Actually, I just googled it myself. Turns out we have George H.W. Bush to thank for November being National American Indian Heritage Month.
In 1990 President Bush approved a joint resolution designating November 1990 “National American Indian Heritage Month.” Similar proclamations have been issued each year since 1994.
Ya learn somethin’ every day.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
One thing I have always wondered is, why do people who care so ardently about the unborn care so ardently about the unborn? What advantage does it accrue them, personally, that there be more, rather than fewer, people?
Is it for religious reasons? The more babies there are, the more potential Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, whatever?
Is it for patriotic reasons? Outlaw abortion in America and outbreed the other countries?
Or is it something simpler? Something like “because babies are so cute, and it makes me sad to think that any baby, anywhere might be harmed.”
I just don’t get it.[/quote]
Maybe it does not benefit the individuals at all.
Maybe they believe things and spread those beliefs like they spread genes. So, as there are behaviors that actually harm the individual but help it spread genes, there could be memes that do not benefit the individual one bit, but encourage the meme spreading.
Obviously a meme complex like religion that demands that it be taught to children and forbids abortion and even birth control will spread faster than a memeplex that does not.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Actually, I just googled it myself. Turns out we have George H.W. Bush to thank for November being National American Indian Heritage Month.
In 1990 President Bush approved a joint resolution designating November 1990 “National American Indian Heritage Month.” Similar proclamations have been issued each year since 1994.
Ya learn somethin’ every day.[/quote]
And what an impact it had, if you had to google it.
[quote]orion wrote:
Maybe it does not benefit the individuals at all.
Maybe they believe things and spread those beliefs like they spread genes. So, as there are behaviors that actually harm the individual but help it spread genes, there could be memes that do not benefit the individual one bit, but encourage the meme spreading.
Obviously a meme complex like religion that demands that it be taught to children and forbids abortion and even birth control will spread faster than a memeplex that does not.
[/quote]
And indeed, rejection of abortion as a viable alternative to overbreeding is harmful not only to individuals, but to the species as a whole.
Infanticide and abortion confer fitness by keeping clutch size to a number that is perceived as optimum for a given family. Every other animal that raises a brood of young limits the offspring it produces to the number its resource base can support, either on purpose, by killing the surplus, or by default, when the surplus offspring die of starvation.
The miracles of agriculture, medical science and social welfare have allowed us to cheat natural selection to a point, and have allowed some people to develop a moral code in which it can be considered immoral to limit the size of one’s brood, even if failure to do so means poverty and ruin for the entire family.
If one chooses to sentence his or her own family to a future of poverty and ruin by producing too many babies (and even one is “too many” for some people), fine, but I don’t think anyone, any government, or any religion has the right to impose this sentence on another person, by denying them the means to end an unwanted pregnancy.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
One thing I have always wondered is, why do people who care so ardently about the unborn care so ardently about the unborn? What advantage does it accrue them, personally, that there be more, rather than fewer, people?
Is it for religious reasons? The more babies there are, the more potential Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, whatever?
Is it for patriotic reasons? Outlaw abortion in America and outbreed the other countries?
Or is it something simpler? Something like “because babies are so cute, and it makes me sad to think that any baby, anywhere might be harmed.”
I just don’t get it.[/quote]
At least for some, a large part of it is about control. You control the womb, you control the woman. Forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy she didn’t want and saddling her with a kid she doesn’t want either while guilt tripping her the whole time goes a long way into getting her to fit in the traditional child rearing, homemaker mold.
Women. Pffft. You let them vote and next thing you know they want to decide everything. It’s like they think they’re entitled to freedom and liberty too.
Personally, I’d be happy to see the members of the “I (heart) Embryos” club to apply as much zeal and determination in caring about born children. Imagine the health and educational services you could have if as much energy was spent in making sure born kids (and their parents) had the necessary resources to provide for their health and well being.
[quote]orion wrote:
Obviously a meme complex like religion that demands that it be taught to children and forbids abortion and even birth control will spread faster than a memeplex that does not. [/quote]
It also follows that a religion that has those demands and that allows for multiple wives will spread even faster.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
One thing I have always wondered is, why do people who care so ardently about the unborn care so ardently about the unborn? What advantage does it accrue them, personally, that there be more, rather than fewer, people?
Is it for religious reasons? The more babies there are, the more potential Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, whatever?
Is it for patriotic reasons? Outlaw abortion in America and outbreed the other countries?
Or is it something simpler? Something like “because babies are so cute, and it makes me sad to think that any baby, anywhere might be harmed.”
I just don’t get it.
At least for some, a large part of it is about control. You control the womb, you control the woman. Forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy she didn’t want and saddling her with a kid she doesn’t want either while guilt tripping her the whole time goes a long way into getting her to fit in the traditional child rearing, homemaker mold.
Women. Pffft. You let them vote and next thing you know they want to decide everything. It’s like they think they’re entitled to freedom and liberty too.
Personally, I’d be happy to see the members of the “I (heart) Embryos” club to apply as much zeal and determination in caring about born children. Imagine the health and educational services you could have if as much energy was spent in making sure born kids (and their parents) had the necessary resources to provide for their health and well being.[/quote]
Oh, but we know they don’t give a rats ass beyond that. Although I’m sure they are all out adopting unwanted children as we speak. Not just smoking joints and giving birth to retarded opinions.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
One thing I have always wondered is, why do people who care so ardently about the unborn care so ardently about the unborn? What advantage does it accrue them, personally, that there be more, rather than fewer, people?
Is it for religious reasons? The more babies there are, the more potential Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, whatever?
Is it for patriotic reasons? Outlaw abortion in America and outbreed the other countries?
Or is it something simpler? Something like “because babies are so cute, and it makes me sad to think that any baby, anywhere might be harmed.”
I just don’t get it.[/quote]
Why do people care about the lives of the born, especially strangers?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
One thing I have always wondered is, why do people who care so ardently about the unborn care so ardently about the unborn? What advantage does it accrue them, personally, that there be more, rather than fewer, people?
Is it for religious reasons? The more babies there are, the more potential Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, whatever?
Is it for patriotic reasons? Outlaw abortion in America and outbreed the other countries?
Or is it something simpler? Something like “because babies are so cute, and it makes me sad to think that any baby, anywhere might be harmed.”
I just don’t get it.
Why do people care about the lives of the born, especially strangers? [/quote]
The Law of Reciprocity, perhaps. One never knows when one may be a stranger oneself.
[quote]Molotov_Coktease wrote:
Oh, but we know they don’t give a rats ass beyond that. Although I’m sure they are all out adopting unwanted children as we speak. Not just smoking joints and giving birth to retarded opinions. [/quote]
It is unfortunate.
Instead of picketing clinics and trying to get Roe vs. Wade overturned, a more pragmatic solution would probably be to support a multi-pronged approach:
A) Sex education for kids, starting before they become sexually mature.
B) Birth control: Education and easy availability. Preaching abstinence, as noble a sentiment as it may be, just doesn’t work on hormone-laden teenagers.
C) Health services for pregnant women. It shouldn’t even be a question of whether you’ve got coverage or not, or of quotas. If you’re pregnant, you get access to prenatal care.
D) Better adoption services: It’s too damn hard to adopt “local” kids, both in Canada and the US. Having to prove that you’re the bestest family ever leads to a lot of parents to adopt from foreign countries, while local kids get lost in the social system.
Adopting those policies would probably go a long way to curb the number of abortions.
You’d have a lot less unwanted pregnancies to start with, because dumb myths as “you can’t get pregnant the first time” or “you can’t get pregnant if you’re having your period” and so on would be dismissed by education. Kids would be more inclined to use protection if it wasn’t so hard to get hold of, etc.
Girls who get pregnant “accidentally” would probably be more inclined to go through the 9 month ordeal (especially the last part) if A) there wasn’t such a social stigma associated with it and B) they knew the kid would be well cared for in a loving family or that C) they’d get financial help if they decide to keep and raise the kid.
Of course, if you’re a cynic, you’ll note that all those policies would cost taxpayers money. Picketing clinics and bitching about RvW is free.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Of course, if you’re a cynic, you’ll note that all those policies would cost taxpayers money. Picketing clinics and bitching about RvW is free.
[/quote]
A cynic would also note that almost all anti-abortionists are also adamantly against approaches A, B and C.
And a cunning linguist would marvel that, quite unintentionally, I used 10 consecutive words beginning with the letter A in that sentence, including the letter A.
Time to go to sleep.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
One thing I have always wondered is, why do people who care so ardently about the unborn care so ardently about the unborn? What advantage does it accrue them, personally, that there be more, rather than fewer, people?
Is it for religious reasons? The more babies there are, the more potential Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, whatever?
Is it for patriotic reasons? Outlaw abortion in America and outbreed the other countries?
Or is it something simpler? Something like “because babies are so cute, and it makes me sad to think that any baby, anywhere might be harmed.”
I just don’t get it.
Why do people care about the lives of the born, especially strangers?
The Law of Reciprocity, perhaps. One never knows when one may be a stranger oneself.
[/quote]
Perhaps something similar applies to unborn children. Someday that child will pay Social Security taxes, etc.
Children are important to society and shouldn’t be slaughtered simply because a the mother is in a confused situation.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Perhaps something similar applies to unborn children. Someday that child will pay Social Security taxes, etc.
[/quote]
That would make sense here in Japan, where the birth rate is so low that some cities and towns really are worried about where the tax and social security revenues are going to come from. The birth rate hovers just below replacement, as more and more working women are electing not to start families until their late thirties, by which time their biological clocks have mostly unwound.[/quote]
Abortion is perfectly legal here, and not really a subject of heated debate, just an unfortunate fact of life. Not that it’s probably as necessary. Sex education is pretty decent. Condoms are high-quality and inexpensive, and available in vending machines on the street if you don’t feel like buying them at 7-11. Birth control pills, on the other hand (strangely enough), were not available in Japan until just recently.
I agree that children are important. However, unlike Japan, America has no shortage of children. We have, in fact, more than enough, evidently. And I would venture to guess that most mothers who abort their babies do so not out of confusion, but rather out of conviction that they really, really, don’t want those babies.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
malonetd wrote:
…
First of all, November is Native American Month.
…
Really?
I live in Oklahoma, of all places, and I have a touch of Indian ancestry myself, yet I’ve never even heard of Native American Month. I had a college class on Native American Writers a few years ago that was taught by a full-blooded Osage, and he never mentioned Native American Month, even in November.
Is this actually a big thing in Wisconsin, or did you just Google it?[/quote]
The thing is it has changed over the years. When I was in elementary school, I remember there being a American Indian Day, or something along those lines, and then a week. And, like Varq said, there was an Indian Summer Celebration. I don’t know when it officially become Native American Month. I just recently, as in the last few years, heard about it being November.
Maybe it hasn’t caught on in other states. I don’t remember hearing about it when I lived in California. Then again, Wisconsin, especially Milwaukee, celebrates everything:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
…
I agree that children are important. However, unlike Japan, America has no shortage of children. We have, in fact, more than enough, evidently. And I would venture to guess that most mothers who abort their babies do so not out of confusion, but rather out of conviction that they really, really, don’t want those babies.[/quote]
It is more than that otherwise the would simply give them up.
[quote]pookie wrote:
pat wrote:
Well that is true, but some animals are aware they exist
But it’s very hard to understand how they internally interpret that. I don’t think that’s enough to make them persons.
[/quote]
You are right in that we really can’t determine how animals perceive themselves since we cannot communicate with them on that level. However, I would argue that a new born is also not necessarily aware of it’s own existence. They eat, shit, piss, cry and sleep. That’s it. There is no way to tell if they have consciousness. For that matter we cannot tell that the fetus has no consciousness.
On the other hand, I believe my dog and my guinea pigs are aware they exist. They certainly have personality.
Yet the self is there. Being useful and fully functional is not a necessary component of being a person.
Ok so you will agree the aborting a 32 week old fetus is killing a human? Deal.
You would also agree that the brain doesn’t stop developing for a long time after birth?
Also, would you consider the fetus feeling pain a factor? This happens a little earlier however. It is believed that occurs between 20 and 24 weeks.
Don’t know.
I think your right, but after all if I had the answer, I would probably win the Nobel prize. I was trying to think of factors that every person who has ever lived even a moment, would have. Certainly, a complete DNA structure and meat are two of them. I guess living would be a helpful factor. A ground up person is certainly not alive.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
One thing I have always wondered is, why do people who care so ardently about the unborn care so ardently about the unborn? What advantage does it accrue them, personally, that there be more, rather than fewer, people?
Is it for religious reasons? The more babies there are, the more potential Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, whatever?
Is it for patriotic reasons? Outlaw abortion in America and outbreed the other countries?
Or is it something simpler? Something like “because babies are so cute, and it makes me sad to think that any baby, anywhere might be harmed.”
I just don’t get it.[/quote]
Advantage? Let see. It makes people mad as hell. People insult and call me names (lieu of making an actual argument). I get no money. You know I don�??t get shit, but a hard time for my pro-life stance.
I say I do it because I believe it is the taking of a human life and I think that is wrong.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
On a practical level, however, can you explain to me just how the world would be a better place if only there were more babies being born?
I can’t explain in any concrete way how the neighbor’s little rug rat will make the world a better place. But, his is an innocent human life, also.
Sure, but the world is already full of human lives, innocent and otherwise, with more being packed in all the time. Abortion serves, as infanticide served before the process was perfected, as a way to eliminate the surplus humans from a population. Other methods are famine, disease and war.
You may object to the term “surplus” being applied to humans, but for our purposes, it fits. Surplus is defined as “an excess of production or supply over demand.” The babies are unwanted, therefore they are destroyed. How else do you deal with a surplus? Is there really sufficient domestic demand for infants by prospective adoptive parents to absorb an extra million or so babies a year? If not, should we export the surplus babies to other countries?
By the way, a tumor isn’t a stage in an individual human being’s life-cycle.
No, but a tumor is more similar to an embryo than a toenail is.[/quote]
Are you arguing on the basis of population control?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
One thing I have always wondered is, why do people who care so ardently about the unborn care so ardently about the unborn? What advantage does it accrue them, personally, that there be more, rather than fewer, people?
Is it for religious reasons? The more babies there are, the more potential Christians, Muslims, Zoroastrians, whatever?
Is it for patriotic reasons? Outlaw abortion in America and outbreed the other countries?
Or is it something simpler? Something like “because babies are so cute, and it makes me sad to think that any baby, anywhere might be harmed.”
I just don’t get it.
At least for some, a large part of it is about control. You control the womb, you control the woman. Forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy she didn’t want and saddling her with a kid she doesn’t want either while guilt tripping her the whole time goes a long way into getting her to fit in the traditional child rearing, homemaker mold.
Women. Pffft. You let them vote and next thing you know they want to decide everything. It’s like they think they’re entitled to freedom and liberty too.
Personally, I’d be happy to see the members of the “I (heart) Embryos” club to apply as much zeal and determination in caring about born children. Imagine the health and educational services you could have if as much energy was spent in making sure born kids (and their parents) had the necessary resources to provide for their health and well being.[/quote]
You are dead fucking wrong here. Control? If I wanted to control women I’d join the Taliban. I actually care about what happens to people. Thats my motivation. It’s not more complicated than that.