A friend of mine recently had a miscarriage. She is fine, but it just reinforces how wrongheaded the ultra-right conservatives are who think that life begins at conception.
If that was a separate life, not just a preterm fetus, then my friend's body is responsible for ending its life. That would make her guilty of murder, no? Or at least manslaughter. Yet no reasonable person would charge a woman that miscarries with that.
The argument that life begins at conception because god ensouls the two cells also falls apart with miscarriage. If god is all-knowing, why would he bother if the baby isn't going to be born? Or go the other way: what about when twins happen? Do they each get half a soul? Or did god play it safe and pack extras? What if god puts two souls in for twins, then it aborts? My friend could be charged with mass murder.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Wanted and Unwanted Sympathy
An acquaintance of mine recently had a miscarriage. It was expected; there was pain, and the doctor confirmed that there was no heartbeat. So when she passed the grape-sized blob and attached thread, there was mostly relief that the pain would stop. A quick flush, some rest, and she was ready to continue on with her life.
Her mistake was in telling people that she was pregnant so early. When people find out that she is no longer pregnant, they always seem to want to offer sympathy. The natural response presupposes that women want and need to have children: they offer sympathy that her pregnancy failed. (Not spoken, but suggested, is that SHE failed as a woman).
The problem is that she was lukewarm about the pregnancy all along. In some respects she is a little relieved that she doesn't have to go along with it. She knows that the timing was bad for her and her partner; she has even expressed doubts about her partner's long-term viability. So she is fine with the miscarriage.
She just doesn't know what to say to people when they they say how sorry they are that she isn't pregnant any more. "Thanks; now can we talk about YOUR cervix"? "Okay. I'm accepting cash and chocolate"? "That's okay; it was delicious"?
Another friend of mine got some remembrances of her deceased husband recently, and it quickly brought tears to her eyes. She said it was good to remember him, that it helped keep the memories fresh and vivid, but that most people were hesitant about bringing him up out of fear that it would bring that sadness. What they were missing was that the sadness is just an indication of how much she loved him, and it was good to know that others missed him as well.
Mensans tend to be an affectionate, hands-on crowd. Most, but not all, are enthusiastic huggers. When there is a weekend gathering, a simple color code is employed. Attendees put red, yellow, or green stickers on their badges to indicate that it is okay to hug, not okay, or that you need to get permission first.
It might be good if we could employ that system for our everyday interactions. "Yes, please talk to me about my dead husband; the tears are natural and not unwanted" or "Give me sympathy for my dead fetus if you like, but I don't really need it." It would make navigating every day interactions more rewarding for both parties.
Her mistake was in telling people that she was pregnant so early. When people find out that she is no longer pregnant, they always seem to want to offer sympathy. The natural response presupposes that women want and need to have children: they offer sympathy that her pregnancy failed. (Not spoken, but suggested, is that SHE failed as a woman).
The problem is that she was lukewarm about the pregnancy all along. In some respects she is a little relieved that she doesn't have to go along with it. She knows that the timing was bad for her and her partner; she has even expressed doubts about her partner's long-term viability. So she is fine with the miscarriage.
She just doesn't know what to say to people when they they say how sorry they are that she isn't pregnant any more. "Thanks; now can we talk about YOUR cervix"? "Okay. I'm accepting cash and chocolate"? "That's okay; it was delicious"?
Another friend of mine got some remembrances of her deceased husband recently, and it quickly brought tears to her eyes. She said it was good to remember him, that it helped keep the memories fresh and vivid, but that most people were hesitant about bringing him up out of fear that it would bring that sadness. What they were missing was that the sadness is just an indication of how much she loved him, and it was good to know that others missed him as well.
Mensans tend to be an affectionate, hands-on crowd. Most, but not all, are enthusiastic huggers. When there is a weekend gathering, a simple color code is employed. Attendees put red, yellow, or green stickers on their badges to indicate that it is okay to hug, not okay, or that you need to get permission first.
It might be good if we could employ that system for our everyday interactions. "Yes, please talk to me about my dead husband; the tears are natural and not unwanted" or "Give me sympathy for my dead fetus if you like, but I don't really need it." It would make navigating every day interactions more rewarding for both parties.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
The Experience Whore
The East Coast had a rare earthquake recently, and although it was mild (about 5.9), my first thought wasn't for the damage or for people's safety. It was: why wasn't I there? I desperately wanted to experience an earthquake.
It isn't just earthquakes. I have a yearning for all sorts of experiences, both natural and social. I've briefly been in California and Seattle, both quake-prone locations, but nothing happened. The one hurricane I have direct experience with was so mild we went out and walked around in it, wondering if we should try flying kites.
I wouldn't be so jealous if the women I know didn't have a long list of experiences behind them. As a group, them seem to blithely have taken hash, acid, mushrooms, heroin, and coke. They've had one-night stands and threesomes and rape. There has been skipping school, blowing off work, drunken partying, and thievery.
And the consequences? None. They are happy, intelligent, and well adjusted. If they wanted to write a story about tripping at a party and waking up in a strange hotel room, they have the authenticity to make it feel real.
I don't. Yet I'm the one that fancies himself a writer.
So when my hometown experiences a disaster, my first emotion isn't empathy.
It's jealousy.
It isn't just earthquakes. I have a yearning for all sorts of experiences, both natural and social. I've briefly been in California and Seattle, both quake-prone locations, but nothing happened. The one hurricane I have direct experience with was so mild we went out and walked around in it, wondering if we should try flying kites.
I wouldn't be so jealous if the women I know didn't have a long list of experiences behind them. As a group, them seem to blithely have taken hash, acid, mushrooms, heroin, and coke. They've had one-night stands and threesomes and rape. There has been skipping school, blowing off work, drunken partying, and thievery.
And the consequences? None. They are happy, intelligent, and well adjusted. If they wanted to write a story about tripping at a party and waking up in a strange hotel room, they have the authenticity to make it feel real.
I don't. Yet I'm the one that fancies himself a writer.
So when my hometown experiences a disaster, my first emotion isn't empathy.
It's jealousy.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Can You Hear Me Now?
Conservative Christian/ Republican politicians often beseech god to lead their way, to show them a sign that they are doing the right thing and guiding events. It stands that god would also warn that you are being a douche.
Eric Cantor recently played a role in the federal debt ceiling negotiations, insisting that millionaires and billionaires shouldn't be taxed, and that only spending cuts were acceptable to him, and was willing to shut down the government to get his way. He advocated cutting things like NPR, Planned Parenthood, the US Geological Survey, the National Weather Service, NASA, and NOAA.
This week a large earthquake hit the east coast. It was a 5.8, and was felt from Georgia, to Illinois, to Rhode Island. The epicenter was in Eric Cantor's congressional district. Do you think he took it as a warning? Keep in mind that the USGS tracks earthquakes and is learning to predict them, potentially saving lives and rebuilding costs.
Within days of the earthquake, Irene, a Category 3 hurricane, will make landfall near his house. The National Weather Service, NOAA, and NASA are all instrumental in predicting the strength and track of these storms, again potentially saving lives and protecting the country.
Has Mr Cantor been reading the signs?
Apparently not. He is now claiming that any money spent on repairs from the hurricane should be accounted for by spending cuts.
I wouldn't stand close to him. At this rate, a bolt of lightning is next. With his spending cuts in place, he'll never see it coming.
Eric Cantor recently played a role in the federal debt ceiling negotiations, insisting that millionaires and billionaires shouldn't be taxed, and that only spending cuts were acceptable to him, and was willing to shut down the government to get his way. He advocated cutting things like NPR, Planned Parenthood, the US Geological Survey, the National Weather Service, NASA, and NOAA.
This week a large earthquake hit the east coast. It was a 5.8, and was felt from Georgia, to Illinois, to Rhode Island. The epicenter was in Eric Cantor's congressional district. Do you think he took it as a warning? Keep in mind that the USGS tracks earthquakes and is learning to predict them, potentially saving lives and rebuilding costs.
Within days of the earthquake, Irene, a Category 3 hurricane, will make landfall near his house. The National Weather Service, NOAA, and NASA are all instrumental in predicting the strength and track of these storms, again potentially saving lives and protecting the country.
Has Mr Cantor been reading the signs?
Apparently not. He is now claiming that any money spent on repairs from the hurricane should be accounted for by spending cuts.
I wouldn't stand close to him. At this rate, a bolt of lightning is next. With his spending cuts in place, he'll never see it coming.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Jesus Told Me To
Today Congressman King announced that he is going forward with his hearings about radicalized Muslims in America. It is wrong, short-sighted, stupid, and racist. He seems to think that only Muslims can engage in terrorism, when in fact a belief in ANY mythical being can produce such extreme violence. Anything is permissible if god tells you to do it, right?
Muslims certainly get plenty of attention when something happens, but they are far from the only players in this game. Christians, boasting that 'God is love,' are all too willing to fall into the trap of destroying anyone that doesn't conform to the saved ones game plan.
The blind irony is that the hearings are on the heels of the bombing and shootings in Norway, long presumed a safe country. Yet it wasn't a Muslim that killed scores of people, including children at camp , it was a righteous christian. If that information was too timely to get to Mr King, there are plenty of other examples. It wasn't Muslims that blew up Oklahoma City's Murrah Center, burned down the Branch Davidian complex with children inside, or shot Dr Tiller (in church, no less!).
Welcome to the world of equal opportunity hate. It isn't Islam, or even Christianity, that is to blame. When you believe that your actions will be judged by their righteousness in an afterlife, and that anybody that doesn't believe as you do won't be there, then you have no reason to NOT kill infidels. Blind religious faith, of any stripe, is dangerous.
When was the last time you heard of somebody that tried to start a war in the name of atheism?
The people that attempt to start race wars, or religious wars, always assume that god is on their side, and forget that the other side believes the same thing. The battle isn't between Christians and Muslims; it is between humanity and inhumanity.
Muslims certainly get plenty of attention when something happens, but they are far from the only players in this game. Christians, boasting that 'God is love,' are all too willing to fall into the trap of destroying anyone that doesn't conform to the saved ones game plan.
The blind irony is that the hearings are on the heels of the bombing and shootings in Norway, long presumed a safe country. Yet it wasn't a Muslim that killed scores of people, including children at camp , it was a righteous christian. If that information was too timely to get to Mr King, there are plenty of other examples. It wasn't Muslims that blew up Oklahoma City's Murrah Center, burned down the Branch Davidian complex with children inside, or shot Dr Tiller (in church, no less!).
Welcome to the world of equal opportunity hate. It isn't Islam, or even Christianity, that is to blame. When you believe that your actions will be judged by their righteousness in an afterlife, and that anybody that doesn't believe as you do won't be there, then you have no reason to NOT kill infidels. Blind religious faith, of any stripe, is dangerous.
When was the last time you heard of somebody that tried to start a war in the name of atheism?
The people that attempt to start race wars, or religious wars, always assume that god is on their side, and forget that the other side believes the same thing. The battle isn't between Christians and Muslims; it is between humanity and inhumanity.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Those Lovely Gray Wrinkles
I have been involved with redheads, blondes, auburns, and the gray-haired, but never for those reasons. I gathered my companions based on the content of their cranium, not the color of their hair.
They included a three-term president of Mensa, a National Honor Society scholar, a schoolteacher, someone that leapfrogged high school graduation and was accepted directly to college, and someone that has gone back to school in middle age to become a lawyer, and so far is getting straight As.
No doubt about it, I think smart is sexy.
They included a three-term president of Mensa, a National Honor Society scholar, a schoolteacher, someone that leapfrogged high school graduation and was accepted directly to college, and someone that has gone back to school in middle age to become a lawyer, and so far is getting straight As.
No doubt about it, I think smart is sexy.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Petulant Peacocks
I’ve noticed that I get the same feeling watching Kitchen Nightmares as I do watching House. As I watch these two pissants strutting about, I don’t think ‘what high standards!’ I think ‘what jerks!’
Both people (even though one is fictional) yell, threaten, bully, insult, and act as though they are the chosen one. Both have loyal, rabid fans.
Those fans are mostly female for both shows. I keep trying to make something of that statistic, but I can’t decide what it means. Do men have such strong egos that they are resistant to watching someone else’s? Are women so programmed to desire authority that they think think this is just robust alpha-male behavior? Is watching these programs equivalent to staying in an abusive relationship?
I read a study that examined why women stay with violent, dangerous, motorcycle gang types. The women reported that they felt that they would be protected there. Is this just a sanitized version of that?
I also wonder if part of my distaste is simple jealousy. Who wouldn’t want want to act like a spoiled child, not be concerned with other people, not be careful about phrasing things well or pissing off somebody in authority, and still be hailed as a saviour? That part is just as galling to me: that the people are so thankful that they were treated so poorly. It isn’t tough love; there is no love involved. Merely a small ego that wishes it were big.
That’s what Dr Phil (another obnoxious blowhard) would say. People that yell at the slightest provocation, feel the need to belittle others, don’t allow others to have dissenting opinions, instantly insult, and sulk when they don’t get their way know that they are unimportant and are trying to make themselves look important.
I think they just look sad.
Both people (even though one is fictional) yell, threaten, bully, insult, and act as though they are the chosen one. Both have loyal, rabid fans.
Those fans are mostly female for both shows. I keep trying to make something of that statistic, but I can’t decide what it means. Do men have such strong egos that they are resistant to watching someone else’s? Are women so programmed to desire authority that they think think this is just robust alpha-male behavior? Is watching these programs equivalent to staying in an abusive relationship?
I read a study that examined why women stay with violent, dangerous, motorcycle gang types. The women reported that they felt that they would be protected there. Is this just a sanitized version of that?
I also wonder if part of my distaste is simple jealousy. Who wouldn’t want want to act like a spoiled child, not be concerned with other people, not be careful about phrasing things well or pissing off somebody in authority, and still be hailed as a saviour? That part is just as galling to me: that the people are so thankful that they were treated so poorly. It isn’t tough love; there is no love involved. Merely a small ego that wishes it were big.
That’s what Dr Phil (another obnoxious blowhard) would say. People that yell at the slightest provocation, feel the need to belittle others, don’t allow others to have dissenting opinions, instantly insult, and sulk when they don’t get their way know that they are unimportant and are trying to make themselves look important.
I think they just look sad.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Fire Across the Middle East
There have been public uprisings across the Middle East lately, as crowds gather to protest their living conditions, political process, and call for their long-time leaders to step down.
It started in Egypt, then moved to Bahrain and Libya, with pundits and analysts extolling that just about any country over there was vulnerable.
I've heard some people claim that this spontaneous call for democracy is a justification for Bush jr's invasion of Iraq, since this is what his (eventual) stated goal was, and they were inspired by him.
This argument seems to have two main problems with it. The first country to feel the fire was Egypt. When the president offered partial concessions, the crowds insisted that it wasn't enough and they wanted the military to assume power.
When the protests started, the newscasters made the point that Egypt was our closest ally in the Middle East. Is this what we wanted for our friend? To kick him out of office with a military coup?
The second issue with attributing these protests to Bush is one of timing. If these are motivated by the American military might, why didn't they happen in 2003 when we ran the invasion? Why didn't they happen in 2004 when we enforced law by giving Saddam Hussein a trial rather than summarily executing him? Why didn't they happen in 2006 when he was finally executed? Why not when elections were held in Iraq, or when we withdrew troops, thinking that they would be available to support protestors in other countries?
Why now, two years after Bush has left office?
If anything, I think this proves just how misbegotten, wrong-headed and wasteful the invasion was. These protests are getting results, even to the point of removing leaders that had been in power for decades, and they have been largely peaceful. No invasion, outside-enacted regime change, or specious rationales required.
It started in Egypt, then moved to Bahrain and Libya, with pundits and analysts extolling that just about any country over there was vulnerable.
I've heard some people claim that this spontaneous call for democracy is a justification for Bush jr's invasion of Iraq, since this is what his (eventual) stated goal was, and they were inspired by him.
This argument seems to have two main problems with it. The first country to feel the fire was Egypt. When the president offered partial concessions, the crowds insisted that it wasn't enough and they wanted the military to assume power.
When the protests started, the newscasters made the point that Egypt was our closest ally in the Middle East. Is this what we wanted for our friend? To kick him out of office with a military coup?
The second issue with attributing these protests to Bush is one of timing. If these are motivated by the American military might, why didn't they happen in 2003 when we ran the invasion? Why didn't they happen in 2004 when we enforced law by giving Saddam Hussein a trial rather than summarily executing him? Why didn't they happen in 2006 when he was finally executed? Why not when elections were held in Iraq, or when we withdrew troops, thinking that they would be available to support protestors in other countries?
Why now, two years after Bush has left office?
If anything, I think this proves just how misbegotten, wrong-headed and wasteful the invasion was. These protests are getting results, even to the point of removing leaders that had been in power for decades, and they have been largely peaceful. No invasion, outside-enacted regime change, or specious rationales required.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Left Right out
A new slate of congresspeople has just been sworn in. They campaigned on the idea that the government is too big, and has overreached, doing things that it doesn't have the legal authority to do. they claim to be firm followers of the Constitution, view it as sacrosanct, and read it out loud on the floor of Congress to remind everyone how sincere they are about this.
But they didn't.
It is curious that people who claim to want to follow the Original Intent of the drafters of the Constitution didn't actually read the original draft. They read the current version, amendments and repeals included. Even they realized that talk about how blacks only couldn't as 3/5ths of a person, that slavery was legal, and only white males were citizens might cost them votes.
Fair enough. And intelligent enough.
But doesn't that leave them in a fairly hypocritical position? How can they claim to want to follow the original meaning of the Constitution while admitting that it has been shaped and improved over time?
The flash point for this Originalism is the health care laws that got passed. Some claim that there is nothing that allows the government to do such a thing. Yet I think the phrases "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare" are intentionally vague, and cover a lot of ground.
But they didn't.
It is curious that people who claim to want to follow the Original Intent of the drafters of the Constitution didn't actually read the original draft. They read the current version, amendments and repeals included. Even they realized that talk about how blacks only couldn't as 3/5ths of a person, that slavery was legal, and only white males were citizens might cost them votes.
Fair enough. And intelligent enough.
But doesn't that leave them in a fairly hypocritical position? How can they claim to want to follow the original meaning of the Constitution while admitting that it has been shaped and improved over time?
The flash point for this Originalism is the health care laws that got passed. Some claim that there is nothing that allows the government to do such a thing. Yet I think the phrases "provide for the common defense" and "promote the general welfare" are intentionally vague, and cover a lot of ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)