Home : Journal : Archive

Friday July 15, 2005

Wicked drunken bingo!

Personal

Wait, no, that was Monday.

Still, the "wicked drunken" part applies to last night as well. In the bad way even: I think I've said something I shouldn't have. And it was not really something I can apologise for or even take back. Nor would I want to because I cannot help but being sincere.

It was just a four letter word and I hope she'll forget I ever said it.

Song quiz-a-muh-thingey

Personal


Stolen from Charlotte, my fave Canadian lass, who just scored a bunch of extra cute points (sorry, it's 2005: "kudos") for liking Bon Jovi!

How bored am I?

Fined for unsafe sex

Anglosphere

No, not me. I prefer shags with mates I've known for a while so I can verify they practise safe sex and I always wear a rubber myself. No HIV-fests with strangers for this lad.

But some randy Kiwi was fined for unsafe sex and from the looks of it rightly so:

A New Zealand man who removed a condom during sex with a prostitute has been fined for putting her life at risk.

Daniel James Morgan, 48, was ordered to pay NZ$400 (£153) plus costs in what is believed to be the first case of its kind in the country.

My first response at the headline was "why the man and not the woman" but in this case it's a one-sided removal so everything is actually fair.

Yet I will repeat: sexual activity takes two (or more) and each individual carries a responsibility to ensure adequate screening and protection. When I explain my "no rubber, no sex" policy to girls, all too often I hear "I wish more guys were like you" and that saddens me. It's not just the guy who sets the policy. Girls should stick to such a policy themselves and make clear it's their way or the high-way. A girl who stands up for herself like that wins my respect - and therefore also more easily my heart.

World War III, no IV, no.. Five?!

Anglosphere

Greg Burch argues we're at World War V already, including not only the "Cold War" (armed conflicts on virtually every continent) as WWIII and the war on terrorism (attacks and armed conflicts on virtually every continent) as WWIV, but in fact also the fight against French imperialism as WWI.. therefore increasing the count by one for each following global conflict.

And adds the following note one day after the terror attacks on London:

Now, what do all the world wars before the current one have in common? The English were on the winning side. Let's hope the British in the 21st century have the will to keep up their winning record.

Fair enough, but note we haven't quite won against communism yet when one considers North Korea or the Chinese threat (). And note that the Anglosphere is the real commonality here, regardless of temporary issues of isolationism here and there.

Wade vs Roe vs Eugenics

Anglosphere

The Beeb makes me think about abortion again.

There is Levitt's economic analysis of abortion and crime rates, which has rattled America. He claims that Bill Clinton's apocalyptic warning of a crime wave in the 90s did not come to fruition because of Roe vs Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling of 1973 that legalised abortion in the USA.

He argues that the women most likely to have taken advantage of Roe vs Wade were poor and unmarried, whose kids - if they had been born - would apparently have "led unhappy and possibly criminal lives".

Do you see where the argument is heading? In a nutshell, Freakonomics claims that legalised abortion killed off many future criminals, using data to show that 20 years after Roe vs Wade there was a dip in the crime rates. It's a distasteful claim and it has stuck in the throats of many in the USA. But Levitt stands by it.

Conservative question: could it be that the claim is distasteful because it is true, and abortionists are confronted with the notion that they are guilty of eugenics, for which pro-choice is just a modern euphenism?

Background of this entry: I have grown up in a world where abortion is considered to be normal and acceptable. Later I started agreeing with conservatives, stating that an innocent human life should not be taken - a noble argument. But.. discussions on the death penalty and most importantly strong support for abortion amongst some of my peers have made me waiver.

I do maintain my ground rule that if you agree with the abortion of unwanted children, you should also agree with the death penalty for (unwanted) convicted criminals. But the other way around? The death penalty is undeniably a very effective way to remove the unwanted from society. And the key argument, especially under a three-strikes legislation, appears to be avoiding possible future harm to individuals or society and not mere punishment for past crimes. Better safe than sorry. Could that argument then be extended for pregnant women seeking an abortion?

Not without noting that pregnancy is (with the exception of rape) the result of a failure to take responsibilities and therefore a self-inflicted condition. Negligence, accidents, drunkenness and/or an addiction to sex do not add up to a license to kill a human life. Not even rape. A human fetus is a human life but no convict. But some would say a "better safe than sorry" abortion might actually be taking acceptable responsibility, regardless of whether there might be better moral options.

That's where my logical argument ends: I lean towards pro-life for moral reasons.

And yet.. I'm not pro-life.

And the sad part: it's pure physical weakness why I'm not, damnit.

See, the facts are: I wouldn't be able to resist sex with my muse (we all know who that is), in fact I'm very fond of that idea. Her public opinion (hurray for MySpace quizes) is "agree agree agree". I respect that, so without bringing up my feelings for her again, I suppose one could say I would kill for her. I could be pro-life and claim moral superiority, but if I'm honest: I'd even pay for it. Sad? Perhaps. Truth? Certainly. And this actuality extends to many more girls: I want to and do sleep with pro-choice women, so I should shut up.

I still do not think abortion is the best of moral options in case of a pregnancy.

I insist on a limited period of legality. It is currently 24 weeks in the UK, based on the development of higher brain functions and capability of the fetus to survive outside the womb. I do think 24 weeks is insanely long.

Supporting equal rights, abortion should be supported by both potential parents. Strictly speaking this is compatible with pro-choice, but a tad more conservative as it requires the choice to be known prior to intercourse. (Don't sleep with someone who might disagree on the consequences.)

I still do not think abortion is the best of moral options in case of a pregnancy. But I prefer sex over abstinence and would rather have safeguards when getting laid than be moral king of the world.

I feel honest, but weak. It's not peer pressure, I played the "what if" game and figured this out myself, but I do feel weak for realising that when it comes to pregnancy and abortion I would be submissive and let the girl decide.

Positive end-note, I can quote Spike: "I may be love's bitch, but at least I know it". Love's bitch, and lust's bitch.

More UK youth crimes

Anglosphere

From the UK youth crimes department of the Beeb:

A 15-year-old girl is in a serious condition after being stabbed in front of other pupils on Friday.

The girl, a pupil at the Thomas Alleyne School in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, was taken to the town's Lister Hospital for treatment.

Just another news bit you don't want to read when you like a 15-year-old girl from Herts who hasn't been in touch today. Maybe poverty and boredom create a hidden draft in the US, but I'd rather see yobbers kill terrorists than other teens (fair enough, teenage girls don't enlist and this situation is non-lethal, but my point is clear).

Next day: Monday July 18, 2005 Previous day: Thursday July 14, 2005

© Copyright 1995-2007 Robert John Kaper. All rights reserved.

Powered by the delicious Kiki CMS! (#8/9)