I Know Why the Caged Frog Croaks

Hahahah you are so nasty, I haven`t stopped laughing yet.

Man, that felt good.

Thank you, thank you.

Come on over one day and check out the frogs swimming around in our swamp, aka the pool. You`ll have hours of fun in that. And maybe a new story line....looking forward to hearing more from you :)

z. rizvi.

HK,

Either you or I must know some strange people :) I guess it takes all kinds, haan?

SR,

What can I say? I agree with you about everything. But, you have not answered some of the other questions I have raised. I struggle with this issue all the time. Like I said, I would not choose it as an option for myself, but can I choose for other people? I dont know...

BTW, I have talked to some pregnant women who have planned/wanted their babies and they have said they haven`t felt there was a life in their wombs till the foetus started kicking around. So, I`m not sure its entirely a question of wanting the pregnancy.

Re: BG

(“...I do have a hard time thinking of a foetus as a baby, especially in the first trimester...”)

When the pregnancy is undesirable it is psychologically useful to ‘dehumanize’ the foetus and think of it as a ‘blob of tissue’ rather than as a ‘baby’. It is entirely different when the pregnancy is planned and/or desired. Then the prospective parents are receptive to the concept of ‘their unborn baby’. In either case the biology is the same only the psychological orientation is different.

I can see that from a victimized woman’s point of view, who is already traumatized with the burden of a forced pregnancy she did not want, it is a ‘useful’ psychological defense to not consider the unwanted foetus as her baby because that will make an already difficult situation even harder.

However, if space aliens came over to study the merits of the issue (without any emotional or ideological investment at risk) they would fail to see any objective reason for this arbitrary distinction. The process of human (or animal) development is a continuum all the way from the moment of conception to adulthood. In humas, for instance, organogenesis is completed by the tenth week, if not earlier. But the unborn is not viable. Viability is a very slippery issue. Even the new born infant is not viable if unattended. Passing through the birth canal only changes the method by which the little creature can intake nourishment. In many respects it is the same. (In many ancient cultures infanticide was practised in lieu of abortion.) What I am trying to say is that this whole issue of trying to pick the point at which human life begins is absolutely arbitrary and is not a fruitful avenue to pursue because no matter what point you pick is going to be no better than another point just before or just after it. It is a continuous spectrum.

(“...I don’t think that either capital punishment or war are justifiable, they are just
homicide - state sanctioned, tax-payer funded...”)

When human life is prematurely terminated by other humans it is called homicide. The reasons and motivations for homicide can be as varied as humans themselves. Cultures devise codes of conduct in order for (at least in theory) the society to live and thrive. There are many conflicting and contradictory considerations that have to be balanced out in order that the most good can be obtained at the least cost (ideally). Of course, many times less than ideal results are seen, but that is not my emphasis here.

One major consideration is how to deal with homicide? Clearly (out of self-interest if nothing else), homicide should be discouraged and sanctioned against. But there are also some instances where homicide needs to be sanctioned for various considerations. These considerations and choices vary according to culture and the times. So “justifiable homicide” is a relative term which each society determines for itself.

It is for a very few considerations that homicide is to be allowed because otherwise everyone will be less secure. Thus we can make plausible arguments in favor of “justifiability” of homicide in the cases of :
(1) self-defense,
(2) war (an extension of the self-defense argument by the state),
(3) capital punishment (another extension of self-defense argument by the sate),
(4) euthanasia (where quality of life consideration condone ‘mercy killing’) and
(5) abortion (which is a variation of euthanasia -- quality of life issues dictate it).

What you are objecting to are issues of IMPLEMENTATION. There is no question that war and capital punishment are severely abused and misused by those in power and therefore you feel that they should be considered “unjustified homicide”. This smacks of the argument of those in the other camp who would oppose euthanasia and abortions on the same grounds (overuse and abuse) and want them to be banned.

In all cases homicide is a very serious matter and only under very carefully considered and responsibly decided circumstances should it be considered “justified”. All five categories above are highly susceptible to abuse and difficult to regulate in a manner where abuse can be eliminated. Such is the conundrum of the human condition. But to completely abolish one of the above five “exemptions” is going to cause problems of its own.

I have little sympathy for those who pick and chose their favorite category and want the others outlawed on spurious arguments of “sanctity of human life”. That is hypocrisy. On the other hand, though I completely disagree with them, I do have total respect for the (misguided) stance of those who consistently oppose ALL FIVE forms of homicide on grounds that homicide is NEVER justifiable.

...SR

SR,

Point well taken. I agree with you that ultimately, abortion is a moral and philosophical issue, not simply one of biological viability or determination. Though, I do have a hard time thinking of a foetus as a baby, especially in the first trimester.

I dont know, though, if abortion fits in with war and capital punishment as justifiable homicide. I dont think that either capital punishemnt or war are justifiable, they are just homicide - state sanctioned, tax-payer funded, and usually disproportionately affecting those that are already marginalized (esp. capital punishment, war is a slightly different animal, but in the US context, its about the US bombing and killing `people of colour` in other parts of the world). Personally, I would not consider abortion an option for myself, but I hesitate to dictate to some other woman whether or not she should have one. What about cases when pregnancies are a result of rape, incest or because the man refuses contraception?

I guess I would have an easier time regulating it if the state and/or society GUARANTEED a truly decent existence for unwanted babies. its problem atic to impose the entire responsibility on one individual woman because a group of people feel that it`s immoral.

This is a tough one, no doubt...

Re: BG (what is the pro-choice connection?)

The author referred to a phenomenon where the same people say contradictory things. We see, for instance, that those (religious right) who clamor for “the rights of the unborn human child” are also vocal advocates for capital punishment, while others (liberals) who advocate “the sanctity of life” and protest against capital punishment (or animal slaughter) are also the ones who are unwilling to pay heed to the ‘life of the unborn human’ in deference to the woman’s right over her body.

The reference was an incidental in the article, but the allusion was accurate. It amuses me that both ends of the ideological spectrum use the same kinds of buzz words and are generally inconsistent.

Capital punishment, war and abortion are all forms of ‘justifiable homicide’. These are circumstances in which society endorses the taking of human life for some overriding consideration (law and order; national defense; woman’s right to her own body). Murder, on the other hand, is a term reserved for what is considered ‘unjustifiable homicide’.

The rightists call abortion murder but endorse bombing Iraq and toasting inmates on The Row. The liberals, on the other hand, scream bloody murder when the president orders the 82nd Airborne to a small republic, and they hold vigils in front of the Florida State pen when the death doc gets his injection ready. Yet there is a complete denial of the fact that in a premature termination of pregnancy a life is indeed taken. Instead there is the pretense that the ‘fetus’ is not a ‘baby’. In other words, it is not a human life that is being taken.

This only confuses the issue. It leads to the futile debate of when a fetus becomes viable. For if we can say that at such and such point the fetus is not viable then we can say it is not human and has no right to life. Unfortunately, that is how the Roe v Wade case proceeded also and that is bad news for the pro-choice camp because viability is a red herring, it was a cop out by Justice Brennon. Abortion is a moral and philosophical issue but it was decided on the basis of a technological point (fetal viability). Technology will change. The time of viability will be pushed further and further back until one day the fertilized ovum will be considered viable. Then the Ranquist court may reopen Roe v Wade yet again.

I think the pro choice people should shift the debate away from the issue of viability and boldly concede that abortion is homicide, but that it is justifiable. Then the rightists can claim all they want that life begins the moment the man has the woman’s bra unhooked and it will not impact the outcome of the debate.

(I am sorry for this total digression from the point of the article, which was very well written but I basically got lost in all the horsing around that went on in the author`s bio lab.)

...SR

I wonder if you could have asked the question you did at the end without going through those particularly graphic, violent and gruesome passages. I couldnt read them, but then I may be one of those `wackos` you were talking about.

Also, I am not sure how a pro-choice debate fits in here. Pro-choice does not mean encouraging, sanctioning or cheering on baby-killers. First of all, foetuses are not babies. Secondly, it`s about choice, the mother`s choice. not about someone else choosing death or life for her foetus. these pro-lifers dont hang around and provide day-care, tuition and nutritionally balanced meals for the foetuses-turned babies whose life they `helped to save`. many of them, i`ll bet, even favour cutting back of measely food stamp programs for children and their mother. anyway...sorry if i digressed.

I wonder if you could have asked the question you did at the end without going through those particularly graphic, violent and gruesome passages. I couldnt read them, but then I may be one of those `wackos` you were talking about.

Also, I am not sure how a pro-choice debate fits in here. Pro-choice does not mean encouraging, sanctioning or cheering on baby-killers. First of all, foetuses are not babies. Secondly, it`s about choice, the mother`s choice. not about someone else choosing death or life for her foetus. these pro-lifers dont hang around and provide day-care, tuition and nutritionally balanced meals for the foetuses-turned babies whose life they `helped to save`. many of them, i`ll bet, even favour cutting back of measely food stamp programs for children and their mother. anyway...sorry if i digressed.

rotflmao. well put.
A use you didn`t mention is as a cheap alternative to kitty toys. Once you`ve put some plastic wrap on the floor, the little critters will afford hours of pleasure to your moggy. And you know the best bit,... they`re biodegradable!

Tahnoon.

How many million frogs would we need to deep-fry
(at 425 degrees in pure vegetable oil, of course)
for a comparison with Holocaust to be valid?
What would the alternative be to Zionist propaganda-like conspiracy theories?

I am sure somebody has done a thesis on this already.