I just recently finished the sixth and final installment of Jean Auel's Earth Children series, and I've concluded it's a subversive book. No, not because it takes place on an Earth more than six thousand years old, not because it depicts goddess worship in a pre-Christian world, nor because it imagines our ancestors interbreeding with Neanderthals. Not even because the first book has multiple rapes of a very young woman and the subsequent books include numerous and often detailed sexual encounters. All of that's fairly passe these days, and part of this book is definitely (though perhaps unintentionally) hitting a very contemporary sacred cow.
As Ayla is nearing the end of what I'll call her shaman training she gets her "call" (visions) and, as part of this, receives supernatural confirmation of her long-held theory that it's sex with a man that creates new life in a woman's belly. Her superior decides they must reveal this information to their people, despite the inevitable social change it will cause. Ayla thinking about this afterward considers that the knowledge will empower women: once women know babies are made by sex, they can, when it would be inconvenient or undesirable for them to get pregnant, refrain from sex.
Now that's a subversive idea.
We've been hearing since the '80s that, while knowing about contraception is good, knowing what causes babies can in no way affect our behavior. People who know full well where babies come from can not be expected to refrain from that activity just because they can't support a baby, aren't married, have important goals that would be hindered by a baby at this time, etc. Knowledge is not power when it comes to sex and babies. That's been the message for at least half my life.
I guess Ayla, being a cave woman, was too dumb to know that.
Showing posts with label culture of death. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture of death. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Thursday, July 22, 2010
US to Kenya: Kill Your Offspring, Reap Rewards
There was a news story this morning about the White House spending 23 million dollars of taxpayer money trying to get Kenya to legalize abortion in their new constitution. Leaving aside the fact that it's against US law to lobby for (or against, I think) abortion in other countries, what do we get out of this? Seriously, what is in it for us? I know Washingtonians don't consider $23million to be much money--not when it's other people's money, just "tax all you want, they'll make more"--but I'm still old-fashioned enough to think you should get something for your money and I want to know what we, the people, get out of this.
Kenya is a poor nation. If they have large reserves of natural resources we want to buy from them or if they are somehow strategically important to us in some way, I don't know about it. Now, there's a whole lot of things I don't know, so maybe they are important to US interests in some way that it behooves us to make friends with them via monetary gifts.
But, if so, could somebody please tell me how the #&!% do you diplomatically spin a gift like that?
US: Kenya?
Kenya: Yes?
US: We think there are too many Kenyans. If you would take steps to ensure that in the future there won't be so many of you, we could slip you some money on the quiet to show our appreciation. In fact, here's a little to get the ball rolling.
Kenya: ...
Here's a question for a WH press conference: Mr. President [or Mr. Press Secretary], does this administration have a problem with all African babies, or only Kenyan babies? Inquiring minds want to know.
Kenya is a poor nation. If they have large reserves of natural resources we want to buy from them or if they are somehow strategically important to us in some way, I don't know about it. Now, there's a whole lot of things I don't know, so maybe they are important to US interests in some way that it behooves us to make friends with them via monetary gifts.
But, if so, could somebody please tell me how the #&!% do you diplomatically spin a gift like that?
US: Kenya?
Kenya: Yes?
US: We think there are too many Kenyans. If you would take steps to ensure that in the future there won't be so many of you, we could slip you some money on the quiet to show our appreciation. In fact, here's a little to get the ball rolling.
Kenya: ...
Here's a question for a WH press conference: Mr. President [or Mr. Press Secretary], does this administration have a problem with all African babies, or only Kenyan babies? Inquiring minds want to know.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Well, That Didn't Take Long
Checking the news at lunchtime today, I learned that President Obama would today lift the ban on giving federal funding to groups that promote abortion in other countries. Leaving aside the question of morality, there's another very big question American citizens should be asking themselves: What's in it for us?
Really. Why should we pay for them? Individual Americans can do whatever they like with their own money, but it seems to me that a country's government money should go toward projects that benefit the people of that country. How does it benefit the American guy/gal on the street to finance abortions in foreign nations? If individual women in other countries want abortions, why should the US government--which, let's not forget, takes its money from individual people's pocketbooks and paychecks--pay for them?
Sometimes it can be in our national interest to provide aid to other nations, of course, so it may be there is some benefit to you, me, and that guy ahead of us in line at the Quik-e-Mart that I'm just not seeing. Perhaps the idea is that if we help foreigners have abortions, there will be less of them, and that will be in our national interest? I guess that could be it, but I'm not convinced.
Would it be too much to ask that President Obama explain how it serves the United States' interests to pay for foreign abortions? And if he can't give a reason, to reinstate the ban until he can? Until then, Americans who worry about foreign people going un-aborted could start private charities to donate funds to pay for those abortions.
Really. Why should we pay for them? Individual Americans can do whatever they like with their own money, but it seems to me that a country's government money should go toward projects that benefit the people of that country. How does it benefit the American guy/gal on the street to finance abortions in foreign nations? If individual women in other countries want abortions, why should the US government--which, let's not forget, takes its money from individual people's pocketbooks and paychecks--pay for them?
Sometimes it can be in our national interest to provide aid to other nations, of course, so it may be there is some benefit to you, me, and that guy ahead of us in line at the Quik-e-Mart that I'm just not seeing. Perhaps the idea is that if we help foreigners have abortions, there will be less of them, and that will be in our national interest? I guess that could be it, but I'm not convinced.
Would it be too much to ask that President Obama explain how it serves the United States' interests to pay for foreign abortions? And if he can't give a reason, to reinstate the ban until he can? Until then, Americans who worry about foreign people going un-aborted could start private charities to donate funds to pay for those abortions.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
A Book Every American Should Read
The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life, by Ramesh Ponnuru
I put this book in my Amazon.com shopping cart when it was released last spring, but I somehow never got around to purchasing and reading it until a few weeks ago. That was a mistake. This is an important book. It has been out for nearly a year, and there hasn't been nearly the amount of discussion of it there ought to have been. Perhaps some pro-life people figured it had nothing to tell them, but I assume far more people were turned off by the title. The author has explained on NRO and elsewhere that the term "the party of death" did not originate with him and that, no, it does not refer to Democrats.(Although people hearing "the party of death" and assuming it means Democrats is interesting, no?) But this explanation of the term is somewhat undercut by the fact that the subtitle names Democrats and names them first. Surely a better subtitle would have been "Politicians, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life", because, as Ponnuru says, there are members of the party of death in both of America's major political parties and because I think that subtitle might cause many people who would benefit from reading it to dismiss it as just another divisive political diatribe. And that's a shame, because this is a well-reasoned and clearly written book setting forth a secular case--not necessarily the secular case; let's see what other authors have to say--for respecting the right to life. You don't have to be a lawyer or a philosopher or a politics groupie to understand this book; any average high school student should be able to read it and understand the arguments, and the chapters aren't so long that they'll tax many people's attention span. Read it and think about it.
I put this book in my Amazon.com shopping cart when it was released last spring, but I somehow never got around to purchasing and reading it until a few weeks ago. That was a mistake. This is an important book. It has been out for nearly a year, and there hasn't been nearly the amount of discussion of it there ought to have been. Perhaps some pro-life people figured it had nothing to tell them, but I assume far more people were turned off by the title. The author has explained on NRO and elsewhere that the term "the party of death" did not originate with him and that, no, it does not refer to Democrats.(Although people hearing "the party of death" and assuming it means Democrats is interesting, no?) But this explanation of the term is somewhat undercut by the fact that the subtitle names Democrats and names them first. Surely a better subtitle would have been "Politicians, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life", because, as Ponnuru says, there are members of the party of death in both of America's major political parties and because I think that subtitle might cause many people who would benefit from reading it to dismiss it as just another divisive political diatribe. And that's a shame, because this is a well-reasoned and clearly written book setting forth a secular case--not necessarily the secular case; let's see what other authors have to say--for respecting the right to life. You don't have to be a lawyer or a philosopher or a politics groupie to understand this book; any average high school student should be able to read it and understand the arguments, and the chapters aren't so long that they'll tax many people's attention span. Read it and think about it.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Who says the British are the masters of understatement?
An AP story, dated yesterday but which I only read today, says that a Texas man named Adrian Estrada has been sentenced to death for murdering a seventeen year-old young woman and her fetus. Estrada choked and stabbed the young woman who was pregnant with his child thirteen times.
As a way to describe murder, "bad decision" is accurate, as far as it goes, but it just doesn't go far enough. There are bad decisions and there are bad decisions. A man who decides not to lock his car door because he's "just going to be in the convenience store for a few minutes" has made a bad decision. The man who decides to take advantage of that unlocked door by stealing the car has also made a bad decision. Yet only one of these bad decisions deprives someone of his rightful property and can result in jail time; Christians might also note that only one of those bad decisions requires repentance. And I think all of us, including the most ardent car-lovers and property rights upholders, would agree that deciding to attack and murder a pregnant woman is a much worse bad decision than deciding to steal a car. Even people who wouldn't want the fetus listed as one of Estrada's victims would generally agree that murder is a very bad decision indeed.
Apparently Texas law and that jury think so.
A question I'm probably not supposed to ask: I wonder if these murderous attacks on pregnant women have become more frequent since the advent of the birth control pill and legalized abortion.
"Estrada's attorney, Suzanne Kramer, had argued that her client made bad
decisions."
As a way to describe murder, "bad decision" is accurate, as far as it goes, but it just doesn't go far enough. There are bad decisions and there are bad decisions. A man who decides not to lock his car door because he's "just going to be in the convenience store for a few minutes" has made a bad decision. The man who decides to take advantage of that unlocked door by stealing the car has also made a bad decision. Yet only one of these bad decisions deprives someone of his rightful property and can result in jail time; Christians might also note that only one of those bad decisions requires repentance. And I think all of us, including the most ardent car-lovers and property rights upholders, would agree that deciding to attack and murder a pregnant woman is a much worse bad decision than deciding to steal a car. Even people who wouldn't want the fetus listed as one of Estrada's victims would generally agree that murder is a very bad decision indeed.
"It that enough to execute him? Is that enough to kill him?" she asked the jury.
Apparently Texas law and that jury think so.
A question I'm probably not supposed to ask: I wonder if these murderous attacks on pregnant women have become more frequent since the advent of the birth control pill and legalized abortion.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Viva la France! (And Ireland)
Yesterday Reuters had an article about experts pondering the "high" French birth rate--1.9 children per woman, the second highest rate in Europe. Leaving aside the sad fact that a below replacement level birthrate (replacement level in modern industrialised nations is 2.1) can be considered high in today's Europe and leaving aside my suspicion that non-assimilated Muslims may account for a lot of France's birth rate, I want to say "Hurrah for France!"
I know it's popular among many Americans to mock and criticize France and I'll admit to having repeated some French jokes since the Iraq war (before that my response to friends who repeatedly made those jokes was, "Why do you pick on France? Have you ever met any French people?"), but there are things about France that even a conservative can love. High on the list for me is that they showed some (un)commonsense and forethought back in the seventies about a potential scarcity of oil and built nuclear power plants; it's my understanding they now they make about 80% of their needed power with nuclear plants. Possibly due to more of that forethought, they've offered some incentives to child-bearing and are now less close to dying out than most other countries in Europe. Also I've heard creditable people say that, whatever their problems, the French have done a better job of keeping down the fomentation of Islamic terrorism within their country than the British have.Their cultural heritage--especially pre-twentieth century--is nothing to sneeze at, their language is beautiful (even if a French teacher and Francophile I used to know did describe it as "Latin spoken by ignorant peasants"!), and even people who don't like the French are apt to like their food.
And then too French immigrants contributed to south Louisiana culture. It's not a coincidence that the only feast descriptions I've ever been moved to read aloud to my husband were Peter Mayle's mouthwatering description of the dinner he was invited to at a neighboring farmhouse in Provence and a description of some cross-country walkers stopping for a meal in the backwoods of south Louisiana and, when the proprietors heard they weren't accustomed to that food, being given a sample of everything they had (all washed down by real Coca-Cola in a real glass bottle kept so cold it had bits of ice in it; it's Uncle Pookie's idea of heaven.)
I'm not saying I'll never repeat another "cheese-eating, surrender monkey" type joke, but I'm glad the French are having babies and wish they'd have even more.
Oh, and BTW the Irish are having the most babies. At 1.99 per woman, they're almost at replacement level--Go Irish!
I know it's popular among many Americans to mock and criticize France and I'll admit to having repeated some French jokes since the Iraq war (before that my response to friends who repeatedly made those jokes was, "Why do you pick on France? Have you ever met any French people?"), but there are things about France that even a conservative can love. High on the list for me is that they showed some (un)commonsense and forethought back in the seventies about a potential scarcity of oil and built nuclear power plants; it's my understanding they now they make about 80% of their needed power with nuclear plants. Possibly due to more of that forethought, they've offered some incentives to child-bearing and are now less close to dying out than most other countries in Europe. Also I've heard creditable people say that, whatever their problems, the French have done a better job of keeping down the fomentation of Islamic terrorism within their country than the British have.Their cultural heritage--especially pre-twentieth century--is nothing to sneeze at, their language is beautiful (even if a French teacher and Francophile I used to know did describe it as "Latin spoken by ignorant peasants"!), and even people who don't like the French are apt to like their food.
And then too French immigrants contributed to south Louisiana culture. It's not a coincidence that the only feast descriptions I've ever been moved to read aloud to my husband were Peter Mayle's mouthwatering description of the dinner he was invited to at a neighboring farmhouse in Provence and a description of some cross-country walkers stopping for a meal in the backwoods of south Louisiana and, when the proprietors heard they weren't accustomed to that food, being given a sample of everything they had (all washed down by real Coca-Cola in a real glass bottle kept so cold it had bits of ice in it; it's Uncle Pookie's idea of heaven.)
I'm not saying I'll never repeat another "cheese-eating, surrender monkey" type joke, but I'm glad the French are having babies and wish they'd have even more.
Oh, and BTW the Irish are having the most babies. At 1.99 per woman, they're almost at replacement level--Go Irish!
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
More of That "Freedom of Choice" We Hear So Much About
Wal-Mart has chosen not to carry the "morning after pill" in its pharmacies, except in Illinois where it is required to do so by law. Now three women, reportedly backed by abortion rights groups (big surprise), have sued Wal-Mart for not carrying the morning after pill in its Massachusetts stores. They sued on the grounds that state law requires pharmacies to stock all "commonly prescribed medicines", which I believe is the same reason Wal-mart is required to carry it in Illinois--though it remains unclear to me how commonly morning after pills are prescribed and whether megadoses of hormones given to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg really constitutes "medicine". Nevertheless, the Massachusetts pharmacy board has ruled that Wal-Mart must carry the drug. If forcing a business to sell a product it does not want to sell constitutes a blow for freedom, then we may count this as a victory for freedom of choice and assume the Massachusetts pharmacy board is pro-freedom--you might even say pro-choice.
One of the plaintiffs applauded the ruling, because now her patients won't have to "shop around." Yes, heaven forbid that.
NARAL Pro-choice America (formerly the National Abortion Rights Action League), either anticipating this victory or celebrating after it, announced that it would be bombarding Wal-Mart with letters urging it to carry the drug. Well, good for them; all Americans have the right to try to influence a business' decisions by telling it what we, as consumers, want to buy. But it goes further than that. NARAL Pro-choice America's argument, in their petition, is that Wal-Mart has no right not to carry the drug. Wal-Mart's choice not to stock it interferes with a woman's decision to take the drug--or the doctor's decision to prescribe it or--well, it interferes with someone's decision about something. And that interference doesn't promote freedom. Fortunately, if Wal-Mart doesn't change its mind and choose to carry the drug in all states, the lawyer for the Massachusetts women says he is ready to sue in other states. Viva freedom!
I must say I find this all very instructive. I never before knew that if I couldn't find a product I wanted at one store, I could sue to make them carry it. Silly me thought I had to go down the road to a store that did carry that product. A couple of weeks ago I wanted to buy a loop turner for sewing and the Wal-Mart fabric department doesn't carry them, so I foolishly went to Hobby Lobby and bought one. Now I know I can just sue the store to make it carry everything I want so I don't have to shop around.
For instance, I have checked several Wal-Mart stores and two Sam's Clubs in south Mississippi and Louisiana multiple times over the past few years and, as best I can tell, Wal-Mart does not carry Catholic bibles in its stores--no, not even in south Louisiana, which has a high proportion of Catholics. Clearly they are trying to limit my freedom of choice to buy those products. Because Wal-Mart did not carry them, I was forced to shop around for my purchases, and if I want to buy more copies I will be forced to shop around again, rather than enjoying the convenience of buying my Bible at the same time I buy my eggs and toothpaste at the local Supercenter. Or I would have been forced to do so. Now I know I can simply sue them and force them to carry all the products I want.
And now I think about it, why should anyone have to shop around for anything? Everything should be available at Wal-Mart. If my neighbor wants to buy the latest copy of Hustler or Spanking Feminists, why should he have to shop around to find an adult bookstore? Shouldn't he have the right to pick it up as he goes through the Wal-Mart checkout line with his milk and doughnuts next Sunday morning?
I assume NOW will also want to see freedom of choice extended and will be carrying ads for these products in their newsletter. (Yes, they advertise products; I used to get the newsletter.) And feminist bookstores will start carrying Phyllis Schlafly's oevre, lest their customers be forced to shop around for her books. It's all about freedom.
One of the plaintiffs applauded the ruling, because now her patients won't have to "shop around." Yes, heaven forbid that.
NARAL Pro-choice America (formerly the National Abortion Rights Action League), either anticipating this victory or celebrating after it, announced that it would be bombarding Wal-Mart with letters urging it to carry the drug. Well, good for them; all Americans have the right to try to influence a business' decisions by telling it what we, as consumers, want to buy. But it goes further than that. NARAL Pro-choice America's argument, in their petition, is that Wal-Mart has no right not to carry the drug. Wal-Mart's choice not to stock it interferes with a woman's decision to take the drug--or the doctor's decision to prescribe it or--well, it interferes with someone's decision about something. And that interference doesn't promote freedom. Fortunately, if Wal-Mart doesn't change its mind and choose to carry the drug in all states, the lawyer for the Massachusetts women says he is ready to sue in other states. Viva freedom!
I must say I find this all very instructive. I never before knew that if I couldn't find a product I wanted at one store, I could sue to make them carry it. Silly me thought I had to go down the road to a store that did carry that product. A couple of weeks ago I wanted to buy a loop turner for sewing and the Wal-Mart fabric department doesn't carry them, so I foolishly went to Hobby Lobby and bought one. Now I know I can just sue the store to make it carry everything I want so I don't have to shop around.
For instance, I have checked several Wal-Mart stores and two Sam's Clubs in south Mississippi and Louisiana multiple times over the past few years and, as best I can tell, Wal-Mart does not carry Catholic bibles in its stores--no, not even in south Louisiana, which has a high proportion of Catholics. Clearly they are trying to limit my freedom of choice to buy those products. Because Wal-Mart did not carry them, I was forced to shop around for my purchases, and if I want to buy more copies I will be forced to shop around again, rather than enjoying the convenience of buying my Bible at the same time I buy my eggs and toothpaste at the local Supercenter. Or I would have been forced to do so. Now I know I can simply sue them and force them to carry all the products I want.
And now I think about it, why should anyone have to shop around for anything? Everything should be available at Wal-Mart. If my neighbor wants to buy the latest copy of Hustler or Spanking Feminists, why should he have to shop around to find an adult bookstore? Shouldn't he have the right to pick it up as he goes through the Wal-Mart checkout line with his milk and doughnuts next Sunday morning?
I assume NOW will also want to see freedom of choice extended and will be carrying ads for these products in their newsletter. (Yes, they advertise products; I used to get the newsletter.) And feminist bookstores will start carrying Phyllis Schlafly's oevre, lest their customers be forced to shop around for her books. It's all about freedom.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Margaret Sanger
When I was a child I liked finding female heroes. One was Margaret Sanger. I read about her and I saw a TV movie about her starring Bonnie Franklin; by the time I was in junior high school I "knew" Sanger was a great female hero who had rescued women from drudgery and, in many cases, saved their lives. A little later into my teens, I discovered that Sanger and a lot of the other early birth control advocates were eugenicists. That made me uneasy, but I told myself that it was okay, really, that eugenics was such a popular thing at the time that even nice, intelligent people could be excused for falling prey to it.
I've long since stopped making excuses for Sanger. More recently (the past four years or so) I've started wondering if she and others like her really did women many favors.
Here's some sites with more information:
A column by Mike Adams.
http://www.blackgenocide.org/
http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/
I've long since stopped making excuses for Sanger. More recently (the past four years or so) I've started wondering if she and others like her really did women many favors.
Here's some sites with more information:
A column by Mike Adams.
http://www.blackgenocide.org/
http://margaretsanger.blogspot.com/
Monday, January 09, 2006
It's All About Sex and Babies
Mark Steyn had a longish, must-read article called "It's the Demography, Stupid" at WSJ.com a few days ago. None of it was new to me, but it was still well worth reading. It starts off frightening:
"Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries."
And it doesn't get any less so as it goes on, so if you like to be frightened, you can pop a bowl of popcorn and sit back to listen to someone read this aloud instead of watching yet another tedious slasher movie.
Some points Steyn makes: Islamism is not metaphorical HIV, but the pneumonia that endangers the patient who already has HIV; our demographic crisis "ought to be the left's issue" because "[w]ho, after all, are going to be the first victims of the West's collapsed birthrates?"; and "A society that has no children has no future."
Today's Townhall has an answer to Mark Steyn, "It's the Sex, Stupid" , from Jennifer Roback Morse--not a disagreeing answer, but an elaborating answer. Morse says, "The modern view of sex [sex as a consumer product] has created the demographic collapse of the West, and the human void into which Islamic fertility is rapidly flooding." And she tells us who can help most to preserve the West:
"What women do and want will be decisive in determining whether the West survives the demographic clash with Islam....stay at home moms, don’t let anyone tell you that you are wasting your talents. Without your contribution of a healthy, functioning next generation, all the strength of the U.S. military won’t be enough to protect us from the primal force of Islam that believes in itself enough to replace itself."
"Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries."
And it doesn't get any less so as it goes on, so if you like to be frightened, you can pop a bowl of popcorn and sit back to listen to someone read this aloud instead of watching yet another tedious slasher movie.
Some points Steyn makes: Islamism is not metaphorical HIV, but the pneumonia that endangers the patient who already has HIV; our demographic crisis "ought to be the left's issue" because "[w]ho, after all, are going to be the first victims of the West's collapsed birthrates?"; and "A society that has no children has no future."
Today's Townhall has an answer to Mark Steyn, "It's the Sex, Stupid" , from Jennifer Roback Morse--not a disagreeing answer, but an elaborating answer. Morse says, "The modern view of sex [sex as a consumer product] has created the demographic collapse of the West, and the human void into which Islamic fertility is rapidly flooding." And she tells us who can help most to preserve the West:
"What women do and want will be decisive in determining whether the West survives the demographic clash with Islam....stay at home moms, don’t let anyone tell you that you are wasting your talents. Without your contribution of a healthy, functioning next generation, all the strength of the U.S. military won’t be enough to protect us from the primal force of Islam that believes in itself enough to replace itself."
These things need to be said and heard. I hope more columnists respond to Steyn's essay.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
The Bone Snatchers and Christmas
Yesterday Drudge had a headline link that must surely go down as the strangest headline of the year: "ALISTAIR COOK'S BONES STOLEN BY TRANSPLANT GANG." As it turns out, Mr. Cooke's bones weren't the only ones stolen. Dozens of people's bones were stolen by morticians in Brooklyn, who sold the bones for use in "transplants"; apparently, human bone is used in making dental implants and for some orthopedic surgeries and there's a black market for it. Cooke's body was then turned over for cremation and his family received what were, presumably, his ashes and were none the wiser until recently. His family's lawyer says that he hopes " those guys burn in hell for what they did", and I have some sympathy for the disgust and anger that would provoke such a sentiment.
The Telegraph used the word "desecration" to describe the mutilation of the bodies, and I found that word apt, if a bit surprising coming from a newspaper in these secular days. It has always irritated me when some Americans talk about "desecrating the flag"; however distasteful (and, in some cases, juvenile) I find flag burning, the American flag is not a sacred object and can't be desecrated. I feel differently about the human body. In the not too distant past, most people did. The idea of treating a dead human body with less than respect was abhorrent to nearly everyone; even robbing the dead was looked down upon by most, even though a good case could be made that the dead have much less need of material goods than the living.
I realize there have been corrupt, nasty people in every age, but I find myself wondering if this is not another example of our coarsening in what Pope John Paul II called "the culture of death." Chesterton said that even in a society of atheists, the dead man is sacred. It is increasingly not so in our society of secularists. We encase the dead in plastic and display them in entertaining and/or educational poses for the living to gawk at in museums. We pretend to cremate them and give their relatives god knows what in a box. We dump them in woods or ravines or in the trash. Or we chop them up and sell them for parts.
It is a fine thing for the "thing" that God chose to incarnate in. Traditionally everyone--Christians and non-Christians or pre-Christians alike--everywhere have tended to treat their dead with respect, but Christians have a special reason to do so, in that we believe the human body was forever made special by the fact that the Master of the Universe chose to be born into a human body. No one can ever say the human body is trash after that. No one can say that it should be dumped or flushed or chopped up by thieves. Jews and Christians both believe God made us (male and female) in His image, and Christians believe that God further honored the human body by taking on its form Himself: The Word of God became flesh and dwelt among us. That's what we celebrate starting tonight, and it is more worth celebrating than anything I know.
The Telegraph used the word "desecration" to describe the mutilation of the bodies, and I found that word apt, if a bit surprising coming from a newspaper in these secular days. It has always irritated me when some Americans talk about "desecrating the flag"; however distasteful (and, in some cases, juvenile) I find flag burning, the American flag is not a sacred object and can't be desecrated. I feel differently about the human body. In the not too distant past, most people did. The idea of treating a dead human body with less than respect was abhorrent to nearly everyone; even robbing the dead was looked down upon by most, even though a good case could be made that the dead have much less need of material goods than the living.
I realize there have been corrupt, nasty people in every age, but I find myself wondering if this is not another example of our coarsening in what Pope John Paul II called "the culture of death." Chesterton said that even in a society of atheists, the dead man is sacred. It is increasingly not so in our society of secularists. We encase the dead in plastic and display them in entertaining and/or educational poses for the living to gawk at in museums. We pretend to cremate them and give their relatives god knows what in a box. We dump them in woods or ravines or in the trash. Or we chop them up and sell them for parts.
It is a fine thing for the "thing" that God chose to incarnate in. Traditionally everyone--Christians and non-Christians or pre-Christians alike--everywhere have tended to treat their dead with respect, but Christians have a special reason to do so, in that we believe the human body was forever made special by the fact that the Master of the Universe chose to be born into a human body. No one can ever say the human body is trash after that. No one can say that it should be dumped or flushed or chopped up by thieves. Jews and Christians both believe God made us (male and female) in His image, and Christians believe that God further honored the human body by taking on its form Himself: The Word of God became flesh and dwelt among us. That's what we celebrate starting tonight, and it is more worth celebrating than anything I know.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Odds & Ends
Auntie Suzanne has been brought low by her own traitorous body--first by a cold last week, and then by her sinuses' insistence on giving her a headache every day this week--but she has managed to see a few interesting things online.
Popular Science is riding through town tellings us, "Colored bubbles are coming, colored bubbles are coming!" Actually they just have an interesting article up about one man's quest to create colored bubbles. With eleven years, a fair amount of funding, and the services of a dye chemist, that one man succeeded, and we should have non-staining, colored bubbles on the market no later than February. Because the creation of the bubbles involved creating an entirely new class of dyes, there's potential for a lot of other new products, such as temporary wall paint colors or toothpaste that will stain kids teeth until it's time for them to stop brushing.
They also have a list of the 10 worst jobs in science up that is kind of fun to skim through, but I don't think any of the jobs on that list are worse than working retail during the Christmas season.
Uncle Pookie and I read Freakonomics a few weeks ago, and although the book was entertaining reading, I didn't buy the legalized abortion caused the drop in American crime theory. It was not that I had a problem with saying legal abortion might have some good side effects, but that I didn't buy it as the cause. I believe the drop in crime is due primarily to the fact that we have a smaller percentage of young people in our society now; any time there is a larger percentage of young people in a society, there is more crime, because young people--especially young men--are much more likely to commit or be involved in crimes than older people. (FWIW, they are also more likely to be the victims of crimes, largely because of their tendency to hang out with other young people.) I saw no problem with saying legalized abortion may have contributed to the reduction in crime rate, because anything that results in fewer teenagers and young adults in the population reduces crime; I just figured the birth control pill contributed at least as much as abortion did, and that the change in attitudes that made us want fewer children and want them later in life when it's harder to make them was the biggest contributor of all.
Not being a social scientist, I didn't--and don't--have any data to back my opinion up, but according to Steve Sailer there is evidence that the Freakonomics abortion-cuts-crime argument is seriously flawed. (Link via The Corner.) I'm not going to try to summarize his summary of the problem, but it's worth a skim, because with the popularity of the book, we're likely to hear this argument a lot.
And just for fun, Foamy's Christmas Rant is back up. This was my introduction to Foamy, and I still find it really funny. Be warned, it is definitely NOT work-safe or children-in-the-room-safe.
Popular Science is riding through town tellings us, "Colored bubbles are coming, colored bubbles are coming!" Actually they just have an interesting article up about one man's quest to create colored bubbles. With eleven years, a fair amount of funding, and the services of a dye chemist, that one man succeeded, and we should have non-staining, colored bubbles on the market no later than February. Because the creation of the bubbles involved creating an entirely new class of dyes, there's potential for a lot of other new products, such as temporary wall paint colors or toothpaste that will stain kids teeth until it's time for them to stop brushing.
They also have a list of the 10 worst jobs in science up that is kind of fun to skim through, but I don't think any of the jobs on that list are worse than working retail during the Christmas season.
Uncle Pookie and I read Freakonomics a few weeks ago, and although the book was entertaining reading, I didn't buy the legalized abortion caused the drop in American crime theory. It was not that I had a problem with saying legal abortion might have some good side effects, but that I didn't buy it as the cause. I believe the drop in crime is due primarily to the fact that we have a smaller percentage of young people in our society now; any time there is a larger percentage of young people in a society, there is more crime, because young people--especially young men--are much more likely to commit or be involved in crimes than older people. (FWIW, they are also more likely to be the victims of crimes, largely because of their tendency to hang out with other young people.) I saw no problem with saying legalized abortion may have contributed to the reduction in crime rate, because anything that results in fewer teenagers and young adults in the population reduces crime; I just figured the birth control pill contributed at least as much as abortion did, and that the change in attitudes that made us want fewer children and want them later in life when it's harder to make them was the biggest contributor of all.
Not being a social scientist, I didn't--and don't--have any data to back my opinion up, but according to Steve Sailer there is evidence that the Freakonomics abortion-cuts-crime argument is seriously flawed. (Link via The Corner.) I'm not going to try to summarize his summary of the problem, but it's worth a skim, because with the popularity of the book, we're likely to hear this argument a lot.
And just for fun, Foamy's Christmas Rant is back up. This was my introduction to Foamy, and I still find it really funny. Be warned, it is definitely NOT work-safe or children-in-the-room-safe.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Pro-choice or Faux-choice
Before I became a Catholic, I was pro-choice. I would not have become Catholic had I not been able to accept the Church's views on this matter, so obviously my opinions have changed a lot; I am now sorry for my attendance at the one abortion rights rally I attended and for any influence I may have had on anyone else's views. But one thing I can say in my defence (sort of) is that at least I was genuinely pro-choice. I believed that only the pregnant woman herself should have the right to decide whether or not to end her pregnancy, and I believed that only the individual in question should determine whether he or she would be sterilized. Forced abortions and sterilizations horrified me.
I make a point of saying I was genuinely pro-choice, because some people in today's society say they are pro-choice, but really aren't. The most obvious example is people who claim to be pro-choice, but who refuse to condemn China's coercive population control program or, worse, approve of it--people like Molly Yard, former president of NOW, whom the Associated Press is reporting has just died. But there are others. Parents who say they're pro-choice, but who force their teenage or college student daughters to abort. Judges who offer convicted women time off sentences if they agree to sterilization or insertion of Norplant. People who claim to be pro-choice and then grumble at who gets and stays pregnant. Or who talk only about the boons of not having children, while seeming to find it hard to fathom that many women would prefer to keep their children. Or who talk as if people who choose to have large families are doing something wrong. Or who don't want to hear others talking about abstinence or Natural Family Planning (or, in extreme cases, even the Fertility Awareness Method). Or who don't want pro-life people to be allowed to talk at all.
People who are genuinely pro-choice may not be where they should be in their views, but at least they're not forcing or subtly bullying women onto operating tables.
(For some interesting listening on China's population control program and American responses to it, listen to Steven Mosher, author of A Mother's Ordeal: One Woman's Fight Against China's One-Child Policy, talking to Marcus Grodi on EWTN's The Journey Home. The episode is dated 4/28/2000.)
I make a point of saying I was genuinely pro-choice, because some people in today's society say they are pro-choice, but really aren't. The most obvious example is people who claim to be pro-choice, but who refuse to condemn China's coercive population control program or, worse, approve of it--people like Molly Yard, former president of NOW, whom the Associated Press is reporting has just died. But there are others. Parents who say they're pro-choice, but who force their teenage or college student daughters to abort. Judges who offer convicted women time off sentences if they agree to sterilization or insertion of Norplant. People who claim to be pro-choice and then grumble at who gets and stays pregnant. Or who talk only about the boons of not having children, while seeming to find it hard to fathom that many women would prefer to keep their children. Or who talk as if people who choose to have large families are doing something wrong. Or who don't want to hear others talking about abstinence or Natural Family Planning (or, in extreme cases, even the Fertility Awareness Method). Or who don't want pro-life people to be allowed to talk at all.
People who are genuinely pro-choice may not be where they should be in their views, but at least they're not forcing or subtly bullying women onto operating tables.
(For some interesting listening on China's population control program and American responses to it, listen to Steven Mosher, author of A Mother's Ordeal: One Woman's Fight Against China's One-Child Policy, talking to Marcus Grodi on EWTN's The Journey Home. The episode is dated 4/28/2000.)
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Animal Story and The Way We Talk
I saw a news story yesterday about a couple of teenagers in Canada who gave a dead cat an emergency C-section. I like animal stories, and I am glad not all of the kittens had to die with the mother cat and that a cat who'd lost her kittens was able to adopt new ones. But a point of language struck me.
We--and by "we" I mean everyone, including MSM--have no problem referring to what's in the womb of a pregnant cat as "kittens"--i.e. the usual word for immature cats. Or what's inside the womb of a pregnant dog as "puppies" (the usual word for immature dogs), etc. It is only when referring to what's inside the womb of a human that using the usual word for its offspring--i.e. "baby"--becomes controversial.
Some people not only won't say "baby" but will correct those who do: "It's not a baby, it's a fetus!" (Never mind that "fetus" comes from the Latin for "baby" or "offspring".) And MSM stories that involve pregnant women and what they're carrying sometimes say "baby" and sometimes "fetus" or other; an ongoing news story may see the same being go from being referred to as "fetus" to "baby"--for example, things along the line of "Fetus Missing" to "Baby Found" this past winter when that pregnant woman was murdered and her, um, "product of conception" stolen. And it's not always clear why MSM choose to use one word over the other. Maybe wanted uterine passengers are "babies" and uterine passengers that are not wanted by the mother--or that the speaker/writer think the woman shouldn't have--are "fetuses"? Of course the MSM has to be careful how it talks about things to avoid offending readers/viewers, but I think sometimes they're playing the same game the non-media people are: change what you call it and you'll change what it is.
And none of this is to suggest that "fetus", "embryo", etc. are incorrect, only to point out that it's a bit odd for no one to mind our saying "kitten" in a place where our saying "baby" would have people yelling at us.
You know, maybe the "it's not a baby, it's a fetus" people are a bit like those people who get very angry when human evolution is mentioned, but who don't bat an eye when, say, badger evolution is mentioned or when their doctors talks to them about bacteria and viruses adapting to our medical treatments or when pesticide companies talk about insects evolving to endure our current pesticides.
After discovering that the cat's body was still warm, they
decided to try to save its kittens ...
[She] made an incision into the mother cat's belly and could
see the kittens.
She pulled them out and found that two of four kittens were
still alive...
We--and by "we" I mean everyone, including MSM--have no problem referring to what's in the womb of a pregnant cat as "kittens"--i.e. the usual word for immature cats. Or what's inside the womb of a pregnant dog as "puppies" (the usual word for immature dogs), etc. It is only when referring to what's inside the womb of a human that using the usual word for its offspring--i.e. "baby"--becomes controversial.
Some people not only won't say "baby" but will correct those who do: "It's not a baby, it's a fetus!" (Never mind that "fetus" comes from the Latin for "baby" or "offspring".) And MSM stories that involve pregnant women and what they're carrying sometimes say "baby" and sometimes "fetus" or other; an ongoing news story may see the same being go from being referred to as "fetus" to "baby"--for example, things along the line of "Fetus Missing" to "Baby Found" this past winter when that pregnant woman was murdered and her, um, "product of conception" stolen. And it's not always clear why MSM choose to use one word over the other. Maybe wanted uterine passengers are "babies" and uterine passengers that are not wanted by the mother--or that the speaker/writer think the woman shouldn't have--are "fetuses"? Of course the MSM has to be careful how it talks about things to avoid offending readers/viewers, but I think sometimes they're playing the same game the non-media people are: change what you call it and you'll change what it is.
And none of this is to suggest that "fetus", "embryo", etc. are incorrect, only to point out that it's a bit odd for no one to mind our saying "kitten" in a place where our saying "baby" would have people yelling at us.
You know, maybe the "it's not a baby, it's a fetus" people are a bit like those people who get very angry when human evolution is mentioned, but who don't bat an eye when, say, badger evolution is mentioned or when their doctors talks to them about bacteria and viruses adapting to our medical treatments or when pesticide companies talk about insects evolving to endure our current pesticides.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Not Enough Babes in the Woods
Yesterday I read a fascinating Newsweek article on some of the less well-known consequences of Europe's de-population:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8359066/site/newsweek/
The unexpected (by me, anyway) consequences include reforestation, the return of wolves, a decrease in biodiversity (as farmland becomes forest, there is an initial, generations-long decrease in biodiversity as meadow flora and fauna are lost), and sewer problems.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8359066/site/newsweek/
The unexpected (by me, anyway) consequences include reforestation, the return of wolves, a decrease in biodiversity (as farmland becomes forest, there is an initial, generations-long decrease in biodiversity as meadow flora and fauna are lost), and sewer problems.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Friday, May 13, 2005
One Catholic Woman
The Cafeteria is Closed posts an amazing story about a Catholic woman who rescued 2,500 Jewish babies and children from a Nazi-controlled Polish ghetto:
http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2005/05/catholic-heroes_12.html
She was arrested, beaten, and narrowly escaped execution for her trouble.
http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2005/05/catholic-heroes_12.html
She was arrested, beaten, and narrowly escaped execution for her trouble.
44,000,000 Pennies
Last Saturday, while doing the dishes, I found myself wondering what 44,000,000 pennies looked like. (No, I'm not quite sure what brought that on.) Forty-four million is the supposed number of legal abortions in the USA since Roe v. Wade was handed down from our robed masters. It occurred to me that if people collected 44,000,000 pennies, not only would I and anyone else who's ever wondered it know what 44 million pennies look like, but it would be a good fund-raiser for a pro-life group. (44,000,000 cents = $440,000)
Of course it took only another moment or two to realize that this is hugely impractical. Most groups could never raise that kind of money, and even if they could, they'd rather have nice paper currency than a huge bunch of heavy, unwieldy pennies.
But I still like the idea. I think it could work on a smaller scale. A small pro-life group trying to collect the number of legal abortions per day in the US in pennies would be doable. That's somewhere between $300 and $400, I think; that doesn't sound like an impossible amount to collect or to roll afterward. In between collecting and rolling for deposit, there could be a themed display--"each penny represents a baby aborted today" or something like that. I don't know, maybe people wouldn't like the idea, but it might be an attention-getting fundraiser; most people have spare pennies lying around.
Of course it took only another moment or two to realize that this is hugely impractical. Most groups could never raise that kind of money, and even if they could, they'd rather have nice paper currency than a huge bunch of heavy, unwieldy pennies.
But I still like the idea. I think it could work on a smaller scale. A small pro-life group trying to collect the number of legal abortions per day in the US in pennies would be doable. That's somewhere between $300 and $400, I think; that doesn't sound like an impossible amount to collect or to roll afterward. In between collecting and rolling for deposit, there could be a themed display--"each penny represents a baby aborted today" or something like that. I don't know, maybe people wouldn't like the idea, but it might be an attention-getting fundraiser; most people have spare pennies lying around.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Quote of Today
It is from Jonah Goldberg's column (available at NRO):
'Even if the new Spartanism of Peter Singer constituted the better argument,
for example, I’d still rather live in a society of unsophisticated people who
dogmatically believe that leaving defective babies on a hillside is wrong than
in an "enlightened" society that constantly revisits the issue given "new
facts."'
Friday, March 18, 2005
Life Imitates the (Animated) Movies
Anyone remember the bit in The Incredibles, when the hero is hit with a "wrongful life" suit? Crazy, right? Europe has just handed down its second wrongful life ruling, according to this news story:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7947635
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7947635
NARAL's "Sex Ed Haikus" Contest
NARAL recently hosted a "Sex Ed Haikus" contest (as is usual with this sort of thing, any resemblance to actual haiku is purely coincidental.)
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/sexedforgrownups/hot_haikus.htm
Jack Fowler of NRO's the Corner suggested
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/sexedforgrownups/hot_haikus.htm
Jack Fowler of NRO's the Corner suggested
Please someone destroy
The sonogram machines! They’re
Revealing the truth!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
