again not to be the case. Parental fatigue is a significant cause of (often violent) intra-household disfunction. In the past, we've relied on communities and extended families, neither of which are consistently available to parents.
And then you presume that people will willingly sexually abstain until they are done with education, i.e. out of college. It doesn't happen. 70% of the population is sexually active by the time they are nineteen. The rest follows leaving the geeky few who are so driven to (usually technical) work that they don't bother until their thirties or later. But for the humans that live in the real world, no amount of preaching the gospel or abstinence-only sex education is going to slow our young people from fucking like, well, young people.
The conservative model of the traditional (post industrial) family has never worked, even in those eras about which you get all nostalgic. The reason we liberals turn to government institutions to create such resources is that often they don't create themselves, and conservatives would gladly leave those without to perish in the elements. In this light it becomes especially conspicuous when, in our dearth of functional households, conservatives seek to restrict who can form families, i.e. same-sex couples. And then you try to force those that aren't prepared to raise a family to have children, should they get accidentally pregnant. You have an odd way to express your compassion for life.
We're not talking about Hummelware figurines in a display case, but the naked apes that make up our society. This isn't The Sims, it's the real world. Dude, it's time you put down that Kool-aid cup. You've obviously had enough.
102
RE: Killing Hitler- It would have just put some other Nazi in power, perhaps one sane enough to avoid invading Russia. With Russia out of the war, Nazi Germany would probably still exist today.
104
Stephen Fry's 'Making History' quite delightfully explored a world where the time-travel-kill-Hitler thing went completely not according to plan.
As for the comparison which is more the actual subject at hand... ugh. Do these people not know that comparing someone to Hitler is the one way ticket to Lost Argumentville? It's just so hyperbolic that people tune out. Or call you a quack, and then tune out. Or edit together video clips of you in unflattering ways and post them on YouTube. Conservatives didn't think it was cool when Liberals compared W. to Hitler. At this point, shouldn't we all just agree that the "(x)=Hitler" is flawed and unacceptable.
I mean, unless someone actually, you know, invades Poland and gradually starts killing off every conceivable minority while lauding a standard they don't meet... then you might get away with it.
As for the comparison which is more the actual subject at hand... ugh. Do these people not know that comparing someone to Hitler is the one way ticket to Lost Argumentville? It's just so hyperbolic that people tune out. Or call you a quack, and then tune out. Or edit together video clips of you in unflattering ways and post them on YouTube. Conservatives didn't think it was cool when Liberals compared W. to Hitler. At this point, shouldn't we all just agree that the "(x)=Hitler" is flawed and unacceptable.
I mean, unless someone actually, you know, invades Poland and gradually starts killing off every conceivable minority while lauding a standard they don't meet... then you might get away with it.
105
I'm opposed to post-natal abortion... you know, wars, death penalties. That's taking a human life. For some reason the people screaming about abortion don't make a fuss over that crap.
I read (I think in Freakonomics) about the correlation between crime and abortion-- namely, that crime rates rise in the generation that follows the criminalization of abortion (I read it a couple years back and can't recall the country, but I'm not making this up. The book is Freakonomics. Look it up for yourselves before yelling at me). This happens because a generation of children were born to families where they KNEW they were not wanted, and questioned why they were ever born.
Now, yes, I think adoption is a WONDERFUL thing. Someone I love deeply is adopting, and we are all very thrilled about it. I'm always happy when an adoption is succesful. But not every adoption system works. And not every woman who becomes pregnant is physically capable of carrying a child to term without seriously jeapordizing the health of both herself and the baby. And criminalizing abortion will not stop abortion any more than villifying it does. The only abortions anti-abortion laws stop are clean, legal, largely safe ones. Desperate women (and GIRLS) should never be put in the position of having to go to some back alley creep or God forbid try to attempt an at-home abortion.
I'm not sure how this even came up, but... gah, hot button issue.
I read (I think in Freakonomics) about the correlation between crime and abortion-- namely, that crime rates rise in the generation that follows the criminalization of abortion (I read it a couple years back and can't recall the country, but I'm not making this up. The book is Freakonomics. Look it up for yourselves before yelling at me). This happens because a generation of children were born to families where they KNEW they were not wanted, and questioned why they were ever born.
Now, yes, I think adoption is a WONDERFUL thing. Someone I love deeply is adopting, and we are all very thrilled about it. I'm always happy when an adoption is succesful. But not every adoption system works. And not every woman who becomes pregnant is physically capable of carrying a child to term without seriously jeapordizing the health of both herself and the baby. And criminalizing abortion will not stop abortion any more than villifying it does. The only abortions anti-abortion laws stop are clean, legal, largely safe ones. Desperate women (and GIRLS) should never be put in the position of having to go to some back alley creep or God forbid try to attempt an at-home abortion.
I'm not sure how this even came up, but... gah, hot button issue.
106
I just want to comment that I wouldn't go back in time to kill Hitler. I know most of you think that's crazy.... but think about what happened because of him for a second or two...........1.............2............. Ok, I would bet that MOST of you thought of all the people he killed, how he started World War 2, or how he forced his insane doctors to perform experiments on the innocent/young/unborn/racially-different, because I think that too. But I learned one thing from bad events... Something good always comes out of it. In this case, Hitler did all those things, but because of him/insane-studies/war-he-caused:
1. Technology: We gained the technology of rockets, jets, nuclear bomb/power, etc. Countries realized the importants of researching and updating of technology to increase military strength, which indirectly effects the technology of our everyday lives. If you think about it, the military needed to constantly research/update their computer technology, which cause better computers, which cause the internet, video games, etc.... Good enough reason for me.
2. Medically: Though his sick research of the human body and genes were wrong in many ways, it made the medical field leap forward because everyone else was afraid of the ethical/religious consequences of doing something so wrong.
3. Politically: Many countries changed the way their country ran politically to avoid some form of crazy dictator happening in their country. Also, countries (like America itself) realized that maintaining a military is necessary and began to keep a military (instead of waiting until wartime to "draft" people to make a military).
4. Economically: Around the same time, many countries were in a Depression. Examples: Germany was in a Depression because they had to pay for damages they cause during World War 1 or America was in a Depression because of things like banks started "credit" (which people couldn't pay back) and companies started "shares"(which was gambling in a sense).
5. World-wide: It changed the way the world works. Imagine if World War 2 didn't happen.... America wouldn't be the powerful nation it is because they didn't maintain a military power like they do now (and how they used to believe in being "isolated" from the rest of the world), Britain MAY still have the most powerful navy in the world, France MAY HAVE A CHANCE of containing people that are not a bunch of pussies, Germany might still be in a depression and wouldn't be even respected (for technology, amazing cars, or anything... because they learned the power of technology from World War 2) because of "The Great War" (i.e. which is what World War 1 was called), etc.
I know he caused so much evil... but the world changed. It changed to a completely DIFFERENT world.... so now that you know just a little of the good that came out of the evil that Hitler caused, think for another second or two........1...........2............ What did you think of now? Would you still want to kill him? Maybe, some of you would still kill him, but maybe some of you wouldn't. But that's why I don't want to change it.
More...
1. Technology: We gained the technology of rockets, jets, nuclear bomb/power, etc. Countries realized the importants of researching and updating of technology to increase military strength, which indirectly effects the technology of our everyday lives. If you think about it, the military needed to constantly research/update their computer technology, which cause better computers, which cause the internet, video games, etc.... Good enough reason for me.
2. Medically: Though his sick research of the human body and genes were wrong in many ways, it made the medical field leap forward because everyone else was afraid of the ethical/religious consequences of doing something so wrong.
3. Politically: Many countries changed the way their country ran politically to avoid some form of crazy dictator happening in their country. Also, countries (like America itself) realized that maintaining a military is necessary and began to keep a military (instead of waiting until wartime to "draft" people to make a military).
4. Economically: Around the same time, many countries were in a Depression. Examples: Germany was in a Depression because they had to pay for damages they cause during World War 1 or America was in a Depression because of things like banks started "credit" (which people couldn't pay back) and companies started "shares"(which was gambling in a sense).
5. World-wide: It changed the way the world works. Imagine if World War 2 didn't happen.... America wouldn't be the powerful nation it is because they didn't maintain a military power like they do now (and how they used to believe in being "isolated" from the rest of the world), Britain MAY still have the most powerful navy in the world, France MAY HAVE A CHANCE of containing people that are not a bunch of pussies, Germany might still be in a depression and wouldn't be even respected (for technology, amazing cars, or anything... because they learned the power of technology from World War 2) because of "The Great War" (i.e. which is what World War 1 was called), etc.
I know he caused so much evil... but the world changed. It changed to a completely DIFFERENT world.... so now that you know just a little of the good that came out of the evil that Hitler caused, think for another second or two........1...........2............ What did you think of now? Would you still want to kill him? Maybe, some of you would still kill him, but maybe some of you wouldn't. But that's why I don't want to change it.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (106) RSS