Category Archives: Politics
If only we could all move to Belgium. Suicide is a civil right, period, end of story. As none of us were given any choice as to whether or not to come into this world (and the fact that it would have been better never to have been born), we all have the right to leave if we so choose. I’m glad to see a government somewhere out there honoring this right.
…before one of the worst events of my life is going to take place.
My sister is now starting her third trimester of pregnancy. Barring the fact that subjecting new, non-consenting individuals to the horrible thing that is an earthly existence can only be described as the supreme act of evil, she’s way too young and immature for a child. She’s probably the most irresponsible person I know. Further, she can’t afford a damn kid and is instead going to be a government mooch when the child is born. Typical entitled liberal welfare mongers, that all she and her fiancé are, and they don’t really care to better themselves (both are college dropouts with no ambitions of any sort of decent career).
Anyway, if she knew what was good for her she would have terminated the pregnancy and if she just insists on having a kid later training for a decent paying career. Alas, she let her delusional Pollyanna emotions get the better of her and she has absolutely no idea what she’s getting herself into.
Alas, I’ve already established strict boundaries. I will not in any way help her care for her kid. I will not go over to her place when the kid isn’t in school or daycare, ever. Her kid is not allowed in my house, ever. I don’t mind dogsitting for her, but babysitting is out of the question. I will not be present at the baby shower (not that men ever go to those things), I will not get her any sort of a gift, nor will I visit her in the hospital after giving birth.
Perhaps this will cause her to completely write me out of her life. That’s perfectly OK with me. The past few months have been difficult on our relationship anyway (after I suggested she have an abortion and suggested she read Benatar, neither of which she gave any thought and told me I needed psychiatric help).
People say depression is an illness. I disagree. Depression is a sign of a highly-developed and rational mind which sees the world for what it really is: a horrible place full of conflict, war, disease and famine. If anything should be classified as a mental illness, it’s optimism. Optimism is irrational. Optimism is delusion. Pessimism is realism.
Sorry I’ve been on a bit of a blogging dry spell as of recently. Things haven’t exactly been going all that well in my neck of the woods and I’ve been dealing with the loss of my youngest sister (please don’t bombard the comments section with condolences, I’ve had plenty of that from my close friends!), so I hope you please excuse my lack of recent blogging.
Anyway, thinking of loss and death and whatever due to recent events, the topic of will and inheritance comes up. As it is, I don’t have any immediate family or anybody who I deem worthy of inhering my assets upon my death, so what am I to do? You’d think it’d be asinine for me to actually write a will, but I have in fact done just that. I’ve willed that upon my passing, whatever assets I have I want to go to my the care and well being of any animals I might be in ownership of upon my death.
Me dying doesn’t mitigate or cancel their need to be taken care of, and caring for animals requires some expense, so whoever takes ownership of my animals after I pass will be given a monetary equivalent of my assets to put toward their care and for no other reason. They won’t be allowed to just spend whatever they get on themselves. It will be closely monitored and controlled so that the money doesn’t get abused.
So that’s what I’ve willed. How about my fellow CFers? Do you have a will? If so, who inherits?
You know, I’ve been thinking awhile about the discrimination childfree people face in the workplace: everything from having to take up the slack for the new mothers who have to go on maternity leave for (and getting no additional pay for it, I might add) to people who are lured into a job thinking it’s a permanent position only to be let go when the new mother goes back to work. I’ve also heard of cases where childfree people are denied jobs altogether because employers see being married with children as a sign of “integrity” or “good moral character” or whatever. Whatever the case, most of the time childfree people get shafted in the workplace, and it’s disgusting.
And that got me to thinking some, and I’ve come to the conclusion I would much rather hire only childfree people. Childfree people are more dependable. They won’t be taking maternity/paternity leave for any reason, they take fewer sick days, and they have no reason other than “I don’t want to” to complain about having to put in some additional hours.
I wonder how parents would react to a job ad that says “parents need not apply.” Quite frankly, there would be no law against it. Parenthood is not a “protected class” in any country that I know of. As long as you can prove that such a hiring policy affects men and women equally, it is acceptable in the eyes of the law to have such a stipulation. In my case, if I were an employer looking to hire people, it would affect men and women in the same way, so I could get away with it and I would do so and not think twice about it.
The goal of a business owner is to turn a profit. Hiring employees who will increase profit is thus the proper strategy, and childfree employees are the ones who are more profitable to a company. Thus I think childfree people should get preferential treatment. Hey, many businesses already give preferential treatment to parents, it’s time we evened the score a little bit. 😉
Concerning abortion, for ages the anti-choice community has (incorrectly, I might add) labeled pro-choicers as “pro-death,” I guess as a direct antonym to the term “pro-life” which they erroneously refer to themselves as. I personally don’t know any pro-choice individual who could be described as such, though as my understanding of the world and life itself has evolved, I suppose it is an accurate description of how my views on abortion have shifted over the years.
The pro-death view of abortion is merely a natural extension of the antinatalist view. Since coming into existence is the worst possible thing that could happen to an individual, it naturally follows that a pro-death view of abortion is the most logically consistent. Of course, the best possible thing is to prevent pregnancy at all costs so so that abortion doesn’t have to take place, but that’s the ideal world and we don’t live in the ideal world.
Now, some will argue that one has already come into existence at the moment of conception. Biologically speaking, I think, they are correct. I have never denied that biologically speaking a new life begins at conception. That said, I (and Benatar, I should add) reject the moral significance of a zygote and even an early-term fetus for the same reason I reject the moral significance of a plant’s life, namely that it is non-sentient. Sentience is a prerequisite to regard a life form as morally significant.
So now that we’ve established the moral insignificance of an embryo, we can hence build the case for a pro-death position on abortion. Since it is better never to have been brought into existence, and given that no life is worth starting, it naturally follows that aborting all pregnancies is the mode of least harm. The mother suffers some harm during the procedure in the case of pain and recovery, but these are much less than the harm she will suffer during labor and the nearly two decades following raising that child. Further, since coming into existence is the greatest harm of all, aborting an early-term pregnancy prevents the fetus from coming into existence in a morally significant way, thus sparing them the suffering that would await them in an earthly life.
Though Benatar doesn’t address late-term abortion in his excellent book, I will do so here briefly. Late in gestation a fetus attains sentience and thus a morally significant existence. At this point, I think for the most part abortion is indefensible even though I think abortion should be legal for the duration of pregnancy. I have multiple reasons for this line of thinking. In many cases, the family dynamic changes (loss of job, father walks out, etc.) that would put undue hardship on the raising of the child. There are also some deformities that don’t become apparent until the later stages of prenatal development, most of which would make life unbearably difficult. There is also the case where the mother’s life is in jeopardy, which I don’t think needs to be addressed. All that said, I still regard late-term abortion as a much lesser harm than a worldly existence, so that even though late-term abortion is reprehensible in my mind (in most cases, with the above notable exceptions) it is still a lesser evil than being born.
Thus is the case for the pro-death view of abortion, based on the antinatalist position of being brought into existence. Since being brought into existence in the morally significant way is the greatest harm of all, it can easily be concluded that the best possible thing would be to terminate all pregnancies in the early stages, but also that late-term abortion is a lesser harm than being born.
I’ve read a couple of news articles recently about parents suing for “wrongful birth” of severely disabled children. Parents of children born without appendages, limbs, or even having severe mental and/or other physical handicaps have sued medical staff for allowing their children to be born instead of advising them accordingly to terminate the pregnancy. Unfortunately, these cases have all been thrown out of court, even though I think they have legitimate complaints.
What I don’t think is happening in these cases is that the judges and/or juries are not putting themselves in the shoes of a severely disabled person. By law they must all be of sound mind, so they can’t understand mental handicaps. Some of them may be able to understand some degree of physical handicap, but not to the level many of these children are handicapped. When you think to yourself “would *I* want to live like that” I’d have to think that any reasonable person would say “no, I would not.” I know I sure as hell wouldn’t, and I don’t know anyone who would either.
That said, I think it goes even further than that. I think if anyone, for whatever reason, thinks their quality of life is so poor that it’s in general not worth living, they should be able to sue not only the attending medical staff, but also their parents. After all, life was forced upon them by their parents and had it not been for them doing the nasty and conceiving, they wouldn’t have had to endure the pain and suffering that awaited them in an earthly life. It kind of goes back to what David Benatar said about being born:
“Each one of us was harmed by being brought into existence. That harm is not negligible, because the quality of even the best lives is very bad—and considerably worse than most people recognize it to be. Although it is obviously too late to prevent our own existence, it is not too late to prevent the existence of future possible people.”
“We infrequently contemplate the harms that await any new-born child—pain, disappointment, anxiety, grief, and death. For any given child we cannot predict what form these harms will take or how severe they will be, but we can be sure that at least some of them will occur. None of this befalls the nonexistent. Only existers suffer harm.”
When you think of it that way, it’s pretty easy to conclude that in everyone’s case, birth was wrongful. I understand that would open up a whole new can of worms, but at the same time, let’s face it, life’s rough. I think it’s very legitimate to sue your parents and/or the attending medical staff for the pain and suffering that befalls you due to being born (for had you never been born, you’d have never had to endure pain and suffering). So, yes, your pain and suffering is entirely their fault, and you should be entitled to compensation. I also think you should be entitled to the right to end your life without the state intervening and throwing you into a loony bin and shoving medicine down your throat if you try, but I’ll save that for another day.
So, yeah. Wrongful birth is, in my mind, a completely legitimate complaint for anyone, but especially for the severely disabled. That’s just no way to live, and anyone who is reasonable should be able to agree with that statement.
First of all, I’d like to say congratulations to United States president Barack Obama on winning re-election in a rather handy fashion. Talk about a relief for CF people in the US! Let me tell you what, ol’ Mittens would have been a devastating blow for women’s reproductive health not only in the US, but here and everywhere else in the world too (cutting funding for Planned Parenthood, which he said he’d do, as well as cutting funding for abortions and contraceptives/sterilization in developing countries, among other assaults on reproductive choice).
While we’re on the topic of reproductive choice, most notably abortion, I happened across a rather unusual circumstance yesterday. I did a post on my general blog about all the reasons I’m pro-choice and one of the commenters was adamantly anti-choice. Well, not to be surprising there, as there is still a certain percentage of people who live in prehistory and don’t want to live in the present. Said person pulled out the old tactics about god/gods (which I don’t believe exist, so that one doesn’t work with me) and of course went on a picture tirade of aborted fetuses (sorry, I don’t make decisions based on emotions, so that tactic doesn’t faze me either.
So I got to talking to someone who I knew was childfree about how crazy anti-choicers are, only for her to reveal to me that she was anti-choice herself. Needless to say I was completely bewildered when she said that.
I don’t understand how anyone can be childfree and yet anti-choice. The two terms are like contradictory to one another! On one hand, you want to have the freedom to choose not to reproduce, but on the other hand you’re denying people that same freedom? And you mean to tell me you’d rather be a parent against your will than go through with an abortion? Whatever the case, it made absolutely no sense in my mind whatsoever.
I am definitely not impressed, to say the least. I can only think of one thing and that this person is, deep down, a wannabreeder posing as a childfree person in the name of trying to make childfree people look stupid, or she’s a “shill” in other words. I wouldn’t be surprised if there exist people like that out there.
It’s simple really: to be childfree is to be pro-reproductive freedom, and to be pro-reproductive freedom is to be pro-choice. That’s all there is to it.
You know, if it’s one thing that pisses me off even more than unruly crotch droppings, it’s the fact that governments worldwide give monetary incentives for people to have children. Or, to put it another way, us childfree people wind up paying to raise other people’s little sprogs.
In the United States, Mexico, and most other countries, people are given tax credits for each child they have, the supposed reasoning being that children are expensive. Well, we already knew that, but I thought that was part of the sacrifice you made when you became a parent? Oh wait, I forgot, you’re a parent so every one should bow down to you because you were able to fuck and produce a little miniature human though a completely natural, unmiraculous bodily function! Yeah, I’m not worthy, Mr./Ms. super parent!
Of course, there are places it’s worse than that. Germany recently raised their income tax rate on childless/childfree people (and only on them) to try to promote breeding, and Singapore is offering huge financial incentives for people to have children (we’re talking cash bonuses from the Singaporean government in the amounts of tens of thousands of US equivalent dollars, and that’s per child). Yeah, what kind of fucked up shit is that?
That’s not what gets my goat the most, though. What makes me even madder than tax incentives are welfare benefits. Just no. If you can’t afford to raise a child you have 100% absolutely no business having children. Period, end of story; no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you can’t afford to raise a kid, the only incentives you should be getting are reduced-cost abortion and contraception (including sterilization), quite frankly. It’s a lot cheaper for us taxpayers than paying for your welfare handouts for you to raise your welfare babies who will more than likely go on to produce more welfare babies and continue the cycle.
God that shit pisses me off. Your kids are YOUR responsibility, not mine. Raise them with your own goddamn money or don’t have kids at all, you fucking breeder assholes.
I was reading my Xanga subscriptions the other day and came across this a couple of days ago. Talk about some over-the-top campaigning!
So here’s the scoop: Singapore’s birthrate is down significantly, like several other developed countries’ birthrates in the world today. In 2011, it was about 0.5%. If the current trend continues, it will be 0% in a couple of more years. So what does the government do? They start trying to convince its citizens that reproducing is their “civic duty.”
All I have to say is such a thing just reeks racism and/or xenophobia to me. Sure, the birthrate might be down, but if you want to repopulate the country, there are literally billions of starving children around the world that could use good homes. Why not adopt one of them? Oh but we can’t, they don’t have Singaporian (is that even the right word?) blood! We have to keep our country pure! Hmmm, sounds a bit like white supremacy groups, doesn’t it? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Of course, that’s not the worst of it. The government just promoting breeding by words is one thing, but yes, it gets worse. The government literally pays people to have children, and not just a little bit either. We’re talking thousands of dollars! According to the report I’m about to link to, for a fifth child the parents get paid like an $18,000 US equivalent bonus for having a child! I’m sorry, but that is absolutely disgusting, and I can think of a lot better causes that kind of money could go to besides being an incentive for breeding.
That said, I think the worst part of it is the sheer narcissism being promoted by the government. Quite frankly how many societies and/or races have died out in years past? Quite a few! Guess what, the world went on. If continuing one’s race is really that important to him/her, well, that’s a really narcissistic reason to reproduce. Same thing, really, with the continuation of the human race in general. We’re going to die out eventually, which won’t be a tragic thing, but just the natural progression of life on earth. Reproducing for that reason only is, again, extremely narcissistic.
Of course, the government said they aren’t responsible for the video, nor did they necessarily approve the advertisement, but something tells me otherwise. This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. With Germany raising taxes on the childless/childfree to promote breeding, I suspect many other countries will follow suit and start offering financial incentives to breed.
Whatever the case, you can read more here: http://whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/07/video-urges-singapore-couples-to-make-babies-now/?iref=obinsite
Among all the the questions about whether or not to have children, one often gets overlooked in my mind, and that is the question of ethics. I’m sure you could probably make arguments for either side (and I challenge someone to argue from the other point of view), but I’m going to make an ethical case against having children in the modern era.
Take a look at the world around you. Seriously, just take a look at it. We humans have turned it into a scary place indeed. War, conflict, unrest, disease, famine, and the list goes on. The modern world is a very, very scary and gloomy place indeed. We’re using up our unrenewable resources faster than we ever imagined possible, and before too long we won’t have the very resources we’ve come to rely on to sustain our species.
The closer we get to running out of those resources, the competition for those very resources increases. And how do humans compete? More war, more conflict, more fighting. Combine that with the fact the human population is still growing at a rapid rate, and you can see where this is going: this world is going to be a total disaster area In other words, this world is going to become a more hostile environment with each passing generation, and quite frankly I’m just glad I won’t be alive to see the very worst of it. “World peace?” It’s never going to happen, and the more time goes by, the farther away from world peace we’re going to get.
So, with that, why would you subject another poor little human to this world that’s becoming ever crueler and more dangerous? How could you, in good conscience, do such a thing? I know I couldn’t. I’d never be able to live with myself and I’d feel guilty about doing so.
In that light, my ultimate answer to the question is that it is in no way ethical to bring new life into this world in this day and age.