Suggestions

I'm tired of being the "abortion and current events" guy.

Any ideas?

Now, I may not be a big-city lawyer, but...

I want to talk about the military tribunals.

First off, there are no such things as "additional rights". Any of these rights are basic human rights that are not dependent upon any other factor. Likewise, there is no such thing as a person who does not deserve their rights. Such a notion is abhorrent and contradicts the basic values America was based on.

Secondly, I am enraged with the question "What happens if they're acquitted?". The obvious answer is "We let them go." Any other answer is, frankly, unAmerican.

Thirdly, the simple fact that we're trying them doesn't make them criminals. Saying "we've already decided that they're criminals" is absurd; we have made no such decision until we try them.

On the fourth hand, saying that military tribunals have been used since the Revolutionary War is an ad antiquitatem.

Fifth of all, it is absurd to make a distinction between sins (for want of a better word) committed "in uniform" or "out of uniform". The idea of a separate "law of war" is special pleading. Anyways, we should not elevate the actual terrorists by calling this an act of war; this would simply lend them an air of legitimacy.

Of course, I would also like to make the cliché observation that we could free up a lot of space in our prisons by freeing all the nonviolent drug offenders.

On the topic of torture, the idea that the torturers were trying to make us safer doesn't mean they didn't break the law. No, Graham. Using techniques not outlined in the manual does not make it illegal. Using torture, which is against international law, does. Then again, you "saw the law as a nicety we could not afford." But you aren't criminals. Riiiight.

I would like to end with a quote from Blaise Pascal.

Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarreled with him?

This post would be about something else had you payed attention in 8th grade.

You know the deal. You're defending prenatal rights online. Perhaps even more certain than Godwin's Law, a Roebot will eventually submit some form of this argument. Examples below.

• If abortion is murder, masturbation is genocide. (and/or some reference to the "Tubesock Holocaust")
• LIFE BEGINS AT MEIOSIS!
• If abortion is murder, any woman who's ad more than one period is a serial killer!
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Now, for this post I'm going to assume a fundamental understanding of the subject of biolo-...

Actually, I'd better not.

You see, sperm and egg cells (reproductive cells that fuse to form a zygote, collectively referred to as gametes) are formed through a process called meiosis, in which-

Whoa, there! Don't you think I should handle this?

Um, this is kind of my blog. Who are you exactly?

I'm Gamete Pete!

Err... okay?

Anyway, meiosis occurs when a body cell splits in two, copying its chromosomes as in mitosis, resulting in 2 daughter cells with a normal number of chromosomes. Next each of these daughter cells splits in two, but do not copy their chromosomes. The result is that the original parent cell produces four new cells with half a full set of chromosomes. This occurs in both the male and the female, though in the female 3 of the 4 granddaughter cells merely become polar bodies. This is simplified, but it's enough for our purposes. When half the chromosomes from a mother and half the chromosomes from the father join in a process called fertilization, a new organi-

MY TURN!

Um...

Who are you?

I'm Kate the Prenate!

I should've expected.

When the father's spermatozoon (sperm) fertilizes the mother's ovum (egg cell), the two half-genomes (sets of chromosomes) join to form a new genome, thus a new and unique organism is formed. Unlike gametes, which are cells of the parent, the zygote (the single celled organism created by the union of the two gametes) is a new organism. The zygote then begins to grow through mitosis into a blastocyst. In viviparous animals, the blastocyst travels down a fallopian tube of the mother into her uterus, implants in the uterine lining, and becomes an embryo. In humans, the stage of development after approximately five months is termed the fetal stage, and the individual is termed a fetu-

Ahem.

No, sorry Cletus. No.

As you can see, there is no comparison to be made. Gametes are cells of the parent and a prenate is a separate individual. A gamete has the potential to contribute half of the genome of a human being. A prenate is a human being.

Choice over Children

The title has a double meaning. The pro-abortion side often claims to only support "the right to choose if and when to have children". Thus choice over whether and when to have children.

However, what this amounts to in their ideology is the right to choose not to have children, after you already have a child. The only way to do this is by homicide. Thus, supporting said choice above the rights of said child.

I support your right to choose to not have children. However, I do not hold said choice over the children themselves, should they be conceived.

Jon Stewart: I think that's definitely where it's dug in from on the pro-life movement and I think on the other side it's "does the government have the right to tell a woman that she cannot make decisions about her reproductive health that she believes are in the best interests of her family?"

Mike Huckabee: She can, but once the decision has been made that results in another human life, then I think that now you have to consider both of those lives: hers and the child's.

I love this response from gomtuu77 of differhonestly.com:

Answer: Yes, government has the right and the duty to tell a woman that she cannot make “certain decisions” regarding her own reproduction. As I’ve said previously, “human beings have equal rights as human beings, and as such, it is reasonable for a society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience or hardship if the only alternative is to kill the unborn child.” We do this kind of thing all the time (i.e. restrict the freedoms of other human beings when not doing so would result in the loss of another human being’s life). This is utterly non-controversial in every other area, and quite frankly, it shouldn’t be controversial in this one. Unfortunately, this answer was never given, and they ended up accomplishing almost nothing in the discussion for the reasons I gave previously.

Loki's Wager

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki's_Wager

I was actually asked in one argument when in the fertilization process rights arise. Obviously it's when the genome is finished forming, but let's assume the question was hard. What would that mean?

Nothing.

It is important to define life begins so that no one is denied their rights, so iffy some-time-in-gestation philosophies don't cut it. But there's no method of contraceptive or abortion that happens during fertilization.

The question, practically speaking, is meaningless.

Rule 1 of Debating Obama's Health Care Plan

Rule 1: Debate Obama's health care reform

That means don't debate the systems of other countries (non sequiturs) and don't make things up (misinformation).

Another CtA

Been a while since I myself delivered a Call to Action.

It's August recess. If you happen to be going* to a Town Hall, please bring up how abortion is antithetical to healthcare.

*If you go just because of this blog, I'll be surprised. ♥☺♥

"'Death Panels'": the power of the quotation marks

I've been meaning to post this for a while but kept forgetting.

The way Palin put her made-up phrase “death panel” in quotes was a transparent attempt to give it an air of legitimacy, as if it was really in the bill.

At least she didn't capitalize it.

BIG TASTE

This seems to be a big thing the food corporations (alongside shock factor and cheap gimmicks) tout.

First of all, taste cannot be measured in size.

Second of all, this is sad.

Or culture should reward good tastes, not strong ones. This is one of the good things about Asian snacks: pastel flavors.

Um, what?

I agree with most of it {though I'm not sure Blue Dogs oppose health care reform because they get contributions [it's probably the other way around (using the method of concentric brackets used in math - how nerdy!)]).

However, skip to 1:18.

See the problem?

He could've pointed out that the insurance companies already put in bureaucrat. Bureaucrats that decide whether you're worth treating. The public option, if it can even be said to be adding bureaucrats at all, is at least adding ones accountable to the people and not merely corporate bourgeois greed.

Sadly, he doesn't take this route. Instead he basically says "So, you're opposed to a panel of people appointed by a democratically elected government deciding whether to provide care based on cost and social utility? Well, then you must support a more dire life-or-death decision being made by a single person on nothing more than a whim, or, at most personal convenience."

Also, I would be remiss in point out that, in addition to a non sequitur, this is an ad hominem tu quoque.

Cartoon Network

They seem to be taking the "retards are funny"/fart jokes route.

Nickelodean

Ever notice how Nickelodean's hidden message seems to be "Youth can change the world! Oh, not you. You're not a robot and you don't have magic powers or super powers or absurdly rich parents or a supersuit or mystic powers."? All the shows out there about normal teens or children are just about day-to-day life, typically in school.

And teens are typically portrayed as shallow party animals. Who can never get away with anything. Or will admit to anything because they're slaves to their consciences (which always agree with adults). Or will totally freak out and become paranoid by seeing a movie the MPAA doesn't want them to see/