*____don't worry, i'm watching over you___

Thursday, August 7, 2008

I just have to post today. Cause it's the 8/8/08! Such a cool no. and the start of the Beijing Olympics.

Today was national day celebration and it was way better than the one 2 years ago (They made us debate about the PAP). Then again. my friends organised it. ^_^ Ah See Yi Yi rented a room at a hotel again to watch NDP. I hafta remember to bring a camera to take pictures, and hopefully there's a computer there (Just like last year!).

Too bad there's still tuition tomorrow.

Recently Chui sent me this email bout how scientist found a "missing day" from the Bible, which is totally untrue and impossible to find out. I mean, you have to have a definite known starting time and computers are definitely not advanced enough. For me, I think this link is useful to tell you what arguments NOT to use.

And as usual, we had another talk on abortion. Agnes is such a hoot, and Ms Tan is awesome. I mean the video was clearly not effective but Ms Tan's talk scared Agnes into being anti-abortion. It's just awful what they're doing to the babies. It's been shown that the baby is a separate individual which means its tantamount to murder. And what's the logic in prosecution a baby killer but legalising abortion???

Look at this comparision (From CMI):

"Just assume for the sake of the argument that it is a real human baby and that intentional killing of innocent humans is wrong. Then it would follow that no amount of psychological trauma for a pregnant woman would justify taking an innocent life, especially in the horrifying ways that this life is taken—which no animal-rights activist would tolerate even for a laboratory rat. So we respond: ‘You have no right to be so judgmental of our euthanasia and abortion section when you haven’t been through the horrific experience that millions of unborn babies suffer every year.’

This can be expanded: if the unborn really is entitled to protection from being murdered, then for a moral argument we can substitute ‘unborn baby’ for, say, a two-year-old (‘2yo’), and see what follows if we apply pro-abortion rhetoric:

A 2yo is so disruptive and causing such heartache for his solo mother that she wants him killed, and people support her ‘right to choose’ to kill her own child in the following ways (paralleling many ‘pro-choice’ arguments).

How dare you pass judgment on the woman, when you have no idea what she’s going through?
You’re a male, so you have no right to comment.
It’s the right of every 2yo to be wanted.
No-one’s forcing you to kill your own 2yo.
Keep your church out of my home!
We’re not pro-killing 2yos, we’re pro-choice.
We want to make 2yo-killing safe, legal and rare.
If we make laws against this, then those who are rich enough will be able to hire a hit man to kill the toddler, while the poor could not afford this, so such laws would discriminate against the poor.
Unless you are prepared to adopt this child, you have no right to tell the mother that she should not kill her.
If we don’t make it possible for the mother to kill her 2yo safely, then she’ll do it unsafely and possibly put her own health in danger.
Laws against 2yo-killing would violate the woman’s right to privacy, which judges tell us is in the US Constitution.
It’s speciesist to give a Homo sapiens 2yo so much more protection than a chimpanzee 2yo.
You’re opposed to killing 2yos only because you’re a religious fanatic.
Males should keep out of the 2yo-killing debate (aka ‘If men had to look after 2yos, then 2yo-killing would be a sacrament’)
The child was conceived by incestuous rape, and her existence is a continual reminder to her mother of what happened, so she should die because of her father’s crime.
Stem cells could be harvested from this 2yo that could help cure many horrible diseases and disabilities—you religious fanatics want to stop this scientific research and cut off all hope of a cure for Alzheimer’s, heart disease, Parkinson’s, quadriplegia and diabetes.

If these arguments seem horrific (which they are), then put yourselves in our shoes, who believe that the unborn baby is human, when we hear the parallel statements from ‘pro-choicers’ to justify abortion. And don’t think that such arguments won’t one day be applied to older children—the notorious pro-infanticide philosopher Peter Singer was recently appointed to a personal chair at Princeton University, and was the invited author of the Encyclopædia Britannica’s article ‘Ethics’. It’s ironic that the academia of the Allied nations are now right behind Singer, while in Germany, Singer’s lectures are always attended by mass protests by people in wheelchairs and those with other disabilities, and other lectures have had to be cancelled as a result of such protests—presumably Germans know neo-nazism when they see it, and don’t want it to happen again! So let’s get to the real issues, whether the baby is human and whether killing innocent humans can be justified."

Woah, this is long(er than what i expected).

Labels: me, school, things that bug me

flew into your heart at [11:16 PM]

_____________