Obviously infants are in the process of developing language.
Infants are “in the process” of developing faculty for language, but no slightly lesser developed form of the same human being is? At what point does a developing human begin the development of language? And what scientific proof do you have supporting that claim?
Nobody knows the fetus; therefore, nobody loves the fetus
You know, there’s this bum I pass when I take the quick way to work. A smelly, disgusting man. Can’t be right in the head. He’s been out there every single day since I moved here around a year ago. I’ve never seen him with anyone and I can’t imagine many people love him—he doesn’t even have the standard hobo dog. At the very least, he serves absolutely no purpose to society.
Killing him, a-OK? I must say that I wouldn’t mind the security of knowing he’d never stink up that alley again. Killing him would save me a lot of emotional (and possibly physical!) trauma…
the mother, who out of love might choose to birth it, or out of love might choose to nip it in the bud so it won’t grow up having to face hardships
That’s some tough love right there. I wonder how much the pro-borts would admire a poor mother who decided to take her potentially hardship-ridden child and “nip it in the bud” at around, oh… two years old?
I’ll also pose this question to you: what would admitting to yourself that your existence is worthless do to your sanity?
I can’t honestly say it’d do much. I dismissed all of that God/afterlife hokey back in high school, and it took me until my sophomore year in college (as a philosophy major) to I adopt my anti-abortion stance, which is logically derived. Why do you ask?
OK, so I’m probably talking to a pretty narrow audience here, but I’d like to talk about Saved by the Bell.
I was born in 1980. I grew up with ABC TGIF, and I religiously followed the exploits of Cory Matthews, Steve Urkel, Blossom, Cody Lambert, Balki Bartokomous, Fresh Prince (though, if I remember right, he was on NBC), Mike Seaver, and Michelle Tanner. In the afternoons, it was always Ducktales and Rescue Rangers—but in the evening, the cartoons were over and it was time for the “real life” stuff. There’s no arguing that, despite being entertainment, these characters impressed some life lessons upon me. Cory was the archetypal every-kid, literally trying to find his place when Boy Meets World. Mike Seaver was that cool older brother I never had. Urkel was that incredible dork who showed us all why you should love being who you are, damn what anyone says. Balki… well, you just kind of wanted to slap him, but… Hmm. Now that I think about it, what the hell was the point of Balki in the first place?
Nevermind, it’s not important.
Point is, as an adolescent coming of age, Saved by the Bell was the show that we all emulated. And for boys, we all wanted to be either Zack or AC. Zack was the popular, chic ne’er-do-well; AC was the popular jock badass-with-a-heart-of-gold. Screech, of course, was the object of ridicule—and it’s how we all learned to ridicule the nerds and geeks in high school (while accepting their existence and allowing them into the fold).
I wasn’t buff enough to be AC, so… although most people my age (especially on this site) are probably remiss to admit it, we all wanted to be Zack Morris. He was cooler than cool. He was the definition of cool. He dominated every situation, he got both Kelly Kapowski and Tori Scott (and Stacey Carosi), and he was the king of inventive ways to get out of detention. And he had great hair. And the first cell phone. Zack Morris was my hero in those turbulent pre-teen years.
But why am I writing about this? Who gives a damn about a show from 20 years ago?
Well, it’s an interesting contrast these days. For anybody that has seen the show, ask yourself: which character did you hate the most?
Some people probably want to say Screech. He was a nerd that, despite four years of high school (and even in “The College Years”) never actually managed to go through puberty and was constantly prone to crying. Some want to say Mr. Belding. He was the authoritarian figure (who didn’t actually seem to have any real authority) but he made an active effort to lampoon himself in every episode—which got old because it was always the same exact joke. But if you think either of these, you’re wrong. The single most hated character on Saved By The Bell was Jessie Spano.
Jessie was a self-righteous, whiny, politically correct, environmentalist, vegetarian, feminist bitch—who routinely picked fights for NO reason, developed a drug habit (to caffeine pills), and was insanely jealous when she was not made valedictorian and scored lower than Zack on the SATs.
Naturally, she was unilaterally rated the most unpopular character on the show. Against Screech, who went out of his way—in every single episode—to annoy us.
Even the actual nerds in high school hated Screech. Because he was too unrealistic. He was over the top. People hated him, sure—but we hated Jessie even more. Because Jessie was a reflection of reality. 20 years ago, we all hated the Jessie Spanos of this world. Why? Same reason we liked Six more than we liked Blossom. Yeah, we were supposed to identify more with Blossom—but, secretly, we all wanted to be more like Six. Dana Foster grated on our last nerve, but JT Lambert was our pal.
Why? Because nobody likes a whiny self-righteous bitch who spends all her time ramming PC dogma down everyone’s throat. How often did she pick a fight with Slater, for no reason but that she had a bug up her ass about something (that didn’t even have anything to do with him!)? AC Slater was written to have the patience of Job. I can’t tell you how many times he should have shoved Jessie’s face into a locker (especially that episode where she chains herself to the school doors… for some protest… against something… while he and every other sane character, except the hippie trying to get into her pants [eww], goes to the beach to have fun). It’s easy to spot the flaws in Kelly and Lisa. Kelly was vapid. Lisa was incredibly shallow. But we didn’t hate them. Not like we hated Jessie. Screech was annoyingly endearing. But you just wanted to punch Jessie in the face every time she played a primary plot role.
Not that there wasn’t an episode written for the other characters to “play Jessie” once in a while. To the top of my head come “Zack, the duck, and the evil evil oil,” “AC doesn’t want to join the military,” “It ain’t easy bein’ Screech,” “Kelly’s so popular it hurts,” and “Oh my god an episode about Lisa?” But these were very specialized episodes. They were written for a specific purpose. In the regular episodes, they played their roles—including Jessie. The problem is, Jessie’s natural role was to be a whiny pain in the ass. Even Screech ditched on Cut Day. But did Jessie? No. For Jessie, Cut Day was yet another excuse to bitch about something and complain that her friends and her boyfriend were total assholes for not caring about… whatever she was going on about in that particular episode. My god, this episode had Zack feeding Mr. Belding dead insects to get out of class. How does that comedy gold come second to “What’s Jessie whining about now?”
Jessie, despite her inclusion in the clique, was everything that is wrong in the world. She was the bitch who bitched about everything for sake of bitching. As if it gave her purpose and meaning. And it truly bothers me that we have far too much Jessie in the world, and not enough Zack. Is that really what we want? Did all the people of my generation watch Saved By The Bell and decide, “Hey, Jessie’s the one we should be like when I grow up!”—despite the fact that we universally hated her when we were kids?
Hey, I’m only twelve years out of high school (and almost 20 years out of Saved By The Bell), so what do I know? But I’ll be honest, I miss the Zack Morrises of the world a whole lot more than I do the Jessie Spanos. I’d rather have a creative solution that’s basically an exercise in complete irresponsibility than be a stuck-up, uptight, tight-assed bitch that whines about everything just to whine about it and feel self-important.
Imagine Saved By the Bell for a moment, but recast it to have Zack, and 100,000 Jessies. And then look at the world in which we live. It’s awful, isn’t it? God I hate all you Jessie Spanos of the world.
You and me both, brother.
Population control as an argument in favor of abortion is a very slippery slope, Anon. “They’re unwanted, so they’ll just have shitty lives anyway, might as well kill them”? Sounds like a stone’s throw away from class-based eugenics to me. Why not cleanse the ghettos while we’re at it?
You’ll wanna be careful with that little word “fact,” too. Tertullian wrote, “We are burdensome to the world, the resources are scarcely adequate for us… Truly, pestilence and hunger and war and flood must be considered as a remedy for nations, like a pruning of the human race becoming excessive in numbers.” That was when the Earth’s population was around 100 million or so, by the way. Some modern estimates say the Earth could support as many as one trillion people—others say that we’d need approximately four Earths if the global standard of living were raised to that of the United States. Say tomorrow that it’s conclusively proven that abortion is murder. What would you suggest to curtail our breeding habits instead? Anything not fascistic?
“Kinda like humans?” No. Are humans. As in, “composed of human DNA,” “having their own personal blood type, heartbeat, and genetic makeup.” No scientific, biological, or medical text reference states that life begins at any other point. By the by, a parasite is a creature of a different species than the host. Also, during pregnancy, a woman’s body goes through changes to deliberately provide nutrients and protect her baby. This does not occur in parasitic relationships.
why dont you tell people not to eat bad food if they cant pay the medical bills they might have if they have a heart attack.
I do. I wish most people didn’t eat like such idiots. When fat people ask me how they can become healthier or better-looking, I tell them. But of course, I’d never force healthy food upon them or campaign to illegalize McDonald’s, as that’s a slightly different principle—people being fat and unhealthy and having heart attacks infringes upon nobody’s rights.
Besides, there are lots of things that can result in heart attack. There’s only one that can result in pregnancy.
Lastly, it should be noted that, except in the case of rape, no one is being forced to rear a child they didn’t ask for.
If you’ll notice, the one time I argued that first-trimester fetuses still carry human features, I also appended the explicit disclaimer, “Not that it means anything regarding their humanity.” So no, I “HAVEN’T.”
But what you’re saying is, basically anyone unconscious or asleep (thus, not self-aware) isn’t human, and anyone without language (like, infants/deaf people) aren’t human. OK.
Go call Peter Singer. He’ll love you.
Seriously? You’re reasoning backwards. The reason we’re special isn’t because we’ve got language—language is a result of what makes us special. And no, it isn’t some infallible Something in the sky. I’m sure you can figure this one out, big girl.
OK. humans are unremarkable, unchanged by any characteristic making us superior to the rest of the animal kingdom. Then what’s the difference between murdering a fetus and murdering a 40yr old man? Those you care for and the your neighbor’s yappy dog? They’re all just animals, no more meaningful than a fly. Screw it, let’s kill ‘em all. No biggie.
Why should I? My life is mine and mine alone to live, right? And the same of yours. Are you under the impression that one of us is not well-suited to living our own lives? I’m not.
Of course my life is more important than those of people around me—it’s my life. And yours should be important to you. If it isn’t—hey, that’s not my problem. Enjoy your codependence.
I appreciate the Fight Club reference though, thank you.
I’m going to guess this is where you’re heading. I answered it there.
Do you define “humanity” by their consciousness?
“Abortions are gonna happen anyway, so we might as well make them safe, legal and rare!”
“Robberies are gonna happen anyway, so we might as well make them safe, legal and rare!”
“Slavery is gonna happen anyway, so we might as well make it safe, legal and rare!”
See the faulty rationalization there? The purpose of the law isn’t prevention—it’s retribution. The threat of criminal activity is not reasonable justification for its legalization. If women die/are greviously injured during illegal abortions, honestly—that’s their problem. It’s the risk they assume in doing something they shouldn’t be doing.
Because I sometimes have more important/interesting things to do than respond to each and every one of the 172 messages in my Ask Box that all say the exact same thing. I work 60 hours a week and have an incurable comic book habit. The few posts of mine you’ve seen since the 16th were on queue, to help prevent complaints I had during my last absence. I’ve also had faithful followers unfollow me due to the ungodly amount of controversy I create, so I try to have peaceful intermissions between the endless vitriolic debate.
Both of the unposted arguments you’ve submitted to me have been addressed in the past. I do plan on getting to them, but in the mean time, you could search a few hot words from your messages and see if they turn anything up. I’m putting this on queue too. I apologize for the delay.
Currently we have socially permissive economically constrictive and socially constrictive and econimically permissive.
This causes poor people who really hate mexicans and love Jesus to vote against their own economic interests, and rich people who want to gay out to willingly lose their own money or rights.
Personally, I want to build a society ruled by statistic based robots, who are fed data by lobotimized impartial scientists. And learning cones 4 the children.
Followers, you deserve a good laugh every so often.
Thanks for sticking around.