Warning: This post is a report on my life. I don't do this very often, but if you nevertheless cannot stand the occasional inside reference, then go to sleep. Now.
On the summer internship front, I have unofficially failed to get into IRIS, and probably will not make NIH or the Geophysical Laboratory. Reluctantly playing the connections game has led me to another set of internship opportunities, which appear freakishly difficult to secure. However, I am encouraged by the fact that I have something to do next year: Professor Harman said that I can help out with CHEM 1810! (Insert hysterical outburst about the SIS here.) All that remains to be seen is if I will become a true TA...
After I gave up on my chemistry lab report discussion at around 0400 last Thursday night, I ran a YouTube search for "liberty". I came up with, among other things, the Philosophy of Liberty. It explains the concepts of self-ownership, the social contract, and the libertarian society, and is very elegantly written. Also, the animation is set to trippy music, which is stuck in my head due to Évariste playing it all weekend. It sounds like flying, and as Évariste commented, "progress".
I am attending the "Veritas" forum tomorrow (it is not Monday until I wake up!) and Tuesday in the capacity of an investigative reporter, where some famous deluded Christian will talk about the human condition and truth and other such things that religion is unfit to touch. Évariste and I saw a chalked ad that read: "Is there a person behind your performance? Veritas..." He said that he wished he had a piece of chalk so that he could write, "No, I own my own life," and proceeded to comment on the need for an organised, outspoken atheist group on Grounds. I consider Évariste's transformation from Christian to disillusioned Christian to shaky atheist to "militant" atheist to be a great triumph of reason and liberty.
Speaking of Évariste, things have generally been going well, especially after the instatement of the List system. The Plan is more than 90% finished, assuming I can count on promised donations. I am getting three pictures of myself painted, not to mention a new rose, after we lost the first one through "the initiation of force or fraud to take honestly acquired property".
UPDATE (23 Mar): We bought a Pink Promise, the official rose of the National Breast Cancer Foundation. It's a bush rose, however, not a miniature. Hehehe.
Did I mention that if I don't get up before 0900 tomorrow, I will miss my 14th BIOL 300 lecture? Good night, then!
P.S. I really hate this post. It is disorganised, ranting, and pointless. But I had way too much on my mind, and needed to get some of it down. So there.
23 March 2009
07 March 2009
Actually, I do eat babies.
The Baby-eater's Manifesto
We hold:
1) That from the moment of conception until the completion of birth, the zygote/embryo/foetus receives a conditional gift of residence from the woman within which it resides. It does not have the right to reside inside the woman any more than a houseguest, though invited, has the right to reside within the host's property.
2) That a woman's body is her property and that at any time during pregnancy, the woman has the absolute right to evict the zygote/embryo/foetus in the same manner that an individual may evict a guest (unprotected by contract) from his/her property.
3) That the right to abortion arises from the right to eviction in that the sustenance and protection (and therefore the potential of future viability) the zygote/embryo/foetus receives during its residence are also conditional gifts of the woman. Therefore, before a foetus is deemed independently viable, it does not have the right to life, and the woman has the absolute right to abortion.
4) That after a foetus is independently viable, it has the right to life. However, it still does not have the right to reside, and thus, a woman may still evict it for any reason. At this stage, the state may legislate restrictions on abortion (but not on eviction) with exceptions if the health (physical, psychological, emotional, or otherwise) of the woman is endangered by a non-abortive eviction procedure. This case is admittedly the most problematic, but it is also by far the least common.
Finally, we remind everyone that the support for a right does not entail the exercise of that right; that harsh language does not imply harsh intent; that the law does not prescribe morals; and that, of course, we do not really eat babies.
Mlles Galois, Grantaire, and Fine
We hold:
1) That from the moment of conception until the completion of birth, the zygote/embryo/foetus receives a conditional gift of residence from the woman within which it resides. It does not have the right to reside inside the woman any more than a houseguest, though invited, has the right to reside within the host's property.
2) That a woman's body is her property and that at any time during pregnancy, the woman has the absolute right to evict the zygote/embryo/foetus in the same manner that an individual may evict a guest (unprotected by contract) from his/her property.
3) That the right to abortion arises from the right to eviction in that the sustenance and protection (and therefore the potential of future viability) the zygote/embryo/foetus receives during its residence are also conditional gifts of the woman. Therefore, before a foetus is deemed independently viable, it does not have the right to life, and the woman has the absolute right to abortion.
4) That after a foetus is independently viable, it has the right to life. However, it still does not have the right to reside, and thus, a woman may still evict it for any reason. At this stage, the state may legislate restrictions on abortion (but not on eviction) with exceptions if the health (physical, psychological, emotional, or otherwise) of the woman is endangered by a non-abortive eviction procedure. This case is admittedly the most problematic, but it is also by far the least common.
Finally, we remind everyone that the support for a right does not entail the exercise of that right; that harsh language does not imply harsh intent; that the law does not prescribe morals; and that, of course, we do not really eat babies.
Mlles Galois, Grantaire, and Fine
03 March 2009
Vivere liberi aut mori
FIRST (and probably only) MAJOR SNOW OF THE SEASON!
I could just end the post there, but I have to give a meteorological rundown. Then for the fun stuff.
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Duration: 1800 1st Mar 2009 - 1000 2 Mar 2009
Accumulation: 15 cm
Temperature: 2 to -6 degrees Celsius
Quality: Moderately fluffy. Not powdery enough for sledding, not sticky enough for *cough cough* sculpting. Damn.
So, I had decided ahead of time that if enough snow accumulated, I would make a representation of none other than Cato the Younger of Utica. Brief description: Cato was a Roman statesman and republican who fought against Caesar in the civil war and committed suicide rather than submitting to Caesar's rule.
Good thing he killed himself too, because unfortunately, the snow was just not wet enough for me to do the living version of him justice (or maybe I was just not patient enough). First, his sword-bearing arm fell off, then his right leg came off, and finally his whole body detached from the ground. So I simply lay him in his dead pose and proceeded to stab him with a fruit knife and write in pomegranate and blackberry juice the French and Latin words that read:
CATO OF UTICA
LIVE FREE OR DIE
Sorry, old fella. Well, I wasn't about to make you a slave to my sculpting skills.
My only implement for writing the letters was a teaspoon.
Since his features were so indistinct, I annotated him.
I could just end the post there, but I have to give a meteorological rundown. Then for the fun stuff.
Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Duration: 1800 1st Mar 2009 - 1000 2 Mar 2009
Accumulation: 15 cm
Temperature: 2 to -6 degrees Celsius
Quality: Moderately fluffy. Not powdery enough for sledding, not sticky enough for *cough cough* sculpting. Damn.
So, I had decided ahead of time that if enough snow accumulated, I would make a representation of none other than Cato the Younger of Utica. Brief description: Cato was a Roman statesman and republican who fought against Caesar in the civil war and committed suicide rather than submitting to Caesar's rule.
Good thing he killed himself too, because unfortunately, the snow was just not wet enough for me to do the living version of him justice (or maybe I was just not patient enough). First, his sword-bearing arm fell off, then his right leg came off, and finally his whole body detached from the ground. So I simply lay him in his dead pose and proceeded to stab him with a fruit knife and write in pomegranate and blackberry juice the French and Latin words that read:
CATO OF UTICA
LIVE FREE OR DIE
Sorry, old fella. Well, I wasn't about to make you a slave to my sculpting skills.
My only implement for writing the letters was a teaspoon.
Since his features were so indistinct, I annotated him.Enfin de retour! - "Anti-choice"
It is two hours to the conclusion 3 Mar 2009 and I am finally blogging again. I hope that I'll be a bit more regular from now on, but no promises.
The last six weeks have been quite a journey. I've had to deal with issues concerning Évariste, draw up a set of new approaches to the Plan, and come to terms with the reality that seemingly innocuous 1-credit EVSC 350L might as well account for 11 out of my 22 credits. However, these are all stories for another time or day. Right now, just to getting my hands wet, I'm going to write a tidbit about abortion.
The issue I want to address doesn't actually pertain to the whole abortion argument—it concerns semantics. Yes, I am going to describe why I like to use the term "anti-choice" to describe those opposed to a woman's right to an abortion. You might think that it's pointless, but I disagree. Naturally, for pro-choicers, "anti-choice" is a much more forceful appellation than "pro-life", but "anti-choice" is also a more accurate and meaningful description. Here's why.
It is a proven fact that you can be both pro-choice and pro-life. I am pro-choice (duh), but I certainly wouldn't lead a careless sex life just because I know that I have the right to an abortion anytime I might need it. I am not going to encourage the abortion of every zygote/embryo/fetus because I am "anti-life". Indeed, I will most likely never have an abortion. But if some woman out there needed an abortion, then I would fully support her right to have one. Even if that woman simply wanted an abortion, I would support her right to have one. Thomas Jefferson said that we should not be afraid "to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." This principle works because the vast majority of people are "reasonable" and only a tiny fraction of people "err". (Do you think that most pro-choicers are like me or like Dracula?) It therefore follows that amid a reasonable society, the danger posed by these errors is much less than the danger of outlawing them, and anything that might lead to them, and anything that might lead to that, etc. This is one of the ideas of libertarianism. (Wow, I thought I was talking about semantics.)
There are many examples that parallel the statement that "just because I am pro-choice does not mean that I eat babies." Just because I support gay rights does not mean that I am lesbian. Just because I oppose gun control does not mean that I go around sniping my enemies (my aim would be horrible anyway). Just because I am anti-draft does not mean that I will not support my country's war efforts if I believe that it is fighting for a worthy cause. Along the same lines, just because I am atheist does not mean that I go out of my way to commit every possible "sin".
I digress. To summarise: I have just shown how you can be both pro-choice and pro-life. But, as far as I know, you cannot be both "pro-life" (in the anti-abortion sense) and support a woman's right to choose.
The term "pro-life" is therefore meaningless because the vast majority of humans, regardless of their stance on abortion rights, are pro-life. But "anti-choice" is meaningful because only pro-choicers are, well, pro-choice.
(Countless other people have probably had the same idea and followed the same line of reasoning. But if that is the case, then let me say that I came up with all of this independently. Convergent evolution FTW.)
The last six weeks have been quite a journey. I've had to deal with issues concerning Évariste, draw up a set of new approaches to the Plan, and come to terms with the reality that seemingly innocuous 1-credit EVSC 350L might as well account for 11 out of my 22 credits. However, these are all stories for another time or day. Right now, just to getting my hands wet, I'm going to write a tidbit about abortion.
The issue I want to address doesn't actually pertain to the whole abortion argument—it concerns semantics. Yes, I am going to describe why I like to use the term "anti-choice" to describe those opposed to a woman's right to an abortion. You might think that it's pointless, but I disagree. Naturally, for pro-choicers, "anti-choice" is a much more forceful appellation than "pro-life", but "anti-choice" is also a more accurate and meaningful description. Here's why.
It is a proven fact that you can be both pro-choice and pro-life. I am pro-choice (duh), but I certainly wouldn't lead a careless sex life just because I know that I have the right to an abortion anytime I might need it. I am not going to encourage the abortion of every zygote/embryo/fetus because I am "anti-life". Indeed, I will most likely never have an abortion. But if some woman out there needed an abortion, then I would fully support her right to have one. Even if that woman simply wanted an abortion, I would support her right to have one. Thomas Jefferson said that we should not be afraid "to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it." This principle works because the vast majority of people are "reasonable" and only a tiny fraction of people "err". (Do you think that most pro-choicers are like me or like Dracula?) It therefore follows that amid a reasonable society, the danger posed by these errors is much less than the danger of outlawing them, and anything that might lead to them, and anything that might lead to that, etc. This is one of the ideas of libertarianism. (Wow, I thought I was talking about semantics.)
There are many examples that parallel the statement that "just because I am pro-choice does not mean that I eat babies." Just because I support gay rights does not mean that I am lesbian. Just because I oppose gun control does not mean that I go around sniping my enemies (my aim would be horrible anyway). Just because I am anti-draft does not mean that I will not support my country's war efforts if I believe that it is fighting for a worthy cause. Along the same lines, just because I am atheist does not mean that I go out of my way to commit every possible "sin".
I digress. To summarise: I have just shown how you can be both pro-choice and pro-life. But, as far as I know, you cannot be both "pro-life" (in the anti-abortion sense) and support a woman's right to choose.
The term "pro-life" is therefore meaningless because the vast majority of humans, regardless of their stance on abortion rights, are pro-life. But "anti-choice" is meaningful because only pro-choicers are, well, pro-choice.
(Countless other people have probably had the same idea and followed the same line of reasoning. But if that is the case, then let me say that I came up with all of this independently. Convergent evolution FTW.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)