Mattel Sponsors Genitally Mutilated Burqa Barbie Doll

One of the world's most famous children's toys, Barbie, has been given a makeover - wearing a burqa that fully covers an anatomically correct body of a young genitally mutilated Muslim woman with an amputated clitoris and the labia majora stitched together with thorns and ligament of a hyena.


~
Wearing the traditional Islamic dress, the circumcised doll is part of a "Save The Children" charity auction in the United Kingdom.

The company director of Laird Assessors from The Wirral, Cheshire, said: "Bring it on, Genitally Mutilated Burqa Barbie! I think this is a great idea. This is really important for girls, wherever they are from they should have the opportunity to play with a Barbie that they feel represents them."

"I know Barbie used to be considered a bad image for girls, but in fact the message with Barbie for women is you can be whatever you want to be. I have a Crack Whore Barbie, Crack Baby Barbie, Transvestite Barby, Leprosy Barbie in a Wheelchair, an ACORN Barbie, and Pimp Ken that comes with the bunch. I even have an Islamic Martyr "Death to Infidels" Barbie with an exquisite suicide bomb belt laced with cute little bolts and ball bearings, from the Italian designer Eliana Lorena, which has only been out for, like, six weeks."

The mum-of-two's own Barbie collection is set to be displayed at London's Victoria and Albert Museum in 2012.



Rosie Shannon, from Save the Children, said "We are delighted Sotheby's and the designer chose to auction the Genitally Mutilated Burqa Barbie dolls for our charity. The money will go towards the Rewrite the Future campaign which helps millions of children around the world effected by rational Western values and suffering from their parents' outmoded moral standards."

Perhaps there is some good to come of this. If women had to put bags over there heads like this, we would not have to gaze upon the face of Babs Streisand, Shill Kinton (Many titted empress) Nansky or any number of the "Hags"we are forced to look at.

Yes this would make our lives more pleasant.

Commissar Red Star CEO Hemlock Hospitality Inc.
Director of kicking doors at midnight
Keeper of the Sacred Plasma Cutter.
Herdsman of Rainbow Farting Unicorns
Defender of the Faith
Who is John Galt?

Damn. Damn! DAMN! This will steal the thunder of Bruno Barbie!
Bruno was contacted by Mattel to be their spokeman, er, spokeswoman, er, all right, spokesthing and he worked so hard for it. Notice the dress. I told him that red was the only color but he said that red didn't match the color spectrum of the fruit in his head. So Pepto Bismol was all that he could do. And it's good for a queasy stomach.

Also Bruno has suggested modifying the Mattel logo:

"If it's Mattel, it's fabulous!"

Oh, Bruno, don't worry about those Burqa Barbies!  They don't get to live at the Rancho del Rio, chasing Jimmie Carter Nano Rabbits.  And, thank Allah Akbar your package is completely intact, or you wouldn't feel like dressing up in more than a burqa yourself.

What do you know, I beat Phyllis Chesler to this story. She just published her opinion on this on PajamasMedia:

Boycott Burqa Barbie

I made a comment by copy-pasting this parody. Hope she reads it.

Finally my Eva Braun and Elena Ceauşescu Barbies will be joined with another cuturally-acceptable female model of the future. Don't ask why I collect dolls.

My legs upon reading the first paragraph:

As a fellow collector perhaps you'd be interested in acquiring my Amelda Marcos Barbie which comes with a Dream House full of shoes or my Evita Barbie complete with a live grenade in her coat pocket.

Just to play the Devil's advocate, there may be good reasons to force muslim women into wearing burkas.

WARNING: Not family-friendly, not work-friendly.

..suddenly, unexpectedly, I find myself pro-burka! <Aacckkk>...

Whoopie, I have in my life I have enjoyed the company of many comrades with mustaches, beards and chest hair. And didn't mind a bit. But that image is guaranteed to help me lose some weight.

Oh my eyes.........my eyes.........
Some things are meant never to be seen.

That said, I think the Burqa Barbies are really sweet.  What's next?  Jihad Joe?

No one need ask, comrade!  Your fetishes are above reproach, here.  Although we all know that the dolls in your most recent "collection" [read: harem] are all Scandanavian.  You Winter Olympics-fiend, you.

Dr. better that than the time that Meow wound up in Mao's coffin with an empty bottle of Jack Black and an empty bottle of rufies that he stole from my Rancho.

So this "Save the Children" foundation, does this mean it's For the Children^®? If that's the case, will our HPE (Hemi-Penis Emperor) be there?

[Prog WAY off]
Yes, I would think so.  Given that Save the Children, in an appalling manifestation of Progressive Doublethink, works with Planned Parenthood on population control, I'm frankly not surprised they've gone this route.

You know the progs have lost it when they try to argue that abortion, genital mutiliation, etc. is For the Children.

(off)
Too bad for them the majority of the children have either no idea what they are talking about, or are exempt from it.

Truly you are right, they have lost it when they argue that stuff for the children.

[ off ]
I find it amusing/disgusting/distressing that Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger, with the express purpose of breeding blacks out existence on her theory that they were subhuman. Now that's a sacred organization.

Even Cokie Roberts made the observation, the last time I saw her over a decade ago (is she still alive?) that it was a poser to find one woman in a hospital room wanting her premature baby to be saved and another woman in an adjacent room having her baby, of the same age, suctioned out.

And this is slightly off subject, but please tell me why people who will not execute a man who kidnaps a four-year-old girl, rapes and then murders her, will march to defend a woman's "right" to terminate a nine-month fetus which has not done anyone any harm.

The only explanation is that the left is first, last, and foremost for the abolition of personal responsibility. The man cannot be executed because there might be some extenuating circumstance and they just might some day be in that position and it's insurance never to have capital punishment.

Whereas carrying a baby to term, even to give it up, is an intolerable stricture on one's complete autonomy, which means that you screw without forethought and even up to the point of delivery have the "right" to get rid of it.

[prog definitely off]

Although I normally follow Erik Voegelin's reading on the revolutionary mind - i.e., it is "a disease of the soul" - it does not make me reject a more immanent diagnosis, à la Michael Savage, gathered from its more immediate effects: "liberalism is a mental disorder".
We are not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

You've hit on part of the reason, Theocritus.  I believe another is that abortion gives women a certain power over men that men can never have.  

There are women of a certain mindset (I think they're called feminists) who think that when a man impregnates a woman, they're not starting a new life or creating something out of love, etc.; instead this is his way of exerting power over her and trying to control her life.  Abortion gives the power and control back to her, and these kind of women use it as a weapon to get back at him.

Years ago, one of the first "adult" novels I ever read was The Other Side of Midnight by Sidney Sheldon, who was no conservative.  But that novel had a scenario that I've always thought was the perfect illustration of the feminist view about abortion.  

This young woman in Paris circa 1940 has been mistaken for a prostitute and is on the verge of being arrested when an American who's a pilot with the RAF comes along and persuades the gendarme that she's his girlfriend and is waiting for him.  He sweeps her off her feet and spends the weekend romancing her and she falls in love.  On Sunday night he has to go back to his unit in England but proposes marriage to her, gives her a fistful of francs, and tells her to buy a wedding gown and he'll be back next weekend to make her dreams come true.  

Long story short, he stands her up and never returns to Paris.  She's understandably pissed, all the more so when she finds out she's pregnant.  She decides she wants to hurt him the way he hurt her, so she visits this doctor who agrees to do an abortion, but she insists on waiting, and he warns her of the dire consequences if she waits too long.  In the meantime, she asks him a lot of questions about the baby's development, most especially if it can feel pain, and what she should do/eat to make the baby healthy and strong.  The doctor is totally confused about her intentions but answers her questions.  This goes on back and forth for several months, until she's about five months along and informs the doctor, who by now is totally freaked out, that she--or rather, the baby--is now ready for the abortion.  Of course he refuses to do it so she does it herself, and nearly dies.

Trouble is, one could make the case this character had a motive, but feminists don't even need the motive.  To them it's just a way of "one-upping" the man, and what better way than to attack his own spawn in utero, the one thing he cannot reach and therefore protect?  And what has always been one of man's responsibilities in civilized society?  Protecting/providing for his mate and offspring.  That's what makes the feminazi attitude all the more heinous IMVHO.  It may sound stupid and childish, but that's exactly how some women think.  They run on spite.  "Hell hath no fury like a woman" and you can end it right there; she doesn't even have to be scorned.  

OTOH, I've always found it interesting that in the movie Fatal Attraction, it was just the man's rotten luck that he chose to fool around with a woman who happened to be pro life.   You men are always in trouble no matter what.  

Well, except maybe for you, Theocritus.

BREAKING NEWS

Honor Killing: Radical Islamic Ken Doll slays Burka Barbie over pink-painted toe nails.

(Dr. Palimpsest posted this headline in the News section, but I believe it also belongs here)

I am one such person, and here are my reasons. I oppose death penalty, because it is irreversible. An honest mistake or deliberate framing by the prosecution can and does lead to a conviction of innocent. When the convicted go to prison, there is a chance, however slight, the truth will come out. When they are executed, even the evidence gets destroyed -- so as to "achieve closure". It is simply too convenient a tool for the Government to be trusted with it...

Now, of course, the baby is certainly innocent, but abortions are not about the fetus, who is not, strictly speaking, even human yet. It is about the parents (mother especially). If she wants him dead, then so be it -- it is hers and not yet part of the society.

Moreover, I'd say, the baby's life and death ought to belong to the parents not just before, but for a few years after birth. In Ancient Rome, for example, the father had this right over children for ever (for daughters -- until marriage)...

It is a horrible thing to imagine, but it is not your child, so relax. Yours is perfectly safe and protected by law -- from everyone, except you.

mi, my basic position on abortion is that I could never go through with it myself.  

On the other hand, if anyone else chooses abortion, that's their business.  

I just don't want my tax dollars paying for it.

Glad, we are in agreement, Commisarka! I don't want my tax dollars paying for anything somebody else may decide to do with their own selves.

[ PROG REALLY OFF ]

Sorry to all about the long post. It concerns Mi's position, and you can choose to ignore it. Please do; it's just that I couldn't not write it. Sorry to all the great posters in the forum if a quasi-absent Drago takes too much of your space. Sorry to Red Square, if you deem it inappropriate: if so, please delete it. And, finally, sorry for making such a big deal of a post that I actually won't be able to keep replying because I am overloaded by work; it may get torn apart simply because I won't be able to visit it.

Mi, as for the first half of your earlier post, I think your position would be better defensible if you had the other side concede that a man should always be given a chance to repent in jail for the crime he committed (although his time in there wouldn't be made any shorter for that), and that killing him would achieve nothing for that man, and would do NO more good to the society than just locking him up with a life sentence without parole. Then the other side might reply that penal sentences also serve exemplary objectives in society, and by the harshness of a punishment one also discourages further attempts at these specifically heinous crimes, and an interesting discussion might ensue.
You were arguing, though, that people in the justice system make honest mistakes (which is true) and justice is only administered by us mere mortals as far as we can fallibly claim to be beyond a reasonable doubt (which is also true); but for that you say we should avoid the "irreversible" penalty, which is death penalty. However, if we are doing that, we should as well abolish most sentences issued by courts. How is staying half of your life in prison "reversible"? Will they pay me back 25 years of "life"? They can get me a huge load of money, sure, but this money cannot buy me 25 years of life. Will they replay my sister's childhood so that I can watch her grow up? Can they "revert" me the wife I would have known in that park were I not in jail that day? Or give me my youth and health back? Or my promising career? The point is that although 25 years of undeserved jail time are lesser punishment than death they are by NO means more "reversible" than death.
Besides, human justice happens to be fallible by itself. It judges by external signs, objects and circumstances, and infers (fallibly) a man's intentions from those (fallible) means. It never claims to be perfect; it's only the best thing we have here. No human eye can look inside a man's conscience. Justice shouldn't abstain from some sentences just because it is fallible. By that principle, we'd have to do it to most jail time sentences.

As for the second half of the post: It is a particular trait of modern-age political philosophers (not to mention their grandsons, contemporary totalitarian regimes) to "scientifically" give excuses so that the State is again(?) the one "granting" the condition of person; it was methodically done so that the statute of "person" began to be treated as a purely "juridical" one, with no objective reference, and with relativist disdain for even looking for any. Words would thus magically determine reality. This way, at the bureaucrat's discretion you can be deemed nonperson because you have brain damage (congenital or acquired while e.g. defending same bureaucrat in war), or you are in a coma, or you are a class enemy, or of a race who "by the harm done to society" has lost the "privilege" of being called "people", you name it. One would even serve the society better by being turned into cosmetic ingredients, or in experiments led by Mengele and Dzintars. Human dignity at its best.
Thus I would disagree with you, Mi: It is not up to the State to "grant" a living fetus or 3-year old infant the statute of person only under such and such conditions, and neither up to the parents; even if it is "my son", my son is not my mere "property" (as Locke would try to claim): I would say that it was not your parents' right to violate you or eat you until you reached a certain age and could beg them not to do it. By the way, heck, why that "certain age"? Why not turn grandpa with Alzheimer's into Soylent Green? Unless one can presently manifest rational thoughts, it should be okay to do what you want with him... An alligator is only an alligator as long as it bites... not when it's asleep...
That is why it cannot be just one's business if someone aborts. Ethics is not built upon "it is not your child, so relax".
Finally, the comparison with Ancient Rome was, in my opinion, out of context, but cannot be commented in a short post. For argument's sake, I'd concede everything you want about the Romans: I would only answer that, doing so, the Romans were wrong, period. Just as if according to Islam women are cattle, or should be mutilated, I would say Islam is wrong, period.

Burkha is created so man can have fun with sexing (so he can pretend what under burkha is little boy) and genital castration is created so woman do not have fun. Why should woman want fun when their job is just to have baby?
In Islamic world is saying "Women are for make baby and boys are for fun."
Even inflatable doll must have burkha. You never see sheep and boys wearing burkhas because there is not need for this. Why man want to pretend sheep is woman?
Sheep is not good enough by herself?

"For children, a woman. For pleasure, a boy. For ecstasy, a goat."
For ultimate ecstasy, a mutilated goat in a burqa.

On each day, during those 25 years, there is a chance, that exonerating evidence surfaces... Prompt release and monetary compensation may not be able to cover for all those precious things you listed, but it will be a lot better, than simply killing an innocent (or not quite as guilty) person. Like the powers (cardinalities) of infinite sets, reversibilities of different punishments can not be measured. But they can still be compared. Jail time, though less and less reversible with each passing day, is certainly more reversible, than death.

Actually, you didn't convince me at all — I think, it should.

Ivan Drago wrote

As for the second half of the post: It is a particular trait of modern-age political philosophers (not to mention their grandsons, contemporary totalitarian regimes) to "scientifically" give excuses so that the State is again(?) the one "granting" the condition of person

I'd turn this around... Whereas the full power over a child's life lies naturally with the parents (in particular — with the mother before birth), you argue, that the State ought to interfere to protect that child. On the other hand, you have no problem with the State empowered to condemn citizens to a most unnatural death.

We aren't — or weren't — talking about ethics. I wouldn't approve of anyone killing their child either (though I'm more indifferent about fetuses). My concern was — and remains — the Law. It may be unethical, but it ought to be legal.

Anyway, I didn't mean to begin an off-topic discussion — only to attempt to give Theocritus an idea, how disdain for Capital Punishment can co-exist with support for legality of abortion...

This is great.



Then there's also Mattel's response.

Of course Mattel didn't produce it, but the original article mentioned that "Makers Mattel are backing the exhibition." They can't eat cake and have it too.

Oh yeah? Bruno was patterned after a real man. Stunningly attractive and the beauty was all, I promise, skin deep. A monster of vanity.

Mi, about the death penalty. Criminals are risk-assessors. If a footpad is operating in a state without the death penalty, what is the most logical thing to do with a victim? Kill him, lest he identify the mugger. The footpad cannot be executed. But if he is in a death-penalty State, like Texas, where we're putting in an express lane if there are enough witnesses, it makes sense not to kill the victim because the footpad can be killed himself.

Also, if someone is not getting out of prison, he will have no interest in doing well in prison and will be as brutal as possible or as he wants to be. I read one of the most horrible books on earth, Fish, about a young gay man's time in prison. It would have been as bad had he not been gay. The brutality is astonishing. And made worse by people who have nothing to lose.

Also someone who is dead cannot kill or terrorize other prisoners.

And as for mistakes, I have had people use DNA as an excuse not to invoke the death penalty. I look at it the other way. Since we now have it, any defense attorney worth even a grain of salt would demand that the DNA hold up, making a conviction even more secure.

Finally (I promise), the reason hat government has any credibility is that it must seem to address your grievances adequately. We remit our right of private revenge to a government as long as its revenge on our behalf is adequate. A serial killer, a child killer, must, to my mind, be executed. Helplessness breeds anger. When I've been angry I've traced it to helplessness, every single time. I am furious at a child murderer, until he's executed.

Ayn Rand wrote that a society which has harsher civil penalties than criminal penalties is on the road to totalitarianism.

Pinkie, as so often happens, you have illuminated a lot for me. And yes, the bit about a man protecting others rings so true. I obviously have no kids but I do have employees, and if someone hurts one of them, he hurts me.

Here's a question Theo, how much humanity is left to a person without responsibilities, or in other words, where does the animal begin, and the human end?

One of my favorite arguments amongst those against the Death Penalty is "it costs more to kill them then to keep them alive." O.K. for how long? A day, a year, ten years? How long is it until keeping them alive becomes more expensive then gassing them?

I am personally for the death penalty, but only if the evidence is without doubt. I agree Theo, the DNA should be held up, making the conviction stronger.

A good government's job is to merely protect its govern from themselves, and punish those who break the law. It's not suppose to provide for its govern.

It always costs more to incarcerate a man than execute him. If he's awaiting trial, it's no more expensive than the time spent in a sentence, for it is a sentence.

And yes, let's make sure that the evidence is the best, including DNA. But my major point is that for me to surrender my personal vengeance to the state, the state has to give me something in return, which is commensurate punishment.

If a man is a serial killer, I want him dead. I don't want him filing briefs from a law library that the taxpayers fund.

There is a prison in Fort Stockton, Texas, which has a megabuck reverse-osmosis plant because the water isn't considered good enough for prisoners to drink. The townspeople drink it every day. WTF?

Here in Culo de Pecos it is not unknown for prisoners to ask for the maximum sentence because prison here is better than life in Mexico, or their lives anyway.

Crimes should have punishment, to deter crimes. Not rewards.

And therein lays perhaps the biggest reason for the over population in prisons. Where as instead of punishing the individual, making him/her not wanting to go back, they make it far more enjoyable to be there then out.

In prison, you are guaranteed three hot meals a day, a place to sleep indoors, and entertainment. What else do you need?

I'll get back on this subject later, but I want to hit this one first. I can understand the reason the Founding Fathers put "No cruel or unusual punishment" in the Bill of Rights. However, I feel they didn't know how far this amendment would be stretched (it's the 8th by the way.)

Back to what I was going to say. This is an example of surrendering your responsibilities so you don't have to take the consequences of them. Going to prison in America and staying in the main populace is nothing more then surrendering your responsibilities. Forget the whole "put a man in a cage" argument, with those perks you get in prison, why live outside it with responsibility?

I take your point, but if you read Fish, you'll see that prison is brutal. If you're not an aggressor, you're a victim. If you're young and cute, you're someone's girlfriend. If you're big and tough, you take the young and cute for your girlfriend. Nothing about this is pleasing.

But still, I have known prisoners in Culo de Pecos to ask for the biggest sentence possible, for it's better than in Mexico. And I don't know whether they wanted the girlfriend or didn't mind being one.

There you go again, Comrade Theocritus, pointing out a cruel reality of life.  Really, are prisons going to end up being the last place on Nanski's planet where we will all be completely equal, or will that darned phenomenon of natural hierarchical order rear its ugly head ad infinitum?

With that said, Comrade Elliott, you do have a point about prisons in the USSA.  They need to be modeled after Turkish prisons, like that movie "Midnight Express."  That would serve us well.

Leninka, I think that Americans should spend weekends in prison to get accustomed to Nanski's Planet. After all, it's like, er, inserting one finger and then...

Because you just what Nanski has for you.

And let's ask Commander Zero how it feels to have Nanski's hand up his ass to the elbow. That's the only spine that he has.

Indeed, Margaret Sanger would be most proud to hear that abortion is the leading cause of death for black Americans. More fatal than the next 7 leading causes combined according to the CDC. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55956

Pinkie, very interesting assertion about the power plays between genders. I think you may be on to something because I often hear the angry assertion that men shouldn't have any say in whether a baby is aborted, even though the man has contributed as much genetic material to that baby as the woman has.

I believe that the abortion argument boils down to an argument over rights. Does the baby have any rights? If so, are those rights trumped by the mother's rights?

Mi, I respectfully disagree with you that abortion is not about the fetus/baby. If there were no baby, there would be no question of abortion. An abortion is a procedure targeting the fetus' body, not the mother's body. You delve slightly into the area of the fetus' rights and humanity. You say it isn't human, strictly speaking. What does 'strictly speaking' mean? At what specific point is a developing human a human? If the child is hers, and so her property, are you endorsing the idea of one person owning another person, even to the point of taking their life? Don't we already reject that idea with our child abuse laws and our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

So unless a person can own another person and so decide when that person should die, it is necessary to make sure the fetus isn't completely human at whatever time one wants to kill it. So at what exact time does a baby transition from 'not alive yet' to 'alive'? Nevermind, 'satisfactory explanations,' I haven't heard ANY concrete explanation of this except that life begins at conception. This makes sense to me since at conception, the embryo develops out of one growing and dividing cell which has a complete genome, never taking anything more than nutrients from the mother's body. 3 to 4 wks after conception, a fetus has a heartbeat and its brain is developing. Many, many abortions occur long after this point.

To convince me that I shouldn't oppose the killing of babies someone is going to need to either prove to me that they aren't really alive until a certain point or that they don't have basic human rights until a certain point. I don't subscribe to the "if you don't like abortion don't get one" argument either just like I don't subscribe to the "if you don't like child-rape don't rape one" argument that I just made up to prove this point. I am concerned about the victim. Our society is often shocked by reports of crowds of people standing by and watching murders, rapes, etc...yet we perpetuate the bystander mentality.

[ off ]I have vacillated on this point myself. No matter how many Supreme Court Justices wave their hands over a woman's belly, it won't change the fetus there. But I would go a little bit farther than you in abortion. Not, of course, to partial-birth. That's without doubt murder. But to the first trimester? I don't know that a heartbeat is sufficient proof. I tend to watch medical programs, not out of (I hope) prurience, but a lot out of the ethical questions. I've seen parasitic twins, with varying numbers of organs, and which cannot in any fashion be considered to be full humans.

I would under no circumstances approve of that Princeton quack Peter Singer who seems to think that people are people if we approve of them. But in the first three months? The fetus doesn't seem to have enough human traits to upend the world. And I don't go for the idea of potential as being sufficient and of itself, for that seems quite sentimental.

When do you ascribe human rights to something? The Catholics are admirably consistent--even sex for anything but the purpose of procreation was a waste of life. (I find it interesting that Augustine, who I think created this was quite the libertine before he found religion.) But this would rule out recreational sex costing no one anything, if people are careful. It would rule out mankind's most common sexual act, onanism, which would, I am quite convinced, cause a huge amount of very  aggressive behavior when it hurts no one.

You're right about the "If you won't like abortion, don't get one" argument, for it ignores the truth that at some point there is another person there.

Another discussion is the other end of this deal, which is the death panels we'll have under Obamacare. Already we're being told by one of the czars that we might have to have forced eugenics. Why is anyone surprised?

[ off ]I have vacillated on this point myself. No matter how many Supreme Court Justices wave their hands over a woman's belly, it won't change the fetus there. But I would go a little bit farther than you in abortion. Not, of course, to partial-birth. That's without doubt murder. But to the first trimester? I don't know that a heartbeat is sufficient proof. I tend to watch medical programs, not out of (I hope) prurience, but a lot out of the ethical questions. I've seen parasitic twins, with varying numbers of organs, and which cannot in any fashion be considered to be full humans.

I would under no circumstances approve of that Princeton quack Peter Singer who seems to think that people are people if we approve of them. But in the first three months? The fetus doesn't seem to have enough human traits to upend the world. And I don't go for the idea of potential as being sufficient and of itself, for that seems quite sentimental.

When do you ascribe human rights to something? The Catholics are admirably consistent--even sex for anything but the purpose of procreation was a waste of life. (I find it interesting that Augustine, who I think created this was quite the libertine before he found religion.) But this would rule out recreational sex costing no one anything, if people are careful. It would rule out mankind's most common sexual act, onanism, which would, I am quite convinced, cause a huge amount of very  aggressive behavior when it hurts no one.

You're right about the "If you won't like abortion, don't get one" argument, for it ignores the truth that at some point there is another person there.

Another discussion is the other end of this deal, which is the death panels we'll have under Obamacare. Already we're being told by one of the czars that we might have to have forced eugenics. Why is anyone surprised?

[ off ]I have vacillated on this point myself. No matter how many Supreme Court Justices wave their hands over a woman's belly, it won't change the fetus there. But I would go a little bit farther than you in abortion. Not, of course, to partial-birth. That's without doubt murder. But to the first trimester? I don't know that a heartbeat is sufficient proof. I tend to watch medical programs, not out of (I hope) prurience, but a lot out of the ethical questions. I've seen parasitic twins, with varying numbers of organs, and which cannot in any fashion be considered to be full humans.

I would under no circumstances approve of that Princeton quack Peter Singer who seems to think that people are people if we approve of them. But in the first three months? The fetus doesn't seem to have enough human traits to upend the world. And I don't go for the idea of potential as being sufficient and of itself, for that seems quite sentimental.

When do you ascribe human rights to something? The Catholics are admirably consistent--even sex for anything but the purpose of procreation was a waste of life. (I find it interesting that Augustine, who I think created this was quite the libertine before he found religion.) But this would rule out recreational sex costing no one anything, if people are careful. It would rule out mankind's most common sexual act, onanism, which would, I am quite convinced, cause a huge amount of very  aggressive behavior when it hurts no one.

You're right about the "If you won't like abortion, don't get one" argument, for it ignores the truth that at some point there is another person there.

Another discussion is the other end of this deal, which is the death panels we'll have under Obamacare. Already we're being told by one of the czars that we might have to have forced eugenics. Why is anyone surprised?

I suppose it worked on your end on the third try-mester?

I'm not. Even though heartless things like that seem ridiculous to us now (death panel talk = right wing scare tactics), once we have all been convinced to purchase something we can't afford just because we want it (socialized healthcare) we will soon understand that we need to make sacrifices.  Euthanasia will be all about reducing cost--therefore a good thing! The key is turning people into numbers. Human nature makes it mentally disturbing to kill/enslave an equal so people dehumanize each other. In early America, whites viewed blacks as subhuman monkeys and so were able to resolve the cognitive dissonance that came with treating them like sh*t. Germans viewed Jews as subhuman rodents and so were able to kill them en masse. Even in America in WWII it was necessary for Americans to think of the Japanese as insects in order to wage war against them. My point is, continue our current societal trend and we will find a way to dehumanize old people for the Greater Good^TM.

It's interesting you would bring up euthanasia because I think it's the next baby step after abortion. It all begins when we start to put less value on human life for the sake of our own convenience. Baby gonna lessen your ability to make lots of money for yourself? Kill it. Grandma starting to cost you money and time? Kill her. It's the highest form of arrogance.

Now I think the Catholic church is going too far and denying human nature a little bit when they say sex should only be for procreation. Sex is definitely also for fun. But, everyone has to understand that with the choice to have sex there is always the chance that a pregnancy could come out of it. Sex without the possibility of procreation goes along with our dislike of accepting consequences of our actions and our increasing sense of entitlement.

Your reluctance, Theocritus, to recognize a newly developing fetus as a human is understandable. I'm saying be careful that you know what you believe about it and why. Mi's argument against the death penalty is that we might not be able to know for 100% certain a person's guilt and killing them is the final end. I'm saying that unless we know for 100% certain that a baby at a certain stage is not human, isn't killing it a risky gamble? We've been told for so long that a fetus isn't human that we believe it, but no one seems to be able to offer enough evidence to back it up. We know so much about every stage of fetal development and yet there isn't a point where we have said "here is where humanity develops." "When in doubt, take its life" should not be our motto or we will find we are willing to sacrifice other human life as well. History has shown us that that path gets easier as you walk it.

I do take your point about knowing for certain when a baby is a human. And I am, believe me, on your side with this. But even if a baby is a human being, how human is it without any experience to make it human? Don't explode--I'm not recommending this because I understand entirely how this is perhaps the slipperiest slope of all.

There is one highly placed member of the collective who has autistic children whom she has devoted her life to and she stands very high in my estimation. But those children are--pardon--manifestly human. Saying that a fetus without any experience is deserving of full human rights seems logically, if not practically, sentimental. Don't blow your top. This is in camera and you'll find me on your side.

My mother lived entirely too long. For the last year of her life, and she died at 62, the cancer invaded her, and I just talked to Leo, in the medical community here, who told me that he'd seen her X-rays and CAT-scans which showed that she had no pelvis, or spine, or most of her ribs--they'd been eaten by tumor. Fibrous masses. I wish that she'd been weak enough to die a year earlier to save the immense pain. We had to have her paralyzed and even that didn't work. Was her life worth the incredible efforts that we put into it? No, not for her, and not for us either. At least for the last year. Before that, yes. Always and entirely yes.

This is not to say that babies don't deserve consideration as humans, but that human life is not the absolute that a lot of people think it is. There have been times that I truly and sincerely wished for death, even casting about a nursing-home room for a plastic bag to put over my head, and friends told me that I had a point. But although I'm very glad to be around now--you cannot believe what I've done after getting out--still, life, then, wasn't the end-all, be-all.

I am not saying that we ought to surrender on these things. Think of something else. When Mom was dying, Dad, Mark (brother) and I were stunned by the enormity and awfulness of it, and completely overwhelmed, hearing nothing of what the doctors were saying.

We would have been better off had we had some sort of medical consultant to help us make sense of it. We were frozen by the horror of the center of the family being prostrate by cancer. And the left will of course make friendly noises about "helping."

And they will have medical guardians, to "make the right decisions." But since the medical guardians will be paid by the State, which has a vested interest in trimming costs, what do you want to bet that the State will increasingly determine that the problem is insoluble, and that sickness will be defined down until, as in Europe, you don't get., e.g., heart surgery if you're over 65?

I do not think that there is a soul--I wish I did but logic doesn't follow me there. But I am foursquare against entrusting my life, or the lives of other people, to the state.

Because Soylent Green wasn't nearly as much of a science-fiction film as we might want.

The bastards will off you if you screw up the numbers. Watch THX 1138 some time. The most chilling take is the final one, when they are chasing him as he escapes, to retrieve him, and when the accounting cost gets over his value, they pull back and stop.

This happens with every government.

Not to worry comrade, I don't explode. I'm refreshed by open-minded and rational discussion of issues.

I guess the whole thing boils down to the question of what humanity really is. Experience being the key to being human as you suggest is a possibility but still leaves me with some questions: Is there a specific experience / type of experience that makes one human such that a fetus/baby is not human before and is afterwards or is it only necessary to have a certain amount of experience? How much experience? Is an old man with more experience more human than a young man? Maybe I'm just confused about what you mean.

Here's where I start from. My worldview and view of human rights spring from my acceptance of the Bible as truth. The Bible holds that God created humans "in his likeness," meaning he gave us eternal personalities, or souls. This eternal aspect of us is what makes humans special over animals, which have physical bodies like we do but don't live on in any state after death. Human rights then are important because God values each person even if that person has no value to other people. A lifelong felon who killed and stole from others instead of working and now lives in prison at the expense of those same people he stole from has a negative value to society. Yet society ascribes value to him in the form of human rights simply because he is human. This person spent his life disregarding the basic human rights of others, why should he be given basic human rights? I think we innately understand that all humans have value even if they have no value to us personally.

Human rights violations occur in societies that have come to place no value on a person who does not contribute. The cost of providing that heart surgery is weighed against how much the person will contribute back to all the rest of us who are paying for it. The patient is 65+? We'll lose money and so it is in society's best interest to let that patient die. Yet we, consciously or not, understand that we should treat people as more than just numbers and are horrified when we see real or fictional examples of this.

So the Bible holds all human life as precious and is pretty clear about ascribing value to a person even before they have a fully developed physical human body. For instance Psalms 139:16 says "your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." So for me, a developing fetus and a really old person have value because God values them. I wanted to let you see where I'm coming from. I've also been trying think a lot lately about abortion from the position of someone who doesn't these beliefs, but it's always hard to see things out other people's eyeballs.

Your mother's story is touching and I agree with you: just because modern medicine has given us the power to unnaturally extend life does not mean we should do it. Quality, not length, is what is most important in life. But we should not deny treatment to a person who wants it. Everyone should seriously consider what they want long before they are placed in the situation because like you said, it's overwhelming when you're there.

Sorry to jump into the fray.  And I certainly don't expect to change anyone's mind.  Of course, there are solyent green liberals who would love to impose death sentences on both unborn children and granny (like the one child policy in China).  Or people like Hitler and Ceausescu, who would love to impose forced procreation and births.  However, most people are not pro-death.  Nevertheless, there is the question of judging others based on their religious beliefs.  For instance, many millions of people believe that I am going to go to hell because I'm a Buddhist.  Conversely, I believe that those who do not abide by the law of cause and effect will suffer the consequences, as a result.  Cause and effect, however, is a tricky thing, and judging others, and forcing them to live by your rules can be tricky, depending on the rule.  

I recently read the autobiography of a woman who gave birth to 16 children.  She is a poor black woman in her 90's.  Her husband was abusive, he raped her repeatedly.  He raped her oldest daughter, who also gave birth to his offspring (at the age of 14).  When she became pregnant for the 17th time, she traveled to Chicago for an illegal abortion.  Then, she moved herself and her children in with a relative, and started a business, finally getting away from the rapist.  My question is this:  "If she had been arrested and put on trial for having an abortion, and you had been on the jury, would you have been willing to put her in jail?"

The graphic (and it's graphic) below depicts 4 fetuses and a starving child in Africa.  And there are people who claim they are pro-life, implying that they care more about the life of the unborn child more than those who call themselves pro-choice.  Really?  Just how pro-life are they?  

Have you seen any Tea Party signs that say:  "I'm pro-life, and I believe we should tax every American $100 per month to feed the starving children of the world, in order to save their lives."  And then, ask yourself this:  "Am I, personally willing to give up a good portion of my time and money to save as many lives as possible?"

For me, the question is not am I pro-life or pro-choice, the question is, do I have a right to judge others, if I don't put my money where my mouth is?




Just how pro-life are you?

Why aren't you fighting as hard for the starving children of the world as much as you are fighting for the lives of the unborn fetuses?  Just how much do you really care about the living?  How much of your time and money are you willing to give up to fight for the rights of any human life form, be they fetus, child, or old person.  What have you done lately, yourself, besides give money to an occasional food bank to fight for the rights of any human life form, including the life of a torturous murdering pedophile sitting on death row?  In other words, just how pro-life are you?  As for me, I'm pro-life, but I also believe that if our actions prevent others from living a life of dignity (as Ceausescu did, creating a life of hell for thousands of orphans), how different, really, are we, than say, people who run puppy mills, and store them in filthy cages?

---

One more thing.

I recently got into an argument with the head of a Republican group.  He said he didn't like the idea of having to pay taxes to cover the medical costs of the gay people and their lifestyle.  And he called himself "Pro-Life."  I was livid.  I looked at him, and I said:  "I don't want to pay for anyone's medical expenses including yours!  Look at you.  You're fat!  You're well on your way to getting heart disease and diabetes.  Why should I have to pay for your fat-ass lifestyle?"

PDC, I do take your point about experience being determinative. But I have an innate suspicion of slippery-slope arguments because they tend to be used by absolutists. This doesn't mean that I don't employ them from time to time.

The law talks about "reasonable" and these days it would be very nice if they understood that word. What about an anacephalic baby? What about a child who is horribly handicapped, whom no one wish wish harm to, but whose very existence is a drain on the family so great that the other children suffer for it? I am not, please know, stating that I agree with that monster Peter Singer, nor would I pull the plug on the afflicted child, but one must eventually, in all cases, do some sort of analysis as to the benefits.

For decades I felt abandoned by God, because the one I was presented with was monstrous and evil, making me as a four-year-old come home from church and put my head under the pillow and cry, sure that I was going to hell. I wasn't; I was the, cough, cough, perfect child. But either I would be destroyed by that god or I would have to overcome him, and I did, although I spent literally 50 years looking over my shoulder, in a misery.

I wish that I thought that there was a soul. I have without embarrassment used the phrase, "bad for the soul" because we all know what it means. Even Mahatma is the same as magnanimous, one in Sanskrit, the other from Latin, meaning Big Spirit or Soul. And we all understand that.

But immortality? No evidence of it.

Which is not to say that you won't find me in your corner because that whole idea, although I consider it, based on the least-complicated explanation, to be factitious, is the best defense yet against a completely cynical and utilitarian view of mankind.

Which inevitably leads to euthanasia and prison camps.

prog still off

Well put, Leninka, your post is humbling. I admit I am tragically quick to forget about the suffering of the already-born humanity around me. I realize this, and the fact that my good intentions are worthless without actions. Although I do more than you suggest to help others, it might as well be nothing compared to what I could and should do.

I agree with you that there is a disconnect in the thinking of a person who is expending so much energy fighting to allow an unborn baby to live but not doing anything to improve the lives of those already born. It's messed up! We should not sit around and allow children to die like the child in your picture. Like you, I do not want my actions to deny someone a life of dignity. My slogan is NOT: "Forget what comes out, just make sure there's a birth dammit!!" If human life truly has value then it should never be neglected, as this starving child has.

How pro-life am I? Here is my best answer: I think we should allow unborn children to have a chance at life and I think we should give of our own wealth to starving, neglected children so that they can have a chance at life. I agree with your point that anti-abortion advocates who display little care for others bring their motives into question and undermine their arguments entirely. I resolve to be less selfish (an arduous task; please wish me luck).

Also please understand that I don't wish to judge those who have abortions or who support abortion. Just because I oppose something that I believe is wrong doesn't mean that I don't do other things that I believe to be wrong also. There's no higher ground for me to stand on from which to judge other people. That said, our society has laws in place to protect our rights. If a person disobeys the laws and infringes on others' rights that person forfeits some of his own rights. Many people have forfeited their right to liberty, some, to life. The guy on death row had a chance at life and made a choice to forfeit it when he chose to use his life to rape and murder children.

In other news,
You:1.  Fat dude: 0.

Theocritus what!?! No evidence for immortality?!? You haven't been gazing into the starry eyes of The One for the required length of time lately, have you?

I am fingering tears from my eyes now in shame. I'm a mad prog which means that nothing was done before me and my morality du jour. And that means that I simply didn't understand that anyone under the beneficent, healing, and splendiferous gaze of His O'liness, Barack Hussy Obowma is by definition granted immortality.

Because before Him there was nothing, it follows that he grants immortality.

Comrade PDC,

{Prog Off}

I see you have a conscience.  If I were in the Prog On mode, I would chastise you for this.  Progs don't think things through, nor do they seek the truth, and usually, they are godless.  

I had a near death experience a few years ago where I was in a tunnel lined with thousands of roses.  I never left the tunnel, but got near the edge, near a white light, and I never came close to physically dying, and I wasn't dreaming either.  It seemed to come out of nowhere.  It looked a lot like this, only instead of angels, there were roses, and they glowed.



Before this happened, I aspired to be an artist and illustrator.  Within about four months, I completely changed course, becoming a writer, instead.  

In the tunnel, I never spoke, nor was spoken to.  I only felt an incredible euphoria.  

Later, I read that one can have such an experience without ever actually flat lining.

Those who discount such things might say I was hallucinating.  All I can say is: "I know what I know."  

God bless, and a Merry Christmas, to all.

___

Comrade Theocritus, you stick to your logic like an old woman to her knitting.  This, in itself, is godlike.

When faith deserts you, all you have left to defend yourself from hysteria is logic. It's often cold but it can be bracing.

Thanks.

{Prog Off-again}
Wrongful thinking is considered one of the three main causes of suffering in Buddhism, with the other two being anger, and avarice.  

Hmm, is this not what all progs have in common?  Does not the stimulus package (mo money for my cause), a form of avarice, their hatred of the Bushitler and Christians, and their desire to destroy wealth and prosperity, forms of anger, and their complete denial of logic make them guilty of all three?

Haha maybe that's why progs are seemingly more concerned with the welfare of animals and such than people. Maybe they instinctively know they need to protect themselves for their future reincarnation. (comment based off my limited knowledge of Buddhism- a mistake means only ignorance not disrespect). Hmm...little red pills. Wonder what they do...

[Prog gloriously back on]

Whoa, where am I? The last thing I remember was misplacing my prog meds a few days ago and I think I blacked out. What were we talking about?

Oh yeah, you had just told me about your "near-death experience." Back in my days as an evil Kapitalist, I studied neuroscience and was actually quite interested in near death experiences. In fact, euphoria and a major life-change afterwards are almost universal themes of NDEs and lend legitimacy to your experience as an NDE.

Back then, I would have believed you. But once my eyes were opened by my first Jiffi-Lobo (actually just my left eye-- I can still make the right one shut for blinking and sleeping etc...). Now, in the World of Next Tuesday^TM, it is clear that any possibility of any kind of non-physical dimension undermines the authority of the Party. People rule over people and if there is no higher authority like an intelligent being or karma holding these rulers accountable, then they are the highest power. Thus, the physical world and only the physical world AS WE KNOW IT NOW (future scientific discoveries are only legitimate if they align with Party doctrine) can be accepted as real. A monistic theory like this allows ZERO exceptions so I will interpret your DREAM as follows:

In your DREAM, the dark tunnel you are in is actually a burqa. You see the bright middle-eastern sun reflecting off the hot sand as the bright light at the end of the burqa. A writer such as yourself understands that the rose is a symbol of beauty and so the roses in your dream are a myriad of floating mutilated female genitalia. The euphoria you feel is called HOPE^TM and is the Progressive feeling of self-realignment with Party doctrine--namely, that any culture besides American culture is beautiful. Thus, genital mutilation is a beautiful part of a beautiful culture of our beautiful friends and allies. Any Change^TM to your life you attribute to this DREAM is actually from His O'liness-- worship accordingly.



No thanks, I'll take hysteria; running and screaming keeps me warm in the beet fields. My TV-bestowed short attention span can only deal with whatever issue is the current CRISIS...SH*T! Almost forgot! If we don't spend a zillion more dollars again RIGHT NOW we're ALL GOING TO LOSE OUR JOBS!!!!!

Some Buddhists are very touchy about eating animals.  Not me.  However, take into consideration that I do not adhere to the teachings of Hollywood's favorite Buddhism, Tibetan theocracy, but rather a sect originating in the Japanese Samurai culture, and now practiced widely by those in the armed forces.  According to the Lotus Sutra, those who slander the law of causality as being rubbish are destined to be reborn as the lowest life forms, so I would say that in her next life Nanski Peloski will look like this:



That is, if you can figure out which one she is, along with her friends, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, Allen Grayson, Barney Frank, Charles Rangell, Maxine Waters, and friends of Fidel and Chavez, Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, Stephen Speilberg, Bill and Hillary, Jack Nicholson, Michael Moore, Che lover, Benicio del Toro, and the list goes on and on and on . . .

Oh, Leninka, do not be hard on Benicio del Toro. Stephen Colbert was very hard on him. "You're making a movie about a Communist." del Toro muttered that it had happened and so was okay.

"He was a socialist. Do you charge to get into the movie?" del Toro had nothing to say. Colbert is, I think, and I shudder to say this, self-aware.

Now I'm never self-aware. Even when I poop my pants after the most recent Jiffi-Lobo. There are times that I ask Dr. Menegele to dig really deep because something that Obowma or Nanski says seems like such obvious bullshit.

I keep on, "More, Doctor! More! I can hear the voices in my head crying, 'This is such incredible bullshit that a retarded pit bull wouldn't believe it. If Obowma bows once more, he'll break Andy Stern's arm!'"

And finally and at last Dr. Menegele gets out the last of those pesky brain cells and I'm a Mad Prog again.

PDC, I have two cats, Calvin and Hobbes and I love them dearly. They're huge monsters, sweet, and nice. But they're cats.

The reason that we Mad Progs love animals more than humans is that it's sentimentality. Sentiment is feeling; sentimentality is blubbering over a dead donkey.

The concentration-camp guards at Bergen Belsen and Auschwitz would every night go into the town and drink bier and get quite juiced, and sing in maudlin songs. I've heard those songs in Europe. They'd cry over the beauty of the songs, and then go back to work the next day, murdering Jews.

There is a Mexican Candid Camera. One episode showed a baby in a stroller which got out of control and rolled down an incline and hit a rock. It threw the baby out on its head. Hilarity. They repeated it again and again, to hilarity. But the next program had Charytin talking about "mi corazon."

Margaret Thatcher had a small yappy dog--she was the strongest female since Elizabeth I.

Let's never forget the usage of sentimentality. It's a conjuring trick. That's why we love animals and ignore the genital mutilation of women in Muslim countries. That's why San Francisco has an animal shelter with a television per animal but insists on complete, unfettered abortion.

In fact I'm getting sentimental about my ingrown toenail, while I have workers sharpening up my impaling stakes on the south forty for people who disagree with me.