That was my Google word of the day some time back, and it means the same thing basically, as a white paper. And I figure that some of y'all might want to be able to keep score, so I figured, 'what the hey?' If something's not on the list, and you're the type that slows down at wrecks, drop me a line in the comment threads and I'll add it to the list.
So here's a memoire-aide for you, for me:
Abortion: I oppose using abortion as after-the-fact contraception. I have no problems with using it to end a pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother, such as an ectopic pregnancy, or one complicated by pre-eclampsia or any of a host of other things. (Mind you, I also think a woman who toughs something like that out and has the baby anyway, risking her life in the process, is nothing short of a bona-fide heroine par excellance. But I wouldn't require it of anyone.)
I'm not entirely comfortable with the decision, but I've lumped pregnancies caused by rape or incest in with that, since post-partum depression complicated by post-traumatic stress disorder can increase risk of suicide, so no, I don't oppose abortions being available to rape or incest victims either.
The last exception, and one I'm really, REALLY uncomfortable with, and could VERY easily be talked back out of, is for pregnancies where the child has been found to possess some minor or major abnormality that will reduce its quality of life in some way. My uneasiness with this exception varies inversely with the severity of the defect, IE minor abnormalities like Down's syndrome or Cerbal Palsy make me exceptionally squeamish, while major shit like ancephalia gives me little to no pause.
Basically, if you haven't been raped, your baby's daddy isn't your: brother, (grand)daddy, or uncle, nor a close cousin; and the pregnancy poses no more serious health risk than a typical pregnancy does, and the child on the way has nothing wrong with it to speak of, you have no business ending it's life. By this point, it's been established that no one held a gun to the mother's head to make her pregnant. To my knowledge, pregnancy is the only circumstance a person can get themselves into that large groups of people see nothing wrong with them weaselling their way out of by killing someone else (or even maybe killing someone else, if you're one of those people who thinks that the lack of development on the child's part somehow makes it okay to kill them because they aren't 'human enough' yet).
Anna-Nicole Smith: Has creeped me out ever since the movie (Naked Gun 33 and a third?) where she plays a 'chick with a dick'. Just couldn't look at her after that without getting squeamish. I'm sorry she's dead. Oh, and I most definitely am NOT her baby's daddy. But still, is it just me, or was she kinda homely, in the face? I mean, seriously, her face reminded me of the front of a Mack truck, too darn wide, and a real big grill.
Apartheid: I don't like it. Not even a little bit. I used to give some credence to the idea that some people simply make bad neighbors for each other, but once I realized that that assertion was based on skin color, nah, to hell with that noise. Learn to play nice with each other. Stop being dicks to people because they're 'funny-lookin'.
Baseball: The only real American sport.
Capitalism: I like it. Lassiez-faire is everywhere! People should be allowed to fend for themselves however they choose, and help whomever they please (or no one at all if they so choose). People who claim to believe in freedom of choice had best support capitalism, lest they be seen as hypocrites.
Cloning: What's the big deal? You can't clone a person and get a perfect copy with the same memories, that's fantasy. I think the legal status of cloned humans should be that of 'child of the donor'. Cloning animals for meat or other properties sound like a fantastic idea, assuming it can be done safely. Cloning just an organ would be great, and solve all kinds of problems.
Communism: I'm with history on this one. Doesn't work, never has, never will. No one wants to be told what job to learn and do. No one wants to see their hard work go to someone else's benefit without so much as a thank you, let alone fair market value, save that they give it voluntarily.
Corporatism: I have nothing against businesses per se, but when they get to the corporate stage, too large a gap comes into being between the workers and the highest levels of management. Once this gap is reached, management suddenly loses its ability to see its workforce as human, and begins treating them like assets to buy and sell. I understand that business is business, and the business of business is making a profit, I get it. But while a human can sit back, take stock of his possessions, and realise contentment, and think to himself: 'I have enough, I am happy.', a corporation cannot do this. It is never content, it must always grasp after more and more. And it will sacrifice anyone and anything to get more, no matter who is hurt.
Defense: I believe the only valid reason for the existence of national governments is to protect their citizens from other national governments. Obviously, the second-best way to do this is to have such a powerful standing armed force, that no sane nation would attack them, or make friends with such a nation. The best way is to have lots of friends, and few or no enemies. Unfortunately, the 'best way' is sadly unrealistic in the face of global threats to world peace like Islam and Communism.
Democracy: A nice idea, too bad it won't work above the level of city government.
Democrats (the party): Thoroughly useless idiots. Thankfully, they're mostly harmless, because while they're highly prone to wailing and gnashing of teeth over the personal problems of total strangers that really aren't anyone's fault but the total strangers', their only solution to anything is to throw money at it and hope it goes away. AKA DemonicRats.
Education: I think education is far too important to let the goverment mess it up. Education should be privatized immediately if not sooner. At most the government should be allowed to establish a base curriculum, with minimum requirements for arts, history, science, math, and language, and allow the educators and students to decide what to prioritize. If graduates of a particular school can't find jobs: a) they can sue for breach of contract, b) current students (and their parents) can pull them out and put them in a more successful school, and c) parent organizations can pool resources to improve their own schools without oversight. Competition is always best for the consumer. Where is the competition for public education? In private schools that everyone wants their kids in already; clearly private education is already better than public, else no market would exist for it.
Environment: Something we need to take a lot better care of, starting a long time ago.
Federal Gun Control: It's against the law in the US. Try reading the 2nd Amendment some time. The states can have all the gun control their voters will pass referendums for, I could give a rat's ass. But I happen to think the Constitution was a pretty good idea, and oughtn't be messed with by some 'well-intentioned' individuals who think they know better than everyone else.
Football: A fairly stupid name for a marginally interesting game.
Foreign Policy: See Defense.
GM Foods/Animals: I think experimentation should not be considered complete until a realistic assessment of the impact on the natural envirmonment is completed. The only legitimate way to do this is by testing such products in an enclosed ecosystem for years and years, until everything in said testbed has gone through a few generations to see if anything weird shows up. Until that's done, no GM product should be allowed to enter the natural ecosystem.
Goths: Tee-hee, they're so cute. Emos with lousy fashion sense.
Health Care: I believe that everyone has the right to find a job that offers affordable health insurance, or to refuse to work for companies that don't (which will force the companies to do so, thereby making the point moot). I also believe that people have the right to refuse a treatment if they believe it violates their beliefs.
Immigration: Anyone who opposes immigration into the US should be deported immediately. If there's any shortage of room in this country, it's for narrow-minded, bigoted, racist dipwads like them.
Indy-car Racing: A bunch of furriners turning left, really really really fast. Yeah, sign me up for that... not.
Islam: The single greatest threat to world peace since communism. Exterminate it now, and free the masses toiling under its yoke. Institutionalized misogyny and racism is not a valid belief system.
Judicial Review: Is for giving new laws a go or no-go, not creating new ones.
K I fully support the eleventh letter of the alphabet.
Lacrosse: I'm with Carlin on this one. Faggot college activity. It used to be a sport, back when it was played by native Americans.
Metric System: WTF, already America? Gonna join the rest of the planet in the new millennium or what?
NASCAR: A bunch of rednecks turning left, really really fast. Oh yeah, sign me right up for that... not.
Nuclear Power: Something to be used as a last resort, in utmost desperation, after exhausting utterly all other possible avenues. The cost of storing spent fuel should be added to the generating costs, and reflected on the customers' bills to properly reflect its real cost.
Nuclear Proliferation: Enough countries have nuclear weapons already. We don't need any more members in the nuclear club, most especially, we do not need backward, beknighted, medieval societies (like any controlled by Islam) getting the bomb. I feel so strongly about this that I would accept the use of nuclear weapons to stop the development of nuclear weapons by a potential new member.
Origami: Sculpting animals and cool shapes with paper? Neato!! I've mastered quite a few shapes myself.
Pharmaceuticals: Specifically, the big multi-nationals that make all the pills. Heh, didja see the movie 'Fight Club'? You know at the end, how they blow up all the credit card company buildings, and supposedly wipe everyone's slates clean'? Yeah, well, swap out the credit card companies for the pharmaceuticals, and swap out early in the morning when no one's in them for 'right in the middle of the stockholder's meeting when they give out the quarterly report on how much they screwed everyone over for', and that's my opinion of them. The researchers? Oh, you silly silly fools, the researchers aren't there. They're not even in special buildings devoted to research. They're doctors working on stipends (and parsimonious stipends at that) experimenting on their patients in hospitals (waivers all signed nice and legal like, don't you doubt it). Most of the pharmaceutical's R&D costs are footed by John Q Taxpayer.
Q I'm not really sure we need the 17th letter of the alphabet, 'Kw' seems to cover it nicely. Also, the character on ST Jr. was kinda 'the ghey'. Not so much the actor, as the role itself.
Reality TV: Needs to be outlawed, abolished, and thoroughly put to a stop, preferably last year. I turn my TV on to escape reality, not to immerse in it. If I want reality on TV, I'll watch CNN, dammit.
Republicans: AKA Money-Grublicans. Thouroughly despicable bastards. Excellent problem-solving abilities, but only interested in solving problems getting money into their pockets, or those of their campaign contributors. Will gladly lie, cheat, steal, or sell their own mother into slavery for a percentage.
Role-playing Games: Something kids should be encouraged to play, since sitting at a table doing math and reading is highly prefereable to shooting up drugs, knocking up fellow teens, or doing drive-by shootings. People strongly opposed to RPGs on the basis that they are bad for kids need to be euthanised, or at bare minimum sterilised.
Soccer: A legitimate sport, as a ball is involved, but a really lame one since you can't use your hands.
Tennis: An excellent sport when played by attractive women in short skirts and tight tops who grunt a lot, otherwise exceedingly dull. Used to be great when John McEnroe and Bjorn Bjorg went at it, but those days are long gone.
United Nations, The: When was the last time they made a situation, like, ANY situation, better instead of worse? And was that done in time to prevent the worst parts of its bad side? A worthless institution, that exists in its current form to facilitate internation corruption more than cooperation. Evict them from Manhattan, and rent the building out as office space.
Vampires: Wouldn't want to be one. I don't handle the sight of blood very well, so I just don't think it's a lifestyle I'm cut out for.
'W': Why wait for 2008? Impeach the prick now!!
X: Far more useful as a symbol than a letter. Still marks the spot, though.
Y: Because we like you!!
Zombies: I think I'm pretty well prepared for a slow zombie apocalypse, mentally speaking. I've also got a nice set of swords to hack em up with. Hoping really hard for the slow zombies. Whoever thought up fast zombies needs to be beaten hard with a shovel. If we get fast zombies, I'm just gonna die.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Actually, there's more here I agree with than otherwise. You've injected an enormous amount of sanity into your stance on abortion; you may actually get to "people can refuse to have, or have, any medical procedure they want to have, on their bodies" one of these days... or if you're already there in other contexts, you may come to realize that abortion really cannot be seen as an exception to this. Moral issues aside, it's very dangerous to allow the government to dictate, or forbid, medical procedures to its citizenry.
As to the rest, I'm at work, so I can't really spend a lot of time on this now. Still... I agree with a great deal more of your views than I'd have thought I would.
And, slow or fast, zombies are only fun in fiction.
Yeah, I don't think zombies are much fun at all. They suck at Trivial Pursuit, can't tell a joke to save their lives (metaphorically speaking) and they won't even stand still long enough to serve as something practical, such as a beverage holder or side table.
And like Highlander, I'm not quite sure how liberatarianism meshes with being anti-abortion, but (shudder) I agree with Bill Clinton when he said that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."
Deeeeeead zombies are no fun
they don't come when you callll them...
Uh, no, wait. They DO come when you call them. Hmmmm...
hey, nobody cares! bitch...no wait, make that "BITCH"!
Honestly the abortion thing is kind of minor, I'm far more worried about the zombies.
Just remembered these are my comment threads...
Actually, there's more here I agree with than otherwise. You've injected an enormous amount of sanity into your stance on abortion;
Well, my stance is the same, I've just learned to articulate it much better.
you may actually get to "people can refuse to have, or have, any medical procedure they want to have, on their bodies" one of these days...
Oh I am.
or if you're already there in other contexts, you may come to realize that abortion really cannot be seen as an exception to this.
See, this is where we disagree. An abortion never affects less than two patients, and always kills one of them. That being the case, there has to be an equally pressing life interest at stake for both patients.
The baby is not inserted into the womb as a 'placeholder cyst' is drained off by angels or aliens or storks or whatever moments before birth. It's there from shortly after conception, developing.
Now, someone wants a medical procdure that affects only them, I got no problem with that. But when their desired medical procedure invloves killing someone else, there had best be a much better reason than the party of the first part not wanting to deal with the party of the second part's impact on their finances, social freedom, or convenience. In fact, nothing less than competing life interests will do. You can argue that along to stretch it (rather thinly) over rape, incest, and (monolayer thinly) over birth defects. That's about as far as that argument will stretch.
Moral issues aside, it's very dangerous to allow the government to dictate, or forbid, medical procedures to its citizenry.
But it makes perfect sense to not allow us to dictate medical procedures for strangers, especially if those procedures will kill them to benefit us.
My conscience will not allow me to bend any further on this. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone, and explain my reasoning as best I can. But I truly believe that anyone who disagrees with me on the side of allowing the use of abortion as after-the-fact contraception is just plain wrong-headed. It may well be a matter of differing valuation (or definition) of human life, and if so, well, that's a rather insurmountable point of contention.
And that's all I have to say about that. (For now.)
I'm skipping over responding to much of this interesting post, but wanted to offer up a couple items (because I like to stir up trouble...;).
Sadly, It seems that more and more firms are eliminating health care benefits altogether. Not just small companies, either. FedEx now offers a "reimbursement account", in lieu of providing benefits, along with suggestions on how to find your own health care provider. They are not alone. And as the cost of individual policies rise, more and more people will be put in a position of choosing to use the money to put a roof over their heads or food in their children's body, rather than make some feeble attempt to purchase a health insurance policy that will likely be inadequate anyway (given costs). It's truly a shame.
As for Federal Gun Control, I understand there's an amendment giving any idiot that wants it, the right to possess a dangerous weapon. I also understand that the intent, when the constitution (and that amendment in particular) was motivated by a situation that no longer exists. And just as the constitution has been amended in the past, or as amendments that do not work, or are unnecessary, have been repealed in the past, I'm hopeful that some 'well-intentioned individuals' can work towards making some long overdue changes that may (and I did say MAY) make this country a little safer for those of us who don't feel the need to keep a weapon and don't feel safe with the fact that quite a few unbalanced, unqualified people do.
You and I share many of the same personal opinions regarding abortion. The difference, as we've discussed in the past, is where our personal opinions end and where we think governmental policy should begin. I understand your position. I honestly do. And I don't want you to think I minimize it, either. Because I don't. But, just as you believe that individuals have the right to refuse health care treatment based on their beliefs, it is my opinion that the government has to overlook those same kinds of beliefs to make safe medical options available to it's citizens, thus preserving individual rights in the most basic sense...control of one's own body. Just because it's available, doesn't mean everyone has to run right out and get one. But if your beliefs don't stand in your way of it, you shouldn't have someone else, whose beliefs do, stopping you.
Ok, again, FEDERAL Gun-control will require a Constitutional Amendment to be legal in the US. Not my rules. Anything less than a Constitutional Amendment is not sufficient, no matter who wrings their hands however much. If the states as individual entities want to have gun-control laws, that is the current default setting of the legal status of gun-control. But the federal government ain't allowed to do it without the previously mentioned document, and then only after it gets ratified by a majority of states.
Not. My. Rules.
(And if the amendment is drawn up, passes both houses, and is subsequently ratified by the appropriate number of states, I will immediately embrace it with open arms. I am a creature of laws.)
See, liberals (and some of us fence-sitters) see the Patriot Act and think 'Abuse of power!! Danger Will Robinson, DANGER!!', because it violates the Constitution in spirit, and (probably, although I admit I don't know for a fact) in letter as well. But when the liberals are just as guilty of violating the spirit of the Constitution, AND the letter, by passing and enforcing illegal laws, who's got a moral leg to stand on while accusing the other guys now?
You can't protest abuse of power out one side of your mouth and practice it yourself out the other. That dog won't hunt. (That is my rule.)
As to the other topic (abortion), again we see our fundamental difference is evident, in your statement: "control of one's own body".
I see the unborn as seperate entities, with equally compelling rights to life as anyone else. Unless the mother's life is at stake, her less-compelling financial, social, and convenience interests are trumped by the unborn's life interest.
If mom wants anything from a piercing to voluntary brain surgery for a lobotomy, or any other imaginable form of medical or cosmetic procedure, you're absolutely right. It's her body. But when such a procedure is going to directly affect someone else (like her unborn child), well, now the surgery is affecting TWO bodies.
Her body her choice, absolutely yes. Their (plural) bodies, her choice? Not so cut-and-dried.
Our mileage clearly varies, but I'm always willing to hear someone else's point of view, even if I disagree with it.
And, available? I do not advocate the outlawing of all abortions. That's an undefensible position. What I advocate is forbidding the use of abortion as after-the-fact contraception, which 98+% of most abortion-seekers see it as. There are plenty of contraceptive choices out there that will prevent a pregnancy. Once a pregnancy has begun, another person has entered the picture, and it is wrong to arbitrarily deny their inalienable rights just for convenience's sake.
I'm beginning to understand that the 'other side' of the abortion debate (Any disinterested observer would place me smack in the middle of the two sides.) that is, the pro-choice side, is just as absolutely unwilling to budge the slightest inch from total dominion as the pro-lifers are. Of course, both sides argue like they want the OTHER guy to cave to a few 'reasonable arguments', but both seem, to me, to be arguing in bad faith. They're willing to put forth a compromise for the other, but only with the understanding that no compromise at all is forthcoming from them.
This is getting long, but I have to ask one thing (and this question goes to both sides):
"If, right now, you found yourself seated at a table with 'the powers-that-be', and across from you was your opponent in the debate, and he offered to accept your 'compromise' (a pro-lifer allowing rape/incest/medically necessary abortions, in exchange for a pro-choicer giving up abortion-as-contraception after the fact, or vice-versa), would you accept?
I'd bet my last nickel the answer is no for pro-choicers. I'm honestly not so sure of the pro-lifers' decision.
You tell me what that means.
Post a Comment