Congratulations! Your comment on This Sums Up Motherhood In 34 Seconds has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment on This Sums Up Motherhood In 34 Seconds has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment on This Sums Up Motherhood In 34 Seconds has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/This-Sums-Up-Motherhood-In-34-Seconds

This Sums Up Motherhood In 34 Seconds has been added as a related post - related requested by Payback.

motherhood suits her. I think she looks even prettier than usual.

They don't just need $1000! Even if you give them what they need, they still need more! You cannot have $1000 everytime they ask you for or everytime they need it. The major cause of today's sex movement in young people is the shift in our human life pattern or style that involves adult's (parents') liberality about sex, from women's rights, gender's struggle for equality, separation, divorce, same sex marriage, domestic violence, single-motherhood etc. Children are almost abandoned while adults are busy chasing after their own pleasures and freedoms. They also immitate adults' lifestyle. No cure!

@hpqp
I am not at all ashamed of my verbose, self-indulgent dross, so here we go!

Something has to be extra-physical, as least based on our current model. I can fully accept that a brain by itself can receive sensory input, process it against memory, and thus act in a completely human way indistinguishable from a conscious human, but on its own can literally be no more "conscious" than a river flowing down a mountain. Our current view of the physical universe does not tolerate any rational physical explanation of consciousness. Any given moment of human experience - the unified sensory experience and stream of consciousness - does not exist in a single place at a single instant. To suggest that the atoms\molecules\proteins\cells of the brain experience themselves in a unified manner based on their proximity to or electrochemical interaction with each other is magical thinking. Atoms don't do that, and that's all that's there, physically.
I disagree that consciousness is subordinate to cognition in terms of value. Cognition is what makes us who we are and behave as we do, but consciousness is what makes us different from the rest of the jiggling matter in the universe.

A couple of posts back, you challenged my statement about abstinence education as demonstrating a lack of pragmatism. I didn't really address it in my reply, but I'd prefaced it with the understanding that it's not a magical incantation. I know people are still going to have sex, but I suggested that has to be a part of education. People have to know that you can still get pregnant even if you're using the contraceptives that are available. They have to at least know the possibility exists. It's one more thing for them to consider. People are still going to drive recklessly even if you tell them they can crash and kill themselves despite their airbags, seatbelts, and crumple zones, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it to educate them about the possibility. I fail to see how that's not pragmatic.

I didn't reply to your comment about adoption vs abortion because I'm not sure there's anything else to add on either side. As I've said, my beliefs on this are such that even a grossly flawed adoption\orphan care system is preferable to the alternative, even if it means that approximately 10 times the number of children would enter the system than have traditionally been adopted each year. (1.4M abortions annually in the US, ~140K adoptions, but there are several assumptions in that math that wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.) Many right and just things have unpleasant consequences that must be managed. (The typical counter here is that Pro-Lifers tend to also be fiscal\social conservatives and won't fund social services to care for these new individuals they've "protected" into existence. That's just another issue of taking responsibility for the consequences of choices. If they get what they want, they need to be held to account, but it's a separate issue. A related issue, but a separate issue.)

Criminalizing\prohibiting almost any activity results in some degree of risky\dangerous\destructive behavior. Acts must be criminalized because there are individuals who would desire to perform those acts which have been determined to be an unnecessary imposition on the rights of another. Criminalization does not eliminate the desire, but it adds a new factor to consideration. Some will decide the criminalization\prohibition of the act is not sufficient deterrent, but in proceeding, are likely to do so in a different manner than otherwise. The broad consideration is whether the benefits of criminalization\prohibition outweigh the risks posed to\by the percentage who will proceed anyway. Prohibition of alcohol failed the test, I expect the prohibition of certain drugs will be shown to have failed the test..eventually. Incest is illegal, and the "unintended" consequence is freaks locking their families in sheds and basements in horrific conditions, but I think most of us would agree the benefits outweigh the detriment there.

Is putting all would-have-been-aborteds up for adoption abhorrent or absurd? The hump we'll never get over is asking "is it more abhorrent than aborting all of them", because we have different viewpoints on the relative values in play. But is it even a valid question? They won't all be put up for adoption. Some percentage (possibly 5-10 percent) will spontaneously miscarry\abort anyway and some percentage would be raised by a birth parent or by the extended family after all. An initially unwanted pregnancy does not necessarily equate to an unwanted child, for a number of reasons. I do not have statistics on what proportion could be expected to be put up for adoption. Would you happen to? It seems like that would be difficult to extrapolate.

The "'potential' shtick" carries weight in my view because of the uniqueness of the situation. There is no consensus on the "best" way to define when elective abortion is "acceptable". Sagan puts weight on cognition as indicative of personhood. As he states, the Supreme Court set its date based on independent "viability". (More specifically, I feel it should be noted, "potential" viability.) These milestones coincide only by coincidence.
Why is it so easy for us, as you say, to retroproject? And why is this any different from assigning personhood to each of a million individual sperm? For me, it's because of those statistics on miscarriage linked above. The retroprojected "potential" is represented by "percentages". At 3-6 weeks, without deliberate intervention 90% of those masses of cells will go on to become a human being. At 6-12 it's 95%. This is more than strictly "potential", it's nearly guaranteed.

I expect your response will be uncomfortable for both of us, but I wish you would expound on why my "It Gets Better" comparison struck you as inappropriate. Crude, certainly - I'll admit to phrasing it indelicately, even insensitively. I do not think it poorly considered, however. The point of "It Gets Better" is to let LGBT youth know that life does not remain oppressive, negative, and confusing, and that happiness and fulfillment lie ahead if they will only persevere.
It's necessary because as humans, we aren't very good at imagining we'll ever be happy again when surrounded by uncertainty and despair, or especially recognizing the good already around us. We can only see torment, and may not see the point in perpetuating a seemingly-unending chain of suffering when release is so close at hand, though violence against self (or others).
This directly parallels the "quality of life" arguments posed from the pro-choice perspective. They take an isolated slice of life from a theoretical unplanned child and their mother and suggest that this is their lot and that we've increased suffering in the universe, as if no abused child will ever know a greater love, or no poor child will ever laugh and play, and that no mother of an unwanted pregnancy will ever enjoy life again, burdened and poverty-stricken as she is.
As you said, we're expecting a woman to reflect "on what would her and the eventual child’s quality of life be like", but we're so bad at that.
And all that quality-of-life discussion is assuming we've even nailed the demographic on who is seeking abortions in the U.S.
Getting statistics from the Guttmacher Institute, we find that 77% were at or above the federal poverty level and 60% already had at least one child.

On a moral level, absolutely, eugenics is very different debate.
On a practical level, the eugenics angle is relevant because it's indistinguishable from any other elective abortion. Someone who is terminating a pregnancy because their child would be a girl, or gay, or developmentally disabled can very easily say "I'm just not ready for motherhood." And who's to say that's not the mother's prerogative as much as any other elective abortion, if she's considering the future quality of life for herself and the child? "It sucks for girls\gays\downs in today's society and I don't think I can personally handle putting them through that," or more likely "My family and I could never love a child like that, so they would be unloved and I would be miserable for it. This is better for both of us."
Can we write that off as hopefully being yet another edge case? (Keep in mind possibly 65% of individuals seeking abortion declare as Protestant or Catholic, though other statistics show how unreliable "reported religious affiliation" is with regard to actual belief and practice.)

_{"Argumentation"? I have learned a new word today, thanks to hpqp. High five!}

>> ^quantumushroom:

I like Koko, but am wary of company that can pull one's arms out of one's sockets.


I have to agree with you there.

Article 1.
* All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
* Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
* No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
* No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
* Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
* All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
* Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
* Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
* (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
* (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
* (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
* (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
* (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
* (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
* (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
* (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
* (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
* (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
* (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
* (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
* (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
* Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
* (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
* (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
* (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
* (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
* Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
* (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
* (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
* (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
* (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
* (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
* (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
* Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
* (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
* (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
* (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
* Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

- http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

1. the us does not have paid maternity leave, some companies do, most don't. it's at their discretion.

2. what many corporate operations will have is short term disability insurance, which is paid by employee and employer.

3. many corporate operations will also offer paid time off, the day i found out i was pregnant, i did not spend any of my pto, saving it all up for my 6 weeks maternity leave.

4. the first few months of life are EXTREMELY VITAL to proper human development. even if you think people should have less babies (and most of them seem to be agreeing with you, btw) we still need a significant amount of new people born each year. unless you want ignorant malnourished sociopaths changing your pants in your nursing home, it's in your best interest to be supportive of strong prenatal and post partum policies.

5. capitalism is built on the backs of women. 1000's upon 1000's of unpaid hours creating future workers for the machine. if you want the best workers possible, even if you want less of them, it's in societies best interest to be supportive of motherhood. it's doing a piss poor job right now. and you pricks wonder why kids are so stupid and bratty and burning their cities to the ground? i bet not a little of that is due to the increasing difficulty of balancing being a mother, with paying all the bills. and in the end, motherhood is the single greatest risk factor for poverty in old age.

6. fuck your patriarchal bullshittery "live within your means, if i want bicycle around europe blah blah" arguments.

7. thinking that good maternity policies "incentivise" people to have more kids is silly. people who are actually fortunate enough to have planned pregnancies realize they're going to be raising the kid longer than a few months. and birth rates are on the decline in the developed world.

i think there is an overall underlying psychology to the movement as a whole that is about power and control. but i think on an individual level, individual people actually think it is about life and death......... which is the problem with religion, and possibly even political structures and capitalism (thought i haven't thought those two through in depth yet). the over all structure is about maintaining power and control and on the micro level.. people just want to live and love and be good and take care of their families and feel something passionately.

the last rally i went to was about 500 people with 20 or so pro life counter protesters... a few hours into it this mad woman showed up and started screaming at the top of her lungs "ABORTION IS MURDER!!ITS MURDER!!" and then some other insanely gruesome things. which, of course, started a shouting match. so we left. because 1. i didnt want my kids hearing the horrific things she was yelling. and 2. i make it a rule not to argue with the mentally ill... but that woman certainly believed it was about life and death. and i do very much believe she would do what she could to financially support a young a pregnant woman and the child.

i think i love the psychology of societies.



ps. my 5 year old son is sitting on the couch across from me babbling various facts about arthropods. and my daughter was just in the backyard making a daisy chain sort of thing out of lavender, clovers and cucumbers.. chasing our dog through the garden......she just ran inside, locked the front door and said she had to lock it because she saw a snake and got scared. i said "... snakes cant open doors. and you're not afraid of them" and her reply ..."oooh.. i meant a velocipator then"

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I get the feeling that the pro life movement is more anti sex than anti abortion. I can't tell you how many times I've discussed the issue and heard pro lifers characterize young sexually active women as sluts and whores. They talk about motherhood as more of a punishment for promiscuity than a joyous and profound part of the human experience. Usually the slut talk comes out when you get them a little angry.
It's interesting that these beliefs are held by a patriarchal segment of society whom are usually pretty OK with violence, poverty, torture, the death penalty, war, shock and awe, etc. I'm convinced that this seeming conradiction isn't a contradiction at all, because this issue isn't about life, it's about power. More specifically, male power over female sexuality.
Sometimes I ask pro lifers (both genders) if they would be willing to carry a woman's unwanted unborn child for her in order to save its life, assuming technology advanced to a point where it was possible. "No, it's not my responsibility" is the common answer, which supports my gut feeling that this issue is not actually about life. Another argument I use is "would you be willing to financially support a poor pregnant mother?", which also ilicits some telling (read: ugly) responses ("I wouldn't want to give financial incentive to unwed motherhood.") Shifting the responsibility from the mother to the pro-lifer is a good way to get to the subconscious core of these belief systems.
If the pro life movement was a bit more pragmatic, I think they could find some compromise with the pro choice movement, because people on all sides of the issue find abortion tragic and traumatic. I think more restrictive abortion regulation might be accepted in trade for more honest, more effective, more present sex education, counseling and free and easy access to birth control. Abortion is a symptom of unwanted pregnancies. Child abuse and neglect are also symptoms of unwanted pregnancy. What if we combined movements and focused on the root cause? Then again, if I'm correct in my hunch that this issue has more to do with sex and power than life, sex ed and free rubbers would be more offensive than abortion itself.
Good stuff, bea.

I get the feeling that the pro life movement is more anti sex than anti abortion. I can't tell you how many times I've discussed the issue and heard pro lifers characterize young sexually active women as sluts and whores. They talk about motherhood as more of a punishment for promiscuity than a joyous and profound part of the human experience. Usually the slut talk comes out when you get them a little angry.

It's interesting that these beliefs are held by a patriarchal segment of society whom are usually pretty OK with violence, poverty, torture, the death penalty, war, shock and awe, etc. I'm convinced that this seeming conradiction isn't a contradiction at all, because this issue isn't about life, it's about power. More specifically, male power over female sexuality.

Sometimes I ask pro lifers (both genders) if they would be willing to carry a woman's unwanted unborn child for her in order to save its life, assuming technology advanced to a point where it was possible. "No, it's not my responsibility" is the common answer, which supports my gut feeling that this issue is not actually about life. Another argument I use is "would you be willing to financially support a poor pregnant mother?", which also ilicits some telling (read: ugly) responses ("I wouldn't want to give financial incentive to unwed motherhood.") Shifting the responsibility from the mother to the pro-lifer is a good way to get to the subconscious core of these belief systems.

If the pro life movement was a bit more pragmatic, I think they could find some compromise with the pro choice movement, because people on all sides of the issue find abortion tragic and traumatic. I think more restrictive abortion regulation might be accepted in trade for more honest, more effective, more present sex education, counseling and free and easy access to birth control. Abortion is a symptom of unwanted pregnancies. Child abuse and neglect are also symptoms of unwanted pregnancy. What if we combined movements and focused on the root cause? Then again, if I'm correct in my hunch that this issue has more to do with sex and power than life, sex ed and free rubbers would be more offensive than abortion itself.

Good stuff, bea.

I'm sure I didn't have to spell this out, but the lack of a sidewalk contrasting with the sports car (a 'Diablo') is clearly a comment on nihilism and religiosity, while the breasts and surgical glove (in yellow, commonly used by nurses) should be interpreted as references to birth, motherhood, and of course the life-giving sun.

'Yankee Doodle' is just a red herring. A delightful red herring.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

So, point out the millions of videos of cops acting bad... What about the lazy citizens, criminal citizens and such who act worse?Your justification for a cops "bad behaviour" is that criminals act much worse? How like criminals do you think cops should act?>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Is our nation's society, the system we all run by, or any other nation's system for that matter, broken? Broken is the wrong word. The right word would be imperfect. Given that society is a constantly evolving system, hopefully to the benefit of the whole, broken is a silly word. So let's try again:>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Is our nation's society, the system we all run by, or any other nation's system for that matter, imperfect? Yes. Emphatically, yes.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
The mother who sprays her child with a pressure washer? The crackhead who leaves her baby in a car, or let's her baby suffocate in the couch because she is passed out? WHY! Motherhood must be a flawed system! Or the robber who shoots the head off a bank teller? Why, open banks are flawed systems!False analogy. Attributing a bank teller's head being blown off to open banks is the same as attributing an innocent man's innocenter dogs murder during a police raid to the unarmored nature of the dog.>> ^Lawdeedaw:

Please spare the hyperbole...The irony! It's thick! >> ^Lawdeedaw:
cops are people who need weeded just like every other person-- Here we agree. Everyone needs to get a little weeded every now and then.>> ^Lawdeedaw:
... And more get fired than before too.[citation needed] You sound like a religious zealot who bashes atheists.???

You sound like one hand clapping.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
And what have you done personally to change the system? Do you vote for or against Sheriffs who are elcected officals? Have you written to a mayor about abuse? No? Have you supported candidates who can effect change? No?No. I've done none of these things.

But what of you? Have you organized parades in support of the judicial system? Have you given back rubs to your local "S"herrif? No? Have you ever purchased a sexy policeman calendar? No?

Ahh, well, then, your argument must be invalid.
>> ^Matthu:
>> ^lantern53:
If every police officer in this country acted this way, there would be armed revolution.
But these are two shitbirds out of hundreds of thousands of honest cops who risk their lives to keep the peace and try to preserve justice.
Don't judge thousands of cops on the basis of these two idiots who should be canned...or caned.
Would you like to be judged by the action of one of your co-workers?
Don't be a knee-jerk clone and try to paint all police officers by the actions of these two.

Lol... Getting so sick of hearing this bullshit copy pasta. How many videos of abusive cops need to be put up before they're considered evidence of a flawed justice system.
You're the clone, open your eyes. If police officers continue to act this way there will be an armed revolution.
And I'm not judging hundreds of thousands of cops on the basis of these two idiots. I'm judging the system which creates an unacceptable amount of abusers.