We Are Become Shiva, Destroyer of Worlds*

Sometimes I think we deserve exactly what's coming to us.

This makes me physically ill:

Matt Yglesias tweets:

Yes, I think converting Medicare into a straight cash grant to seniors makes sense.

They might rather have a servant, or a better car, or an apartment which doesn’t require them to drive, or to eat a better diet or join a better gym. Or maybe they would rather live it up, travel, and perhaps die at a younger age. That’s what pro-choice means.

That's not what prochoice means. Prochoice has to do with giving women control over their own bodies. It does not mean giving people the choice to die unnecessarily young because they hoped that this year they wouldn't get too sick, so this year they'd buy actual food and turn the thermostat up to 58. Sorry about that heart attack, better luck next year.

Medicare is for two groups: people over 65 and the disabled. These are not groups known, by and large, for having servants and "better" cars or going to the gym. Or "living it up". Seriously, it's like he's describing rich frat boys.

On the public choice side, this suggestion would turn seniors into an active constituency for health care cost control.

You think they're not already? Even if seniors are all "Let it all burn, I want 28 MRIs! Whooo!", this has the flavor of letting a toddler stick their hand in a fire so they learn that the pretty orange flames aren't something you touch. Sure, it would work, but no, that's just not cool. There really are other ways to teach someone that lesson.

Nonetheless I propose a more modest version of the idea. When people turn a certain age, allow them to trade in the current benefits package for a minimalistic package (set broken limbs and offer lots of potent painkillers), plus some of the rest in cash, doled out over the years if need be. For some people, medical tourism will fill the gap.

Painkillers are hilarious! HAHAHAHAHA!

But if a person wishes, he or she can keep the extant benefit structure and forgo the cash altogether. No one is forced to take this deal.

Really? No one will be forced to take this deal. Forced. Forced. Forced by the government at gunpoint, probably not. Forced by circumstance? Oh, yes, there are many who will be forced.

Do you know how many seniors there are right now choosing between food and heat, between medication and shelter, between electricity and running water? Right now that is happening. Probably within a 50' radius of you. Now imagine telling that person who freezes through every winter, who starves at every meal, who is in treatable pain that they can have some extra money. All they have to do is cut back on their health care.

This idea is so breathtakingly evil, I have to wonder if someone resurrected Mengele to come up with it.

Now imagine the other group on Medicare: the disabled. I know disabled people on Medicare. They're getting a minimal SSDDI check, Section 8 and food stamps. Rolling in dough, they are not. And the ones with children? They spend every day ashamed and stressed out that their illness impacts their children's lives so constantly. They don't want their children to work nearly full time. They want to let their children participate in extracurricular activities at school, but they can't afford the uniforms and fees and such. They want to buy their children the latest clothes, the coolest cell phones, and all that other stuff so very important to teenagers, but they can't. They hope that their children will get scholarships to go to college, because otherwise it's not happening.

Now offer that parent this choice: cut back on your health care and your child can cut back on their work hours. Cut back on your health care and your child can have a pretty prom dress. Cut back on your health care and your child can join softball this year. Cut back on your health care and die a little sooner and your kid can go to college.

This choice will kill people. I'm sure our Randiot friends will tell us that they chose to die and that's prochoice, but no, we will have killed them. We will have killed the most vulnerable among us and we will call it a triumph.

We are beyond wicked.

*Supposedly, that was what Oppenheimer said when he saw the first test of a nuclear weapon. This probably isn't true, but I like the quote.

Personhood Initiative

abortion, prochoice, prolife, feminism, choice, mississippi
There is an initiative in Mississippi to classify everything from a newly fertilized egg onward as a "person" with all the rights and benefits of "personhood".

SECTION 1.

Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hereby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ:

Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.”

This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.

This frightens me.

This creates, in every woman, the possibility of there being a "person" inside her body- parasitizing her body, in fact- that has conflicting rights with the woman herself.

What happens when the rights of this fetusperson, this person who cannot survive outside of another person, demand that another, fully functioning person must risk death or serious injury to preserve the rights of the fetusperson?

I have, more than once, had to make decisions that involve a malignant calculus: this drug will improve your heart function, but damage your liver. What do you want to do? That decision is difficult to make, balancing potential benefits against potential risks and hoping against hope that I made the right decision. And it is my decision. As my doctor said when I asked him to decide, I have to live with the consequences of the decision, therefore I must make the decision.

In Mississippi, we could very well see a day when women are required to live with the consequences of a decision they are not allowed to make. Who will make that decision? Well, not the woman's doctor. Her doctor can't advocate for both woman and fetus if their needs oppose one another. Another doctor will have to be brought in, as well as, I would imagine, a legal guardian for the fetus. Imagine waiting to discover if a doctor you've never seen before and a lawyer you've never met are going to sentence you to death to preserve the life of a person who doesn't exist yet.

How will these decisions be made? We don't know. Some women, left to their own devices, might very well accept a 95% chance of death in order to give their fetusperson a chance at living. Some women may not be willing to take a chance on a 95% chance of survival. What will be the cutoff? What extenuating factors will be taken into consideration? Will a single mother of 3 already born children be given a pass on risk that other women may be asked to accept? Will wealthy women be able to game the system with better representation? Truly, the potential consequences of this initiative are disturbing, and I doubt that even one of its proponents have thought it through as far as I have in 5 minutes.

Networks Hate Pro-Life Ads- Or Not

prochoice, prolife, abortion, choice, superbowl, advertising, nbc, pro life, pro choice

There has been a lot of whining from the prolifers about NBC's refusal to play a prolife ad during the Superbowl. "Oh, it's life affirming." "They'll play ads with bad language and sexual entendres, why won't they play our ad?"

Here's the deal, kids. The ad shows a fetus and then describes the life story of Barack Obama- the point being that you shouldn't have an abortion no matter how bad things are because your pregnancy could result in the next Barack Obama. (This is sort of an odd tack for the prolifers to take considering how much they hate Obama's stance on abortion, but whatever.) They play this game all the time with Beethovan and other notables from history- and that's the point. It's okay to do that with Beethovan, for one thing, he's dead. For another, we have no idea what his opinion on abortion would have been.

However, to use a living person, our President no less, who is in favor of a woman's right to choose, in a prolife commercial is disingenuous at best. "Intellectually bankrupt" comes to mind, as well.

Oh, and here's one for you:

A woman is her husband's third wife- and his half niece. She is pregnant with their fourth child, the father's sixth. The father is brutally abusive and the family is extremely poor. Would you choose to continue with the pregnancy?

If you said yes, then you just saved Hitler's life. Good for you.

No Uterus, No Opinion

martin luther, children, gay, nazis, abortion, prochoice, prolife, choice, women, feminism, feminist, stupid

[censored] and I have the same opinion on the abortion debate: if you don't have a uterus, shut up. A man is never going to have to make that choice, is he? So why do so many men think they know exactly how a woman feels, exactly what the choices are, how they feel to make, or anything else about pregnancy? I won't try to tell you what erections feel like, you stop trying to tell me what having a uterus is like.

Emissary gives us this gem today, comparing abortion to slavery.

Yeah, I know, what the fuck?

One of the main arguments for abortion concerns the woman's body. The fetus grows within her, so it's technically considered "part of her" during development. yes, it is a part of her. fetuses cannot survive on their own. as they are inside of the woman's uterus, they are inside her body, and therefore, a "part of her". are we having trouble with the complexities of the english language again? And since it's "part of her body", she gets to choose what happens to it; termination or birth. yeah, pretty much. is there some sort of third option i am unaware of?

I thought a lot about this argument today not long enough, apparently, trying to determine what status a fetus has under this "pro-choice" logic. It is obviously not considered to be a human child because it's not a child. it's a fetus. children are capable of, I dunno, breathing. It has no right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness how precisely would a fetus make use of liberty or pursue happiness? it's in placenta in a uterus. where is it going in its pursuit of happiness?. In fact, it's not even considered to be "alive" by the pro-abortion populace. That would make it even less than a pet. my dog is not living inside my uterus, and, i can put my dog to sleep any time i want, so what was your point again? So what would it be? a fetus, asshat!According to the argument, it seems that a woman in essence owns the fetus. in the same way she "owns" her kidneys, i suppose. That would make the fetus her property.

stop it! right now! fetuses are not slaves. you know what a fetus really resembles the most? a parasite. no really, in a scientific sense, a fetus bears every resemblence to a parasite. See how ugly these sorts of comparisons can get?

i am really getting tired of false analogies, people. religion is not a cultural phenomenon like sports, homosexuals are not like nazis and fetuses are not like slaves. if you can't come up with a real argument, SHUT.THE.FUCK.UP.

Fake Photos

abortion, choice, prolife, lying

Normally, I don't weigh in on the abortion debate. It's hyperemotional, hyperpolitical and hyperreligious, there's way more than two sides and I'm not changing anybody's mind either way.

However, I do not approve of people lying (this link will take you to pictures you may find upsetting. Proceed with caution.) or using fake photographs to influence others. (I will say, however, that it is possible that Nugget simply didn't do any research on the photos.)

I am not reposting the photos here because I have no idea of the sensibilities of my readers. I found the fake photos disturbing (the point, I'm sure) and I like violent video games. Don't say I didn't warn you, however.

How do I know the pictures are fake? The second one is definitely fake, and here's why: that picture is labeled as an aborted fetus at 9 weeks, comparing it to a dime, right there in the picture. A dime is (and I actually measured one) about 3/4 of an inch wide. Now, according to WebMD, at 8 weeks, a fetus is . . . about the size of a grape -- 0.56 to 0.8 inches from crown to rump. 0.8 inches would be 0.05 inches bigger than a dime. In the picture, the alleged "aborted fetus" is at least 4 dimes from crown to rump.

The picture is a fake. Lying to make your point makes it look like you have no point at all.

(I'm not allowing any comments that label me a "baby murderer" or make any assumptions at all about my feelings on abortion. You have no idea how I feel about that, so don't assume. The subject of this post is not abortion, it is dishonesty.)

Evil, Child-Hating Non-Women

I have to thank [censored] for sending me the link for this article. It is indeed ripe for deconstruction. Actually, it's ripe for a little carpetbombing, but I don't have nuclear capabilities.

I don't have children. This is by choice. (In the interests of full disclosure, my medical problems would make a pregnancy potentially deadly, but I didn't want children before that, and I still don't want them.) I have no intention ever having children. This does not make me sad.

It also doesn't make me evil, selfish, child-hating or a non-woman. I love children. I have 11 nieces and nephews, and I love them all. I spend as much time with them as I can. (It's a lot of time.) I have watched Dora and The Suite Life with Zack and Cody more times than is reasonable. I know all about the Jonas Brothers, and I throw a baseball reasonably well. I have taught cartwheels and cleaned up puke and changed countless diapers and consoled the recently dumped. (My husband and I are both the 3rd of 4 children, so some of my nieces and nephews are adults now.)

Why don't I want children? I don't know. Before I got sick, I wasn't afraid of pregnancy. (Well, no more so than anyone who's never been pregnant.) I'm sure as hell not trying to maintain my figure. (Both my sisters and my mother had rockin' bodies after their pregnancies. I wish.) I'm not trying to maintain some sybaritic lifestyle. (again, I wish.) I'm a legal secretary, so it's not like I'm trying to further some fantastic career.

I just don't want children.

Why should I have to justify this? Do I need to justify everything else I don't want to do? Every movie I don't want to see, every book I don't want to read, every restaurant I don't want to go to?

Of course not.

Also, and nobody seems to consider this, why would you want someone who doesn't want children to have them? Has anyone with this viewpoint ever considered what would become of those children? Let me tell you. My father loved his son. He wanted nothing to do with his daughters. You want to mess somebody up? That's a great place to start.

On to the deconstruction.

I stumbled upon this disappointing article yesterday while searching for the latest news regarding attacks on traditional marriage and family. Gay people wanting civil rights does not attack "traditional marriage and family". Heteros would remain free to marry and procreate. They just wouldn't be special anymore. Though a bit off the beaten path of my usual focus on the destructive nature of the homosexual agenda gay terrorists will burst into your bedroom at night, forcibly impregnate you, forcibly abort you, and turn your children gay with a single look! Right after they redecorate your living room in an elegant, but modern, style., it still shows a blatant disregard for and misunderstanding of the purpose of marriage. the transfer of wealth and property across generations? The message from the author, a “relationship examiner,” I totally want that title! lends strong support to the Demographic Winter studies not familiar with the Demographic Winter studies? Basically, white people aren't having enough babies, so we will soon be overrun by brown people! Run for the hills!. The idea … No children? No problem. It’s your choice. uh, yeah. unfortunately, if it seems obvious to me . . .

“Few couples today assume that having a child automatically follows a trip down the aisle. actually, i think most couples assume that, at some point, having a child will be involved. most people do want to have children. admittedly, it might happen before the trip down the aisle, but having a child is still a popular choice. Some married couples are choosing not to have children at all. These are personal choices for adults and should be respected.” yeah. but again, if it seems obvious to me . . .

Did you catch that? What? If not, read it again. ok. Absorb it. osmosis? Specifically note the first three words of that tragic first line: something is rotten in the state of denmark? “Few couples today….” again, I call bullshit on that, but whatever. While I agree that the decision to not have children should be a private one between the couple involved apparently not, since you're freaking blogging about it, on the interwebs, for all the world to see, I feel that, overall, the article’s unilateral support for making such a decision is less than objective, and does, contrary to the author’s claim, offer quite selfish reasons for making such a decision. the support does, the article does, or the people interviewed do? they usually interview people who say things like: "I wanted white carpets, so I obviously couldn't have children." they never interview anyone who offers the kind of honesty I did above.

Says one woman of her 22-year marriage:
“My husband and I got married right out of high school. For six years we both went to night school while holding down day jobs.hardly a good time to have children. After college we spent the next five years building careers. Finally, we got to the point where we were able to enjoy the financial aspect of all our hard work. We traveled good for you, built our dream house good for you; we enjoyed our life again, good for you. Around the time we built the house, we had a heart to heart talk and made the decision not to have children. We do not regret our decision.” well, that's just tragic. tragically tragic.

Work, school, dreams - all selfish desires. dreams! it's so selfish to have dreams! it's selfish to learn things! it's selfish to pay the bills! you're horrible, horrible people! damn you all! (I think I just blew through my allotment of exclamation points for the rest of the year.) I do not say that with derision. yes, you do. you can't call education and dreams- dreams!- selfish without derision. I say it matter-of-factly. you're a crazy, racist asshat. i don't say that with derision, i say it matter-of-factly. that's fun. In these pursuits, this couple thought only of themselves. I'm sure they killed anyone who got in their way. who else were they supposed to be thinking of? There is no thought for the next generation for there will be none. oh, puhlease. i don't know if you've noticed, but there are plenty of people breeding these days. the human race isn't exactly doomed because this couple chose not to procreate. Oh, but the procreating people are brown! This couple betrayed the Aryan master race! the horror! (Now I'm into next year's allotment of exclamation points.)

And what of the idea that those experiences can still be enjoyed, even with children; or perhaps even be enhanced by the presence of children? Working full time and going to school full time cannot be enhanced by the presence of children. Besides, was that even the issue? If you don't want children, don't have them. Just because one person finds their life "enhanced" by children, doesn't mean we all will. I enjoy bananas. (Or did, until quite recently.) My husband does not. Do you honestly think that shoving bananas down my husband's throat will make him like them?

There is no mention made of that possibility with the article focusing instead on assuaging couples’ feelings of guilt and promoting an “eat, drink, and be merry” laissez fair attitude toward the decision to have children. that couple didn't sound guilty at all. I don't feel guilty about not having children. Why should I? oh, that's right-- the brown people are coming! (well, they're already in my family, so I'm not going to get all alarmed.)

“Marriage is the joining of two lives. Husband and wife need not always become Daddy and Mommy. Be realistic about your expectations, your needs, and your wants. After your decision is made, have no regrets. Live your life the way you want it to be, not the way anyone else says it should be.” reasonable advice. it must be wrongwrongWRONG.

I’m supposed to be realistic about “[my] expectations, [my] needs, and [my] wants,” and yet this is not a selfish decision? Really? no, it's not. thinking of oneself is not inherently selfish. Try this. Would you suggest that a woman should never, ever buy clothes for herself, because her children need things, too? Eventually, she will end up naked, which wouldn't serve her children well at all. If you do not take care of yourself, nobody else will do it for you. Therefore, it is you who needs to attend to your expectations, needs and wants. Get to it.The inherently divine huh? when did marriage become divine? I'm married. and unselfish nature of marriage BWAHAHAHAHA. anybody who tells you that marriage is just an orgy of unselfishness until death do you part is LYING. lies in the natural and unselfish potential between one man and one woman to procreate. i'll grant you natural, but unselfish? What if the my only expectation, my need and my want is to procreate? is it still unselfish? should i not fulfill that expection, need, want if it is something i want to do so as to avoid being selfish? Try to avoid logic that is sharp on both ends.

So how is it unselfish, then, to choose not to employ reproductive organs for reproduction? what else would I emply reproductive organs for, exactly? Penises and vaginas are not solely reproductive organs. even ignoring sex, my husband would be hard pressed to pee without his penis. As for ovaries and testicles, they also perform the important task of hormonal regulation, which is vital for maintaining, i dunno, LIFE. the only truly reproductive organ is the uterus, so apparently, the only selfish person is the woman. yeah, it's always misogyny in the end, isn't it?

If forming committed unions and making love is solely for the purpose of satisfying sexual impulses and attractions or for an expression of the devotion between two consenting adults, and children are an afterthought to be discussed and weighed and voted on, what then is the purpose of the uterus, the ovaries, the eggs, the sperm? To procreate, asshat. (and see above about peeing and hormonal regulation) However, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Asshat is comparing us to animals. My dog can use his long, sharp teeth and powerful jaws to kill other animals. Given the opportunity, he will. (terrible incident involving a skunk.) I do not, however, choose to give my dog the opportunity to use his teeth and jaws in this manner. He was made for it, but he doesn't have to do it. I do have a uterus. I'm not required to use it. Don't even get me started on the appendix I used to have.

Did God create them, “just in case?” I doubt it. blahblahblah god blahblahblah bible But, in the end, my biggest issue with this article is not the revelation that married couples are choosing not to have children. seriously, that was a revelation? where have you been living? 1150? I was already quite aware of that unfortunate situation. not 1150, Judgmentville! My objections arrive, instead, in response to the author’s attempt to justify and rationalize rather than objectively address both sides of the issue (notice no argument or justification or personal anecdote was offered in favor of having children). why would anyone need to justify or give a personal anecdote in favor of having children? that's by far the most common choice/situation. would you like a personal anecdote about people who wear clothes and live in houses, too?

While the title (“A marriage with or without children – personal choices, no regrets”) would profess objectivity, the content is clearly one-sided. Why is there a need to be protected from commentary by well-meaning family and friends? those people are not fucking well-meaning. they are judgmental asshats. of course i'm sure asshat considers people who call gays promiscuous and immature well-meaning as well. And who better to give advice about the emptiness of life without children than those who have them and cannot imagine living without them? uh-huh. wouldn't those be the last people who should be giving advice on the subject? if you can't imagine life without children, how can you advise people who don't have children? oh, and it's not empty in my opinion, asshat. i'm perfectly happy. Where is the encouragement for thinking and acting unselfishly? as defined by asshat, who selfishly had children because she couldn't imagine life without them. How about addressing the fact that feelings of guilt are often the result of doing something wrong, rather the byproduct of assertions from friends and family, i don't feel guilty. so i guess i didn't do anything wrong. and will go away if that wrong-doing is corrected. so now not having children is equal to say, rape or murder. lovely.

I feel guilty when I spend too much time reading novels while my children beg for interaction with their mother. she admits to being a bad mother? maybe she shouldn't have had children. i don't ignore my nieces and nephews. ever. i'm a better mommy than you! And while society today would attempt to purge my feelings of guilt by telling me that I deserve a break and “me” time is imperative for the mental health of a mother, no, i'm pretty sure ignoring your kids is still bad mommy time. (i mean truly ignoring, not taking a break while someone else watches them.) I still know that the only way to eliminate my guilt is to correctly spend less time with the self-indulgent novels and more time with my children. self indulgent novels? harlequin pornamances, maybe? how 'bout more time with the pornamances and less time with the blog, asshat?

In short, children are not objects to be haggled over. no, they are not, but i'm not sure why you said that. are we off to the subject of child custody? They are blessings. yeesh. Their presence on earth and in society tempers the broiling, selfish Id that threatens to overcome reason and bury us all in over-indulgence and debauchery. wow. so, the only reason people commit crimes is because they don't have children? really? there are no criminal parents? anywhere? Clearly we see that as consideration for i think we need an "as" here the children diminishes, so too, do society’s inhibitions. yeah, the 1950's were perfect because there was no birth control. in 1950, there was no rape, robbery, murder, drug abuse, alcoholism, violence or war. No wait, I've got! in 1950, brown people knew their proper place. That damn birth control pill ruined everything! We would all be wise to think more about the children and less about ourselves. i think in your case, asshat, thinking at all would be wise.

~Pearl