Monday, March 14, 2016

Fourth Trimester

How long?
After the baby was born, Uddin heard her mother approaching the bedroom, so Uddin opened a bedroom window and dropped the girl out, Turnock said.

The baby fell eight stories and landed on a grassy area near the apartment building. A man found her naked and bloody, but still breathing, and alerted security at the building to call 911, Turnock said.

The man wrapped the baby in shirts and went back to his own home and retrieved two baby blankets for the girl, then waited for paramedics to arrive, Turnock said.

The girl was taken to Weiss Memorial Hospital, where she died at 12:25 a.m. Thursday from her massive injuries, Turnock said.

The girl suffered complex skull fractures, a fractured spine, a broken left shoulder, fractured left and right ribs and a lacerated aorta, lacerated liver and lacerated bowel and suffered from blood in the abdomen, Turnock said. The Cook County medical examiner's office later declared the death a homicide by blunt-force trauma.

After the baby was found, police canvassed the area and learned from people they talked to that they thought Uddin might have been pregnant, Turnock said. They also figured out that Uddin’s apartment was directly above where the infant was found.
Not torture porn, but serious question: how long? The level of consciousness either in or out of the womb, as determined by how briskly the mother walks, what she eats, her stress level, et cetera, was demonstrated decades ago to be the same. Is it seeing the "outside world" that vests an understanding of self? Well then, execute the blind. Hearing, the deaf; assessing, the autistic, and so forth.

Yes, the needle is creeping leftward from the aged side of Father Time, too. How close to adolescence on the left, and early forties on the right, will it get before a unanimous alarm is raised?

More interestingly for the individual is the march of progress. In a hundred years or so, when tens of thousands of one-year-olds per year are put to sleep by licensed physicians (for such afflictions as colic or the rising cost of college), will the world feel any different? Past experience tells us no, since we can accustom ourselves to anything. Heck, if history's any guide, Subway will be grinding up eighth-trimesters and putting them in the foot-long chicken breast, and all we'll be mad about is that it wasn't fully disclosed on the commercial. Whatever lines we've drawn for ourselves as "clearly unreasonable" will be nothing but the yammerings of weird senior citizens by the time George P.'s kid is sending peacekeeping forces to London. How will we rationalize ourselves?


  1. Progress dictates that the onset of adult sexual morphism and drives is when life begins, and the sunset of such drives is when life ends, so mid-teens to late-40s/early-50s should be the true scope of "life" and "human essence." The birth-to-puberty track is forgiven as essential to reach Sex Readiness (a/k/a Godhead status) but the post-senescence of that Readiness means it's time to feed the worms. Historians are liars: the saw runs "I think therefore I am," but the real original observation was "I fuck therefore I am."

    1. So Bob Dole wasn't in it for the money...he was a humanitarian of true foresight, realizing that only through chemical erections could he save all of humanity an early grave.

    2. Bob Dole, Dole Fruits, dole out some drudgery, Dolly Lammuh, Dolly Varden, Dolly Madison. You see where I'm going with this?

      Bob's arm injury probably made him worry about droopiness, as the arm was neuromuscularly semi-palsied. Maybe he wanted to be functionally 2-handed again?

      Why else would ED pills be created, if not to stave off the progressives' Death Panel urges?

  2. Well, for this way of thinking there is no way out. Either some things are sacred and there are things that are simply not done, no matter what, or it is perfectly sensible to crush a one year old. Simple.

  3. The in-the-womb question, huh. The idea of killing an unborn child seems pretty disturbing on a basic level, even without the aggravating rationalizations of the pre-baby maybe not really being quite alive or human just yet and the woman having the right to do whatever she wants with her body. Sure, with the slight problem that there is another body inside that body. You could just as easily argue that Ike has every right to do whatever he wants with his body, and if that includes a few loving backhands to remind Tina that she's not singing the songs like he told her to, so be it.

    The problem is that we are talking about a harrowing experience for the woman involved, one which no one would presumably undergo lightly or out of sheer malice, and if the latter were the case, maybe someone like that having children would not be the best of ideas. In a world where any mother could expect a decent life for her child and herself after birth, the practice could perhaps rightly be seen as monstrous and barbaric. In the current one, though, the choices can seem pretty dreadful. A life in an orphanage for the child and a lifetime of nagging questions for the mother? Poverty for both?

    As seems to be the case generally, a terrible destructive and self-destructive consequence of an oppressive dehumanizing system is vilified or lauded, without questioning its causes.

    1. The problem with the "harrowing experience" model is that it applies equally well to other homicides. For example, if it's really a harrowing experience to smother your aging Aunt Beatrice in order to save yourself the trouble of caring for her, should we forgive you? Conversely, if it's really harrowing to leave your two-year-old in the forest, should we strike child endangerment from the list of crimes?

      The same comparative utility exists for the "better life" argument. If you lose your job, is it acceptable to kill your nine-year-old to save him from the misery of living without health insurance?

    2. But isn't there something wrong in the first place if the only reason I'm not killing my aging Aunt Beatrice or my nine-year-old is because people might not forgive me or because I might go to jail? Either one could be proclaimed legal, and there would always be nearly half the population of asinine hypocritical militaristic religious buffoons to condemn/absolve me, and nearly half the population of asinine hypocritical militaristic atheist buffoons to condemn/absolve me. Killing auntie Beatrice might be vile murder, while a brave family might appear on Oprah to explain their tough personal choice of choosing to let go of little Jimmy after losing their health insurance in a time where 99% of nine-year-olds without access to the prohibitively expensive DoniFlu2.5 die of a wasting terminal disease. At the end of the day, the potential harrowing experience, or empathy, or whatever similar reason for not being a homicidal scumbag might be the only thing not as easily manipulated as legality and social acceptance.

      Then again, that hardly seemed to cause a crippling shortage of manpower in a military constantly engaged in wars of aggression, probably precisely because everything is not only legal, but that harrowing experience of having mistakenly killed an Arab family or two is part of the accepted and glorified returning hero image.

      What is sacred then - black lives, and unborn lives maybe not really that much? Or unborn lives, and black lives maybe not really that much? Cops shooting playing black kids seems pretty horrible, as does women casually killing off their unborn. Then again, that scared cop probably just didn't want to go the way of Omar, while the knocked-up 17-year-old didn't want to "have her life ruined" by one mistake. The former should probably have chosen a different job if he wasn't willing to risk his life rather than kill a kid by mistake, and the latter been more careful. There is a little nagging thought here though - that both of them could have been putting themselves in an untenable position only because they knew they could get away with no consequences for themselves - which makes both premeditative murderers by implication, and we can join our preferred O'Brien-sanctioned group condemning one or the other and fighting for an essentially noble but narrow futile faux-clannish cause.

      Almost looks like they try to find the extremes in these things. Obnoxious overbearing political correctness on one hand and the shooting of random black teenagers going on a date on the other, militant screaming picketing churchy life-ism vs. militant screaming picketing "progressive" choice-ism. Guess the catch is to make you accept and defend some kind of killing no matter what you pick.

      Maybe unless everything is sacred, nothing is.

    3. It's the opposite, since if everything is sacred, nothing is. The act of breathing kills some germs and permits others to thrive; the act of existing kills countless things in order to co-opt materials for your body. Ergo if those things you killed/replaced to survive were sacred, then it is impossible to leave the sacred inviolate, ergo any horrific act is not only unavoidable but itself sacred, for those things which you killed had also themselves killed other things in order to survive. That's the difficulty of the choice wherein nihilistic (postmodern relativist) philosophies reach the platform, "It's all dross, do what feels good," so the baby goes out the window.

    4. Does sacred necessarily mean inviolate, though? If there was only a single one of the countless germs that the act of breathing kills in existence in an otherwise empty universe, wouldn't it be the most sacred thing to a theoretical observer? You live in a forest and see a magnificent stag. You have an ample supply of food, and deeply enjoy watching the wonderful creature and would never harm it - by all counts it's sacred. Then a time comes when you have a child, and while berries and vegetables might perhaps suffice for it to grow up healthy, you aren't certain and make the difficult choice to nock an arrow and slay the stag. Now you can either tell yourself that it never really was sacred, since it was only a stupid animal (or not as hip & cool a lightform), or that you did take the life of something sacred in the service of something else sacred, a perspective which necessitates honoring the sacrifice. Of course, a mountain lion would make the same choice about you when it comes to feeding its offspring, and it wouldn't even potentially be a dick about it, since the mountain lion would know for sure that its cubs need the protein.

      But now you got me to defend an argument I never intended to make in the first place; the meaning of "everything" was more in the sense of life and dignity, not literally everything.

      I think the "It's all dross, do what feels good" philosophy would actually work out pretty well in a non-slavery world, with practically no babies going out the window. Things are a bit different when everyone has been pavloved into syndicated incorporated notions of what makes you feel good, including the socially acceptable easy ways out.