Friday, August 31, 2007
I can't believe I never thought of this
You know, something I was watching on TV the other day brought the subject of abortion to my mind, and something occurred to me. Something so mind-bloggling simple it's taken me years to think of it (funny how that works). And here it is:
Abortion advocates tend to take the view that everyone who believes a child in the womb is human is coming at the issue from a religious standpoint. They claim that we believe a fetus has the same rights as anyone else because that's what the church says. In essence, they say that anti-abortion folks base our arguments on something mystical, something not measurable or understandable.
Wait. Something's not right here. There is no scientifically observable difference between a baby an hour before it's born and the same baby an hour after it's born. Except for the umbilical cord (which can't be said to constitute a biological change within the child), every inch of that child is exactly the same. And we can extend this to far beyond an hour before birth. The current world record for the shortest successful pregnancy is 22 weeks - that's less than three months. Most babies born premature after the end of the second trimester live. In fact, past the embryo stage, a child's "structure", for lack of a better term, is essentially fixed; growth is the only change that continues. Therefore, I would argue that it could be said that there is almost no biological change between the beginning of the fetal stage and the hours after birth, or indeed the rest of life. Mental development is the same: the basic structures of the brain are there from the end of the first trimester, and stay the same until death.
So if there's no real change in biology from fetus to child, what is it that changes when a baby exits the mother? The answer, of course, is that it must be something unobservable. Something, in other words, mystical.
And there it is. Liberals, who so often claim to be secular and level-headed on the issue of abortion, in fact believe that some sort of humanity (or soul, if you prefer) just whooshes into a baby the instant it leaves its mother's body. Opponents of abortion, in contrast, believe that what is there the moment after birth has been there from the moment of conception - body, mind, and, if you do happen to be religious, soul. So who is it that bases their opinions on the unseeable, on something taken on faith? Who is it that believes in something supernatural which happens to a baby at a particular moment and therefore makes killing that baby wrong? It is not the abortion opponents, not the conservatives, not the "religious right"; it is the very people who claim to oppose laws based on faith and belief.
Interesting, isn't it?
Abortion advocates tend to take the view that everyone who believes a child in the womb is human is coming at the issue from a religious standpoint. They claim that we believe a fetus has the same rights as anyone else because that's what the church says. In essence, they say that anti-abortion folks base our arguments on something mystical, something not measurable or understandable.
Wait. Something's not right here. There is no scientifically observable difference between a baby an hour before it's born and the same baby an hour after it's born. Except for the umbilical cord (which can't be said to constitute a biological change within the child), every inch of that child is exactly the same. And we can extend this to far beyond an hour before birth. The current world record for the shortest successful pregnancy is 22 weeks - that's less than three months. Most babies born premature after the end of the second trimester live. In fact, past the embryo stage, a child's "structure", for lack of a better term, is essentially fixed; growth is the only change that continues. Therefore, I would argue that it could be said that there is almost no biological change between the beginning of the fetal stage and the hours after birth, or indeed the rest of life. Mental development is the same: the basic structures of the brain are there from the end of the first trimester, and stay the same until death.
So if there's no real change in biology from fetus to child, what is it that changes when a baby exits the mother? The answer, of course, is that it must be something unobservable. Something, in other words, mystical.
And there it is. Liberals, who so often claim to be secular and level-headed on the issue of abortion, in fact believe that some sort of humanity (or soul, if you prefer) just whooshes into a baby the instant it leaves its mother's body. Opponents of abortion, in contrast, believe that what is there the moment after birth has been there from the moment of conception - body, mind, and, if you do happen to be religious, soul. So who is it that bases their opinions on the unseeable, on something taken on faith? Who is it that believes in something supernatural which happens to a baby at a particular moment and therefore makes killing that baby wrong? It is not the abortion opponents, not the conservatives, not the "religious right"; it is the very people who claim to oppose laws based on faith and belief.
Interesting, isn't it?
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Nutritionist buzzkills strike again
Well, I'm back. In case you're wondering, I was on a trip to Alaska for the last three weeks, which aside from an ATV rollover accident (I'll be walking without crutches by sometime next week) was a lot of fun.
Anyway, I haven't really been following the news recently, but I did happen to find this. In Putnam County, New York, senior centers hand out free day-old donuts. Nutritionists, who as we all know are considered gods in the state of New York (remember the trans fat debacle?), said that this was an "unhealthy" practice, and people over 65 should not be eating donuts. 250 seniors signed a petition to the county started by Joe Hajkowski, 75, who says he personally doesn't eat the donuts.
Absolutely idiotic, this. What's going to happen if the nutritionists get their wish and every senior citizen in Putnam County suddenly goes on a strict diet of rabbit food? Their average life expectancy might go up by, what, 2 hours? If you're 70 years old, whatever your lifestyle is going to determine about your longevity and health is pretty much decided. You'd think the county would let these folks be happy in the last decade of their lives instead of making itself feel all morally high and mighty by misappropriating their apple fritters.
When this is what government spends its time and money - our money - doing, there's no choice but to conclude that they have too much of both on their hands. As if we didn't know already.
Anyway, I haven't really been following the news recently, but I did happen to find this. In Putnam County, New York, senior centers hand out free day-old donuts. Nutritionists, who as we all know are considered gods in the state of New York (remember the trans fat debacle?), said that this was an "unhealthy" practice, and people over 65 should not be eating donuts. 250 seniors signed a petition to the county started by Joe Hajkowski, 75, who says he personally doesn't eat the donuts.
Absolutely idiotic, this. What's going to happen if the nutritionists get their wish and every senior citizen in Putnam County suddenly goes on a strict diet of rabbit food? Their average life expectancy might go up by, what, 2 hours? If you're 70 years old, whatever your lifestyle is going to determine about your longevity and health is pretty much decided. You'd think the county would let these folks be happy in the last decade of their lives instead of making itself feel all morally high and mighty by misappropriating their apple fritters.
When this is what government spends its time and money - our money - doing, there's no choice but to conclude that they have too much of both on their hands. As if we didn't know already.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Help! We've fallen and we can't get up!
Reminiscent of a Gettysburg College sexual harassment code which lists touching, patting, and hugging as offenses unless accompanied by "continuing" and "active" consent, which I commented on in a post back in June, a middle school in Vienna, Virginia has recently enacted a strict "no-contact" policy on its grounds. This policy, according to MSNBC, effectively means that "students can be sent to the principal's office for hugging, holding hands or even high-fiving".
Thirteen-year-old Hal Beaulieu, for example, received a "warning" for hugging his girlfriend at lunch several months ago, and was told that repeat "offenses" could lead to detention.
Interestingly, I was just last night watching an episode of Jeremiah (a postapocalyptic TV show that ran 2002-2004) in which the protagonists discovered a town where human contact had been outlawed. Originally, it had been in the name of preventing the possible return of the "Big Death" - the plague, passed by touch, which wiped out the world's entire adult population before the start of the series - but it later became a restriction in the name of "moral purity". In truth, there was a more sinister plot behind the law, but I won't go into that (watch the show and find out!). The point is, only four years ago, this sort of rule was science fiction. Kind of like Star Trek gave us floppy disks and cellphones, maybe. Come to think of it, floppy disks and cellphones are against the rules in a lot of schools these days too...coincidence, or conspiracy??
Ahem...sorry. It's just that if I didn't have a laugh in the face of restrictions like this, I think I'd break down and cry about the fact that the human race seems to be travelling in a quickly-accelerating handbasket towards that most famous of all handbasket destinations. Anyone who thinks a "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy needs to take a look at the progression of laws against rape to laws against sexual assault to laws against sexual harassment to laws against complimenting or touching another human being at all. Nobody seemed to realize that there was a point at which we were no longer protecting anyone, but merely robbing everyone of their right to express themselves to each other in a basic human manner. If you're strolling down the street and you see a couple sitting on a bench, the guy's arm around the girl's shoulders or vice versa, what's your first thought? Do you think they look happy, or in love, or does your inner voice scream "Aah! No! Human contact! GET THE SWAT TEAM!!!"? I'm no expert on the Bible, but I don't think the serpent tempted Eve by telling her to shake Adam's hand. And yet we've wound up with school boards thinking it's okay to disallow handshakes, hugs, high-fives, and any other form of physical contact.
As Robert Thompson would say, the snowball has caught fire right across the country. We've fallen down the slippery slope and can't get up. The only way to be sure to avoid "sexual harassment" as it's defined these days is to go around wearing a suit of armor. Which is not only cumbersome, but a fashion "don't", or so I'm told.
Thirteen-year-old Hal Beaulieu, for example, received a "warning" for hugging his girlfriend at lunch several months ago, and was told that repeat "offenses" could lead to detention.
Interestingly, I was just last night watching an episode of Jeremiah (a postapocalyptic TV show that ran 2002-2004) in which the protagonists discovered a town where human contact had been outlawed. Originally, it had been in the name of preventing the possible return of the "Big Death" - the plague, passed by touch, which wiped out the world's entire adult population before the start of the series - but it later became a restriction in the name of "moral purity". In truth, there was a more sinister plot behind the law, but I won't go into that (watch the show and find out!). The point is, only four years ago, this sort of rule was science fiction. Kind of like Star Trek gave us floppy disks and cellphones, maybe. Come to think of it, floppy disks and cellphones are against the rules in a lot of schools these days too...coincidence, or conspiracy??
Ahem...sorry. It's just that if I didn't have a laugh in the face of restrictions like this, I think I'd break down and cry about the fact that the human race seems to be travelling in a quickly-accelerating handbasket towards that most famous of all handbasket destinations. Anyone who thinks a "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy needs to take a look at the progression of laws against rape to laws against sexual assault to laws against sexual harassment to laws against complimenting or touching another human being at all. Nobody seemed to realize that there was a point at which we were no longer protecting anyone, but merely robbing everyone of their right to express themselves to each other in a basic human manner. If you're strolling down the street and you see a couple sitting on a bench, the guy's arm around the girl's shoulders or vice versa, what's your first thought? Do you think they look happy, or in love, or does your inner voice scream "Aah! No! Human contact! GET THE SWAT TEAM!!!"? I'm no expert on the Bible, but I don't think the serpent tempted Eve by telling her to shake Adam's hand. And yet we've wound up with school boards thinking it's okay to disallow handshakes, hugs, high-fives, and any other form of physical contact.
As Robert Thompson would say, the snowball has caught fire right across the country. We've fallen down the slippery slope and can't get up. The only way to be sure to avoid "sexual harassment" as it's defined these days is to go around wearing a suit of armor. Which is not only cumbersome, but a fashion "don't", or so I'm told.
subscribe
