PDA

View Full Version : How do you like yuur chicken



John Smith
04-10-2012, 10:20 AM
Thought some of you might enjoy my lastest contribution to Dirt & Seeds.



HOW WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR CHICKEN; SCRAMBLED OR SUNNY SIDE UP?

A few short years ago this would be deemed a silly question. It’s a question that pertains to how one likes his eggs. If the trend of today’s world continues, an egg will be a chicken. The old question of which came first will be rendered meaningless.
Let’s face it, the egg, over all of time, has been a potential chicken. Cared for properly, that egg will become a chicken. Of course if we fry it or boil it and eat it, it will never be a chicken; only an egg.
For as long as I can recall, it’s been pretty much the same with humans, although we don’t cook the fertilized eggs, but we do have words for the stages of human development from conception to adulthood. These include “zygote”, “embryo”, “fetus”, “infant”, “toddler” and so on. We record our lives by age, which is computed based on the day we are born, not the day we are conceived.
All of this is changing. The anti-abortion folks are developing new methods for making abortion illegal. One of their tactics is to change the words used. Several states have passed, or are trying to pass, laws that define a fertilized egg as a person. It’s easy to find articles about how these laws are apt to impact contraception and abortion. Here’s just one for those who may not be aware of this part of the debate. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46504390/ns/us_news/t/virginia-lawmakers-halt-anti-abortion-personhood-bill/
In Republicanworld, and unwanted pregnancy is a concept they can’t get their heads around. They seem to believe, sincerely, that no matter how a child is conceived, no matter what the circumstances of the mom, once the baby is born everyone lives happily ever after, in spite of the fact they believe this is not possible without a two parent household. They also hate higher taxes in their world, and forcing all the moms to have all these children will mean higher taxes in the form of assistance in raising the children and additional school space and teachers. To the logical mind, cutting access to contraception and abortion leads to these things, but those living in Republicanworld are extremely religious and believe in miracles.
I’d like to look at some other things that might follow a person beginning at conception. I guess we’d have to get a Social Security number for the new person, so we’ll have to give him a name. Of course we don’t know if the new person is male or female, so we’d be wise to choose a name that works for either. Since it is now a person, we can no longer refer to it and “it”, but we don’t yet know the gender, so do we follow the English of referring to “it” as “he”?
When mom goes into a restaurant, she’s now eating for two. Can they charge for the additional person? If she flies, does she have to buy a second seat on the plane for the other person? Is the first birthday party 3 months after birth, as it’s that would be a year after the conception?
I wonder how getting a life insurance policy would work if the mom wished to get one as soon as the doctor advised her she is pregnant. What would one get this little person for Christmas? This list of questions is limited only by one’s imagination.
Let’s look at some more serious issues, such as a pregnancy that fails to make it to term. Will a miscarriage lead to an autopsy of the fetus or the zygote? Will the mom be held responsible and do jail time? Will there be funerals with tiny caskets? Will those caskets be open or closed? Wouldn’t giving the eulogy be a challenge?
I see something very peculiar when the people who wish to defend traditional marriage solely because it’s traditional, and fear that same sex marriage will destroy the sanctity of traditional marriage without being able to explain how that would be now are fighting to change the traditional moment when a person becomes an individual person. Changing this tradition may have a whole bunch of unintended consequences. From my perspective this, too, is driven by religion.
I would like to live in a world where all pregnancies are wanted. I’d like to live in a world where wars and racism are extinct. It’s my belief that such a world can never be found as long as there are religions. When one speaks of wanting a smaller, less intrusive government and proposes that government get between a woman and her doctor that man is using religion to justify taking a position he disagrees with.
Perhaps what is most troubling is the backward direction our nation is taking. Many of us thought abortion rights and birth control were long decided issues. If those living in Republicanworld succeed here, what do we have to look forward to in the future? Maybe we’ll have white only water fountains again. Women may lose the right to vote.
I suppose some would call that progress.

Uncle Duke
04-10-2012, 10:33 AM
On a related note, a proposed bill in Arizona would mark the start of a childs life to be before procreation:

Under Arizona’s H.B. 2036, the state would recognize the start of the unborn child’s life to be the first day of its mother’s last menstrual period. The legislation is being proposed so that lawmakers can outlaw abortions on fetuses past the age of 20-weeks, but the verbiage its authors use to construct a time cycle for the baby would mean that the start of the child's life could very well occur up to two weeks before the mother and father even ponder procreating.


On page eight of the proposed amendment (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/adopted/s.2036jud.pdf)to H.B. 2036, lawmakers lay out the “gestational age” of the child to be “calculated from the first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman,” ...



From here (https://rt.com/usa/news/arizona-bill-conception-abortion-387/).

brad9798
04-10-2012, 10:36 AM
Chickens are the only thing we eat before they are born ... AND after they die! :D

Mrleft8
04-10-2012, 10:39 AM
Some of this theory is of course flawed on it's surface. The premise that every fertilized egg would eventually become a chicken if given enough time and proper conditions is just plain wrong. There are millions of ducks, turtles, wrens, and platypuses (Platypi?) that would agree with me here....

Paul Pless
04-10-2012, 10:41 AM
extra crispy

George Jung
04-10-2012, 10:44 AM
Ah yes..... eggs in Hell.

LeeG
04-10-2012, 11:05 AM
In the beginning was the word, we are gods creating reality with our breath

B_B
04-10-2012, 01:48 PM
Chickens are the only thing we eat before they are born ... AND after they die! :DDuck Ostrich Quail

TomF
04-10-2012, 02:04 PM
Some of this theory is of course flawed on it's surface. The premise that every fertilized egg would eventually become a chicken if given enough time and proper conditions is just plain wrong. There are millions of ducks, turtles, wrens, and platypuses (Platypi?) that would agree with me here....Or would, if only conditions had been right.

(scrambled, please)

Glen Longino
04-10-2012, 02:29 PM
Ah yes..... eggs in Hell.

Deviled eggs?:)

Mrleft8
04-10-2012, 03:13 PM
Deviled eggs?:)

Los huevos de Satanás

fishrswim
04-11-2012, 04:40 PM
Chickens are the only thing we eat before they are born ... AND after they die! :D

Ever heard of caviar?