"They call it abortion.
We call it murder."
I see semantics have yet to go out of style or become an archaic anachronism.
While the pro-life fanatics want to call abortion murder, does that mean that they'll also condemn a woman who miscarries for "murder"? After all, the proper medical term for a miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion," versus the more commonly referred to type of abortion: that is, an "induced abortion", medically speaking.
If they DO choose to lump the two together, it shows a complete lack of compassion and human empathy for the mother who is grieving the loss of her baby.
Even if they claim that there is a difference in their viewpoint for a spontaneous abortion vis a vis an induced abortion and that they only want to criminalize induced abortions, it still leaves us with additional quandries.
What about if the mother was raped, molested, a victim of incest, or in danger of dying if she carries the pregnancy to full term? Do we make exceptions for this or do we condemn all abortions as wrong?
If we make exceptions, it forces a "slippery slope" style of argument where it becomes hard to properly delineate where the cut off should be. If we don't, it agains turns to a complete lack of human empathy.
Not to mention: do we REALLY want to go back in time, to when people risked their lives in the back alleys of cities to have an abortion? Iceland was the first nation in modern history to legalize abortion, in 1928. It would be nearly 4 1/2 DECADES later for the United States, a supposedly "progressive" nation built on the idea of "individual liberties" to follow suit. What is wrong with this picture?
Some abortion foes would be unapologetic about this and say that if they are pregnant, that they have to deal with the ramifications of it, but again, we come back to a lack of compassion. Many (but not all, before anyone tries to put words into my mouth) of these foes see NOTHING hypocritical about killing an abortion doctor for propogating murder. Murder to stop murder, you gotta love it.
Semantics, indeed.
Ultimately, I'm pro-choice. I don't try to force my views on abortion on anyone else and I'd appreciate it if they'd do the same. We do NOT need silly-assed billboards or tacky church displays of rows of crosses. We need to realize that it ultimately comes down to each person's individual choice and we need to respect those choices, whether or not we like them.
Que sera, sera.
Quod etra demonstrata.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
The tears of agony may now commence...
From Yahoo! News... "While the Obama administration might not have gotten off to a picture-perfect start, that doesn't mean, necessarily, that the country is ready for another President Bush yet. But down the road? Perhaps, according to George H.W. Bush, the father of the current president. Speaking of his No. 2 son — former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush — the ex-president said on FOX News Sunday, "I'd like to see him be president some day." Pressed further, Bush backtracked a little: "Right now is probably a bad time, because we've had enough Bushes in there.""
First, we had the liar who "promised" us, "No new taxes."
Then, after 8 blissful years (even if he was taking advantage of a few interns) of Slick Willie Clinton, we had the thief that stole not one but TWO elections, then claimed he had a "mandate" from the American people to a) blow up our deficit and b) fight a war for false reasons.
Now, another member of that awful family?
As a schoolboy once said to "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, "Say it ain't so!"
Hasn't America learned its lessons?
The only candidates the Republican party could nominate that would be WORSE than Jeb Bush are Sarah Palin and John Engler. (John McCain doesn't qualify, simply on the basis that he's not WORSE than Jeb, he's just as shitty as Jeb.)
What do you all think?
First, we had the liar who "promised" us, "No new taxes."
Then, after 8 blissful years (even if he was taking advantage of a few interns) of Slick Willie Clinton, we had the thief that stole not one but TWO elections, then claimed he had a "mandate" from the American people to a) blow up our deficit and b) fight a war for false reasons.
Now, another member of that awful family?
As a schoolboy once said to "Shoeless" Joe Jackson, "Say it ain't so!"
Hasn't America learned its lessons?
The only candidates the Republican party could nominate that would be WORSE than Jeb Bush are Sarah Palin and John Engler. (John McCain doesn't qualify, simply on the basis that he's not WORSE than Jeb, he's just as shitty as Jeb.)
What do you all think?
Sunday, January 4, 2009
And yet more proof for the "law of diminishing returns"...
From the Associated Press, via the Detroit News Online (http://www.detnews.com/):
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090103/NATION/901030440/1020
Titled: "Cops: Dad ordered to pay child support kills son"
Does Mr. Platt REALLY thinks killing his son absolves him of his responsibilities? Obviously, he'll get his comeupptance in the ole' pokey, but still...
I hope not only does he have to undergo a criminal trial, but also a civil trial, in which he'd be ordered to pay all of the remaining child support owed between now and the time the child would have turned 18 (or graduated High School, whichever is later), PLUS interest, PLUS punitive damages, PLUS any other additional judgements that a jury may find appropriate to the case.
Furthermore, from the article: "'He had said he would kill either his wife or his child before he paid child support,' which he recently had been ordered to do, [Police Superintendent Warren] Riley said."
You have got to be kidding me?
They didn't arrest him for this threat? (That DOES constitute assault. Assault is threatening to hurt or kill someone, battery is the actual act of hurting someone, which is often mistaken by the general public.)
At the very least help the ex-wife and child with assumed identities (under the Witness Protection Act)?
Seems to me that if it is proven that Mr. Riley and his subordinates knew PRIOUR to the fact that he had issued this threat (and the article does not make clear when they knew of the threat, if it was before the murder or in the process of investigating a supposed "kidnapping" turned murder case), that THEY also would be liable for civil damages in a court of law. Remember, ladies and gentlemen, a civil trial has a lot lower burden of proof than a criminal one does. Remember that O[renthal] J[ames] Simpson beat the criminal charges but NOT the civil ones levied by the Goldman and Brown families. It's not "beyond any reasonable doubt" as in a criminal trial, just merely that the jury finds you responsible, whether or not there is even a smidgen of "reasonable doubt."
What? Is New Orléans known as "The Big Easy" because it's so laissez-faire that no one seriously considers a threat, to be, well, a threat?
::Sighs::
As the title for this blog post, suggests, quod etra demonstrata.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090103/NATION/901030440/1020
Titled: "Cops: Dad ordered to pay child support kills son"
Does Mr. Platt REALLY thinks killing his son absolves him of his responsibilities? Obviously, he'll get his comeupptance in the ole' pokey, but still...
I hope not only does he have to undergo a criminal trial, but also a civil trial, in which he'd be ordered to pay all of the remaining child support owed between now and the time the child would have turned 18 (or graduated High School, whichever is later), PLUS interest, PLUS punitive damages, PLUS any other additional judgements that a jury may find appropriate to the case.
Furthermore, from the article: "'He had said he would kill either his wife or his child before he paid child support,' which he recently had been ordered to do, [Police Superintendent Warren] Riley said."
You have got to be kidding me?
They didn't arrest him for this threat? (That DOES constitute assault. Assault is threatening to hurt or kill someone, battery is the actual act of hurting someone, which is often mistaken by the general public.)
At the very least help the ex-wife and child with assumed identities (under the Witness Protection Act)?
Seems to me that if it is proven that Mr. Riley and his subordinates knew PRIOUR to the fact that he had issued this threat (and the article does not make clear when they knew of the threat, if it was before the murder or in the process of investigating a supposed "kidnapping" turned murder case), that THEY also would be liable for civil damages in a court of law. Remember, ladies and gentlemen, a civil trial has a lot lower burden of proof than a criminal one does. Remember that O[renthal] J[ames] Simpson beat the criminal charges but NOT the civil ones levied by the Goldman and Brown families. It's not "beyond any reasonable doubt" as in a criminal trial, just merely that the jury finds you responsible, whether or not there is even a smidgen of "reasonable doubt."
What? Is New Orléans known as "The Big Easy" because it's so laissez-faire that no one seriously considers a threat, to be, well, a threat?
::Sighs::
As the title for this blog post, suggests, quod etra demonstrata.
From the Associated Press...
"While scholars estimate that it takes at least a generation before a president's legacy can be analyzed objectively, many already are unflinching in their assessment of Bush -- and it's not favorable."
Gee... really? It's that easy to see that Dubya has been a complete failure? I mean, who ever would have guessed?
Seriously, though, it's about time that other people are brave enough to articulate the truth.
Gee... really? It's that easy to see that Dubya has been a complete failure? I mean, who ever would have guessed?
Seriously, though, it's about time that other people are brave enough to articulate the truth.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
More Angle Parking Pet Peeves...
Ever notice that in most newer (or just recently remodelled) stores that there are handicap parking spaces that are rectangular (running normal with the flow of traffic) with hash marks (\\\\\\\\\\) besides it, before moving into traditional angled parking spaces?
Also, ever notice how many morons PARK right over those hash marks?
HELLO, it's ILLEGAL!
Those hash marks delineate a NO PARKING zone!
Those are specially designed parking spaces for wheelchair lift-equipped vans, which REQUIRE 10 feet of clearance behind them to allow the handicapped guest to enter or exit the van.
Contrary to the opinion of many people who TRY (and failing, I might add) to "rationalize" (do I sense some "sour grapes," as Aesop would say?) their illegal parking, "Well, if such and such store/shopping mall didn't draw the lines that way and did all angled parking, there'd be easily another 4 or 5 parking spaces for us with disabled parking placards."
Do you think such and such store or shopping mall did it to inconveniece YOU?
Are you really that fucking arrogant, self-centered, and egotistic to believe that the world revolves around YOU?
No, they place them there because it's the LAW.
Those parking spaces are required by the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). Any newly built or significantly remodelled business in the past few years MUST have those spaces OR they will NOT get their business plans approved by the appropriate municipalities.
Yet, EVERY day, I see it and can only shake my head.
If only my employer would let me call the cops on the morons.
They say it's not their job to monitor parking lot compliance.
::shakes head some more::
If they get ticketed for illegal parking, they'll think twice before doing it again.
Also, ever notice how many morons PARK right over those hash marks?
HELLO, it's ILLEGAL!
Those hash marks delineate a NO PARKING zone!
Those are specially designed parking spaces for wheelchair lift-equipped vans, which REQUIRE 10 feet of clearance behind them to allow the handicapped guest to enter or exit the van.
Contrary to the opinion of many people who TRY (and failing, I might add) to "rationalize" (do I sense some "sour grapes," as Aesop would say?) their illegal parking, "Well, if such and such store/shopping mall didn't draw the lines that way and did all angled parking, there'd be easily another 4 or 5 parking spaces for us with disabled parking placards."
Do you think such and such store or shopping mall did it to inconveniece YOU?
Are you really that fucking arrogant, self-centered, and egotistic to believe that the world revolves around YOU?
No, they place them there because it's the LAW.
Those parking spaces are required by the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). Any newly built or significantly remodelled business in the past few years MUST have those spaces OR they will NOT get their business plans approved by the appropriate municipalities.
Yet, EVERY day, I see it and can only shake my head.
If only my employer would let me call the cops on the morons.
They say it's not their job to monitor parking lot compliance.
::shakes head some more::
If they get ticketed for illegal parking, they'll think twice before doing it again.
Finally!! We have proof for the "law of diminishing returns"...
Just witness the continuous dumbing down of the American populace, between people that don't know how to drive the right way down a one way to George W. Bush to John McCain (for actually thinking that 4 more years of Bush's failed policies was a good idea) to Sarah Palin to the "standards" (coughcoughyeahcoughcoughrightcoughcough) of public education to the Stella Award namestake (Your Honour, I thought coffee was to be served COLD... you mean, it's not?) to ... ad infinitum.
You get the point.
I hope.
I can't be convinced.
Can I?
You get the point.
I hope.
I can't be convinced.
Can I?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)