Some of you may remember a couple of years ago when I posted of an encounter I had with a woman over her toddler locked in an SUV. It was a typical summer day here on the edge of Vulcan's penis with temperatures breaking one hundred in the shade. I watched the SUV for over ten minutes while K. was in the store, twice entering the shop myself to broadcast that there was a child in distress in the parking lot and the cops were about to be called. After my second announcement, the mum wandered out of the store just in time to stop me as I was dialing up our local police. She then proceeded to tear into me for questioning her parenting ability and not minding my own business. My parting words to her, "Dead babies are everybody's business."
All arguements over global warming aside, summer is hot in most places. Fifteen children have already died this year from being left in hot cars and summer ihas barely begun to heat up. Do not be afraid to speak up. I was prepared to bust out the self-absorbed bint's window if the child had looked lethargic or no one had shown up for the child in the next ten minutes but then I am not exactly meek in such situations. Anyone can call the police, though, and should if they find themselves witnessing a similar situation. Better some pissed off parent has to talk to police then the coroner.
I know a few mothers in real life who will not accept even the slightest constructive criticism, from anyone, on their parenting skills.
It seems that to them, a mother's natural instinct is a sacred and infallible thing, therefore to question any part of it is just a veiled way of saying "You're a bad mother!"
After hearing variations of that logic from 3 older women, it sort of surprised me to hear it come from the mouth of a 4th just a week after she gave birth to her first baby.
Are women, mothers especially, irrational creatures driven by emotion and hormones? I'll hazard a guess and say that yeah, they are.
Why must you cockblock natural selection. :|
I say, if the parent's nowhere to be seen, see if there's a cop around. If not, break one of the windows. It's a justifiable action. A window can be replaced. The cops around here have done that in the past.
callitaday wrote:I say, if the parent's nowhere to be seen, see if there's a cop around. If not, break one of the windows. It's a justifiable action. A window can be replaced. The cops around here have done that in the past.
This. If the sound of glass breaking doesn't grab someone's attention, the sound of the panicked baby crying from inside the car surely will!
I prefer using the moms head to break out the glass.
Why must the children suffer because their parents have no common sense? I sometimes fear for the future of the world (not just out country) because of stuff like this. I know not eveybody is like this, but seriously. Don't leave your kid out in triple digit heat for whatever reason (most of which are probably selfish), you're just asking for a visit from child services.
Majora wrote:Why must you cockblock natural selection. :|
I could not help myself. I was more focused on pissing off whomever thought it was a good idea to leave their toddler in a glass and steel box at the height of summer.
Glenn wrote:Are women, mothers especially, irrational creatures driven by emotion and hormones?
Glenn, you are correct. Sort of. There is also this whole psychological ideology of the mother figure. The mother figure is inviolate; she gives life and rears & protects until her charges reach maturity. Our own mothers (or other matriarchs if applicable) were our basis of understanding the world. In most cases they were infallible, usually because they told us they were, and as children we usually believed this down to our bones even when we rightly or wrongly speculated otherwise. We may figure out that our matriarchs are only human by the time we have our own kiddums but we often reach back to the tyranny that is motherhood for dealing with our own brood. Problems arise when the despotic types have to take their parenting style outside their own borders and they try to hold onto their illusions of absolute authoritarianism. They over-compensate. Some to the extent of a North Korean dictator. So long as they are only inflicting their whims on their own we tolerate it to an extent short of war crimes because we would not want anyone telling us how to raise our families, amiright? Those women who were not raised by mothers/matriarchs or were raised by bad sorts (perceived or otherwise) often feel their lack of a good mother figure makes them more aware of the need for and instincts of the mother figure. That is a short version of the long answer.
The short answer, power corrupts.
Bel', cute but Roe V. Wade was about unborn babies, not dead babies.
Mercy wrote:
Roe V. Wade was about unborn babies, not dead babies.
Roe V. Wade was about living babies being turned into dead babies by women who think their vaginas are so magical that being inside of one means your life doesn't count.
Beldaran wrote:Roe V. Wade was about living babies being turned into dead babies by women who think their vaginas are so magical that being inside of one means your life doesn't count.
Please. Humans cant survive outside of the womb without parental support. You want to talk about what SHOULD be? We SHOULD all die because we can't fucking fend for ourselves or ACTUALLY survive for at LEAST one year.
I'm not saying we should just kill infants if theyre annoying or otherwise an issue, but if something isn't born yet, and especially if its the first third or two thirds of the pregnancy, then who the fuck am I to tell a woman what to do?
If you guys don't think vaginas are magical, we should go back to discussing Doma or prop 8.
I've always felt that on the notion of abortion, the issue is that basically, for at least the first two-thirds of pregnancy, the fetus is completely incapable of possessing thoughts or feelings. The structure simply isn't there. Once the structure is there, I'm on the fence, but before the structure is there, I have no problem with abortion. It's our thoughts and feelings that define us as people, not our biological functions, in my opinion. For that same reason, I fully support being taken off life support should I ever suffer enough brain damage to basically be in a brain-dead coma.
True, but by that point, you've (hopefully) lived life and had a lot of experiences, and contributed much to society. But taking a life in the womb...they never even get a chance to succeed or fail.
As for not having thoughts or feelings, here's one to ponder. A baby named Nicholas Coke was born a few years ago with a condition known as anencephaly. He looked completely normal, but he was missing most of his brain. He couldn't talk, probably couldn't see or hear, though they're not sure about that, and if he had thoughts, they were extremely limited. But he lived to be two years old, and didn't seem to be in any pain. In fact, he would smile when his mother or grandmother held him. Now, he can't contribute to society, at least in the financial sense. But...he's no more developed mentally than a fetus in the first trimester. Let's say you have the option to take a knife and murder him, with no repercussions. Can you do it? Why or why not?
ctrl-alt-delete wrote:If you guys don't think vaginas are magical, we should go back to discussing Doma or prop 8.
As someone with a vagina, I have to admit they are magical. Doors automatically open, packages become lighter, furniture moves, and icky bugs are relocated to hell with merely a word because of my vagina. Having a vagina means never having to pay for drinks. It also magically lowers my earning potential but there is always an accompanying curse to any magical object. Some vaginas even have the power to produce fabulous pieces of jewelry. And who needs guns; my vagina can bring grown men to their knees.
The word sounds less magical the more you say it.
Vagina.
There's a difference between having half a brain and having no brain at all. There's a difference between being mentally underdeveloped and simply not existing in the first place. Believe me, I work in special needs, I'm not making that argument at all. I'm saying if the brain doesn't exist, then the person doesn't exist. You can be missing most of your brain and still have neurons firing, but you need to have at least something for neurons to be firing in the first place. Everything you are, everything that defines you as a person, is in your brain. Yes, after a certain point in development, a fetus gains a brain and the brain activates, but there's a large chunk of time before that happens. In that, I fail to see the ethical issue.
And just, I don't know why you'd say that having only part of a brain is the same as having no brain at all.
He didn't have half a brain. He scarcely had more than a brain stem. No cerebellum, maybe a tablespoonful of white matter. It wasn't so much that he was mentally underdeveloped, as much as he was mentally not really there, with that small exception I mentioned above. But he still made a contribution, however small, to his family.
I suppose my attitudes are too simplistic and provincial for the 21st century. I simply can't draw that sort of "line of death", if you will. If I were to look at an ultrasound, I don't think "Well, that's a fetus in the first trimester of pregnancy." I think "I wonder if it's a boy or girl. What will they name it?"
I just think it's a woman's choice, and old white men need to stay out of it.
People want me to respect their views, and I do, even if I don't agree with them.
It's not too much to ask the same in return.
While I don't disrespect you personally for having those views, it's a little lopsided to suggest that respect is the only barrier, when one side is actively trying to prevent the other side from participating in their beliefs.
For the record, I don't think that abortion is GOOD, I just think that I am not someone who will ever have one, so I don't need to be trying to stop it. I shouldn't be telling a woman what she can do with her body.
I wasn't telling anyone what to do. I was providing a different argument.
I make a distinction between tolerance and respect. I can tolerate just about any view that a person might have, but respect is earned. I don't respect any opinion that denies a woman's right to have an abortion.
What I would like to see is more discussion on a man's rights in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy.
A man should not be forced to have any legal obligations, such as paying child support, when the pregnant woman decides to give birth to the child over the man's protest.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. But I'm not trying to force anything on anyone here. I simply wanted to put another idea out there that might just help someone think about all sides before making a decision. It is not about denying anyone's rights, as I just said above. I simply want to put the idea out that abortion might not be the best idea in every circumstance. If I haven't made that clear, I apologize. I'm not the most eloquent man.
That's all I'm going to say on the subject.
I say a woman has the right until month X to choose for herself. End of discussion.
Glenn the Great wrote:
What I would like to see is more discussion on a man's rights in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy.
A man should not be forced to have any legal obligations, such as paying child support, when the pregnant woman decides to give birth to the child over the man's protest.
Ho ho. Wouldn't that be interesting! What if we take that a step further:
Suppose Tom rapes Jerry and Tom goes to prison for 9 months. Now suppose Jerry gets pregnant and decides to keep Toms baby (We'll call him/her Terry). Does Tom have to pay child support for Terry? Or, what rights should Tom have to be able to protest against Jerry's right to sue for child support?! :frog:
Gleeok wrote:Suppose Tom rapes Jerry and Tom goes to prison for 9 months. Now suppose Jerry gets pregnant and decides to keep Toms baby (We'll call him/her Terry). Does Tom have to pay child support for Terry? Or, what rights should Tom have to be able to protest against Jerry's right to sue for child support?! :frog:
Tom is already paying his debt to society for raping her... that's why he's in prison.
When Jerry (Geri?) makes the decision to carry the baby to full term, she also decides to take responsibility to provide for that baby. If she can't provide for it, she shouldn't have it.
I don't go and buy a pet that I cannot take care of. Similarly, if someone dumps an animal off onto my property that I am unwilling or unable to take care of, I don't take it into my house.
No woman is *forced* to take care of a baby; there is always a way for her to relinquish control over that child.
For those who just can't bring themselves to destroy a fetus, the child can always be put up for adoption.
Some may make the argument that there are women who cannot emotionally bring themselves to give up the child (either through abortion or adoption), so therefore the man should be forced to provide the resources for her to care for it.
I say to those people that there are drunks and other drug addicts who can't emotionally bring themselves to stop drinking or using, but we don't force others to subsidize their weaknesses.
Glenn the Great wrote:I make a distinction between tolerance and respect. I can tolerate just about any view that a person might have, but respect is earned. I don't respect any opinion that denies a woman's right to have an abortion.What I would like to see is more discussion on a man's rights in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy.
A man should not be forced to have any legal obligations, such as paying child support, when the pregnant woman decides to give birth to the child over the man's protest.
Shouldn't a man have been responsible enough to have attempted contraception in the first place?
Glenn the Great wrote:What I would like to see is more discussion on a man's rights in the situation of an unwanted pregnancy.
You have the right to wear a condom and/or have a vasectomy. Your right to decide ends the moment your little swimmers leave the chute. Your responsibility for the actions of your swimmers are still yours to meet. What, that's not fair? Mature females get to cramp and bleed every month or puke, swell, and ache for up to nine months per sprog-fest for the sake of the reproductive cycle.
Some may make the argument that there are women who cannot emotionally bring themselves to give up the child (either through abortion or adoption), so therefore the man should be forced to provide the resources for her to care for it.
If only it were that simple. When pregnancy no longer takes up months of and profoundly alters a woman's life, we can revisit your opinion that pregnancy is merely an emotional inconvenience.
I say to those people that there are drunks and other drug addicts who can't emotionally bring themselves to stop drinking or using, but we don't force others to subsidize their weaknesses.
Yeah, about
that.... C'mon, you are not even trying here. It is no secret that there are federal & state* sponsored/funded programmes for addiction recovery.
Gleeok wrote:Suppose Tom rapes Jerry and Tom goes to prison for 9 months. Now suppose Jerry gets pregnant and decides to keep Toms baby (We'll call him/her Terry). Does Tom have to pay child support for Terry? Or, what rights should Tom have to be able to protest against Jerry's right to sue for child support?!
Just like any other man whose intention is merely for a little slap & tickle, he is responsible for the actions of his swimmers. If Tom is lucky enough to live in one of
31 states, he can
sue for other
parental rights. Paul Ryan and Todd "their bodies have ways of shutting the whole thing down" Akin muddied up the the search engines with their delusions regarding human reproduction last election cycle so I will spare you more citations such as women forced to gestate their rapists seeds because daddy-rapists managed to get injunctions stopping terminations. Anyone who is curious may want to pay special attention to the stories of minors raped by family daddies/uncles/step-daddies and forced to keep the issues, often because their mum's were in denial or complicit. This is me tapping out, though. I have read too many articles and legal journals on rape just while putting this post together and it is making me want to go play with my cats and poke around my garden so I can remember life is not always such an ugly endeavor.
*at least some states...not worth verifying all states as any makes the point.
Gleeok wrote:I say a woman has the right until month X to choose for herself. End of discussion.Ho ho. Wouldn't that be interesting! What if we take that a step further:
Suppose Tom rapes Jerry and Tom goes to prison for 9 months. Now suppose Jerry gets pregnant and decides to keep Toms baby (We'll call him/her Terry). Does Tom have to pay child support for Terry? Or, what rights should Tom have to be able to protest against Jerry's right to sue for child support?! :frog:
31 state something something... I can't see how a state would give someone rights about something that the person would go to prison for.. That'd be like having rights to money I robbed from a bank even when I got caught already..
Tom would have too. Because if Jerry decided to abort even, left with no choice, either path screams restitution.
