Right to one's own life

It can be discussed who is adult, but it should be an undiscutable fact that all adults should have 100% right to decide over their own lives. No-one should make decisions about an adult's life, not how this person should live, whom she should marry, how she should vote, which God to believe, if one is to believe in God or not...

The state - or anyone else for that matter - should not tell the person whom to love. Mothers should leave their adult daughters' sex life to the daughter, parents should not tell their children to marry "this nice boy, who's --- like us" or not to marry "that... person...". Being gay might make your life harder due to the society's prejudices and discriminatory attitude, but, hey, being dark skinned, being Jewish, being this and that makes one's life harder too. That isn't a reason enough to "not to wish that for your child". Some "totally normal" people would tell you that life IS hard. Period. Because the society IS prejudiced and discriminatory, you will be bashed even when you are a pretty blue-eyed and blond woman, Christian, married and a mother, just because you have opinions and voice them.

The society should not be telling you that you may not marry because you are in love with a wrong person. The society can protect children and animals from marriage, but adult, consenting human beings shouldn't be "protected" from marriage, and the society doesn't NEED "protection" from marriage either.
I am really p'd off with all the exaggerations - "if homosexuals are allowed to marry, then people will start marrying children, animals, cars, countries..." No, they won't. Marriage has not much to do with love, it's a legal contract, an agreement between two adult human beings. It exists for two reasons, and children is only one of them. Many married couples don't get children. Should their marriage be broken as well and the couple forced to go through fertility examinations and treatment? What is to happen to the infertile partner? Is she/he to be put to death or marked as "invalid for marriage"?
The other reason for marriage is much more important; people agree to take care of each other for the rest of their lives. Divorce and adultery are much bigger threats to marriage than if the couple was of same sex.

Children are not just bundles of joy either. They are quite a big economical, social and emotional burden. Not one adult - male nor female - should be forced to take on this burden against his or her will. Children shouldn't definitely be forced to take on this burden.

The exaggerations exist here too. I said that a man who is tricked to impregnate a woman (by she lying about the prevention or pricking the condom or he's taken advantage of when he's drunk or what not) shouldn't need to pay the allemony if he doesn't want to have anything to do with the child, and a feminist told me that I am persona non grata in a group for abused children because I support fathers' abandoning their children... On the other hand, abortion is not murder, and people supporting women's right to abortion are not murderers.

An adult person should be the only one whose opinion matters in questions of his/her health. The society, doctors, parents, spouse, children, may not tell an adult person that she should undergo an operation - or not to. They can't force an adult to go to doctor is she doesn't want to. They can't keep her from going to a doctor if she wants to. And the doctors may not refuse care from an adult.
An adult may not be forced to take any medication she doesn't want to, nor may she be refused the medicine she needs.
An adult person should be able to go through gender adjustment treatment, if she feels her body looks too male. (or he feels his body is too female). Likewise an adult is the only one who can make the decision on whether to go through any plastic operations, if she wants to amputate a leg or get a snout instead of a nose, or if and how to pierce, brand, tattoo and alter her body.
An adult person should be able to by herself decide whether she wants to go through a pregnancy, which might not be a disease, but does effect the physiology very much.

And finally, an adult should be allowed to by herself decide whether she lives or dies. Death penalty is barbarism and so is the criminalization of euthanasia.
Some people will start claiming that if euthanasia is allowed, people will be categorised into "worthy to live" and "not worthy to live". It's not a question of worth. I'm sure there are people who cannot see the value of life as an invalid, even though Christopher Reeve and Stephen Hawkin should have proved that you CAN have a valuable life even when your body isn't much to have.

I remember a story...

Father has syphilis, Mother has TB. They are very poor with 4 other children - 1st born blind, 2nd died, 3rd born deaf, 4th has TB. Mother is pregnant again, & the Doc knows this one will be deaf.

What do you do ?

Most college groups agree the Mother should abort the fetus, at which time the Professor says "Congratulations, you've just killed Beethoven".

You really can't tell by what a life is worth.

On the other hand, I don't think Terri Schiavo appreciated her "life" after 1990. Sure, her parents saw the smiling, young woman every time they looked at their daughter, but... did they ever LISTENED to her thoughts, ideas, opinions? Doesn't seem like it to me, if they were quite happy with just having her body there... and that being the case... WAS it Terri? Was SHE alive?

A refugee is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

Not really... sure, Martti Ahtisaari was born 1937 in Viipuri, when it still was part of Finland, and due to the War he had to be "relocated" in another part of Finland, because Russia grabbed that piece of Finland. Sure, he WAS one of the Karelian refugees and "internally displaced person", but as the UNHCR says, "the durable solutions to refugee populations are: voluntary repatriation to the country of origin; local integration into the country of asylum; and resettlement to a third country", and he and his family were given home in "the country of origin", Finland, and they were "locally integrated" and "resettled" to a new place, they are refugees and IDPs no more.

Nevertheless, I believe that this fact has influenced him and his way of thinking a lot. I am very proud of my home country. Not many know, but Finland was dragged into the WWII 1939 by Russia (Soviet) who attacked us. We asked for help from Sweden, England, USA, and no-one was willing to help. It was in the beginning of WWII and no-one thought it would be that big. Also, people didn't seem to care if tiny Finland was swallowed by huge Soviet or not. Germany was the only one willing to help, and that is the reason to why we were on the "wrong" side in WWII.
Because of this Russia demanded heavy reparations, and tried to finger our politics - we had to make all kinds of deals with Russia, and because of that USA thought we were Soviet's satellite during the Cold War...
Not many know that Finland was the only "enemy" country that was not occupied and that we also are the only country that has paid the reparations in full - and we did that 1952, the same year when we also held the Olympics and a Finnish woman was crowned the first Miss Universe.

All this has influenced the whole Finnish people - we knew that the world is not to be counted on if we ever are attacked, that the world will not care for the troubles of tiny peoples, that the Big Actors only care about how they can exploit us, and that no price is too high for independence, sovereignty and peace...

Martti Ahtisaari gets the prize "for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts".

"For the past 20 years, he has figured prominently in endeavors to resolve several serious and long-lasting conflicts," the citation said, mentioning his work in conflicts from Namibia and Aceh to Kosovo and Iraq. "He has also made constructive contributions to the resolution of conflicts in Northern Ireland, in Central Asia, and on the Horn of Africa," the citation said."

-- CBS

I am very proud of being Finnish right now.

Crisis Management Initiative

Majority bashing minority...

There's a traditional Danish Christmas cookie called "Jew cakes". The Danish Muslim children take offense because these "Jew-cakes" are a Danish tradition and is part of the home skills education in Danish elementary schools, and they don't want to be connected to Judaism.

It doesn't matter that the Jew-cakes have no connection to Judaism, that the Jewish community does not eat "Jew-cakes" nor the fact that these cookies were named by the Danish Christian society decades ago, and can be seen as offensive - TO THE JEWISH COMMUNITY.

The Danish society considers changing the name of the cookies. Not because it can be seen as an offensive slur, no, that would be "oversensitive", but because antisemitic kids shouldn't need to be offended with anything with "jew" in its name.

Reminds me of the "cartoon controversy". You know what the Muslims did when the CHRISTIANS offended their Prophet? They organized a Holocaust cartoon competition... >:->

Another thing with Denmark and Muslims - next year there's a planned UN climate change conference in Copenhagen from 30th November to 11th December, and the Swedish "head of the negotiations" Anders Turesson, thinks that Denmark hasn't thought of the fact that the Muslim holiday Eid al-Adha will be on 28th of November 2009 (and starts at the sundown on 27th) and will last for three days. (to November 30th).
This year the meeting was in Poland and they had planned the meeting ends before Eid al-Adha, but for some reason "the Islamic feast of Eid al-Adha... has been shifted from Tuesday, 9 December, to Monday, 8 December."
A person I know thinks this is a clear indication that a) the Muslims wish to take over the world and b) don't care about the environment. He also thinks the fact that Canada changed the constitution to accommodate the religious minorities by allowing the voting day to be moved by a week if it coincides with a religious holiday, is NOT a sign of religious tolerance and respect of diversity and human beings, but an indication that the religious minorities try to control the government and change the "sacred Canadian traditions" (from 2001). He doesn't care one bit that the dates of the religious holidays, especially the Muslim, the Jewish and the Christian, were known already when the "fixed dates" of elections and environment meetings were fixed, and didn't need to fix the dates on anyone's religious holiday. (At least not on an important, big holiday, like the New Year or Ramadan) (And he claims he is NOT prejudiced and hateful towards religious minorities...)

Another thing... It seems that the original London Hairspray cast has recorded a "Dreidel song"... it starts with the Christian girls asking the Jewish girl to sing Christmas songs with them, and when the Jewish girl tells she's Jewish, they ask her to sing the Dreidel song - in the song is inserted the South Park version "... i'm not gonna play with it 'Cos dreidel's fuckin' gay. Jews, play stupid games, Jews, that's why they're lame." The whole show ends with "Christ the Savior is born".
Now, South Park IS non-PC, so they "may" say what ever they like. They exist to offend people. I didn't expect the musical singers to have the same goal.

Do you think I'm overreacting? Get your head fixed and soon.

USonian colonialism

USA takes the privilege to attack Syria, Pakistan and other countries it is not currently at war with disguised as "defensive attacks against terrorists". When India tells Pakistan to control her borders and stop the terrorists from coming to India, USA tells India to seek a "peaceful resolution to the confrontation".
Why should India do anything differently than USA itself?
Why shouldn't USA try to seek a peaceful resolution to the confrontation?
It's like if they look down on Asian peoples and think they are lesser... more qualified to make their own decisions, to govern their own countries, to take care of their own businesses...

Dear USA: It's quite ok to WISH to share your good with the rest of the world, but when the rest of the world does not want it, haven't asked for it or would like to do things their own way, it's not ok to try to force your "good" on others. What's good for you might not be good for someone else. People have to be able to make their own mistakes, and not need to pay for yours.

Ups and downs

United Nations' Human Rights Council is a sham. One religious group managed to make their practices - in spite of whether these practices are indeed based on their religion, or if they are a twisted and offensive remnant of old cultural practices - untouchable. So untouchable, that members trying to discuss the human right violations in any way connected to these, will get reprimanded. They will also get reprimanded if they complain about this fact.
There indeed is something very rotten in the state of this council.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights trumps every other law - when the respect towards other religions and freedom of religion is guaranteed in the UDHR, the hurtful and disrespectful practices of ANY religion shouldn't be allowed because the perpetrators scream about their "religious rights" being violated. Child marriage should not be allowed because some religions don't see anything wrong with it. Female genital mutilation is a disgusting, vile habit that has to stop. "Honor" murders have no honor and have to be stopped - and the murderer punished by the law. Children shouldn't be punished as adults. Raped girls and women may not be stoned to death. Women should be able to walk on the streets without company and dressed as they wish (in fact, they should be able to walk naked, but let's not go there) without being harassed, imprisoned or punished. Islam shouldn't be known by human rights violations like this, but as the peaceful, loving and tolerant religion it really is.

There was a documentary about Sudan and how the AU troops were slaughtered and UN helicopters - the only way to get to the place to save the soldiers - refused because they are civilian... it took the general in charge 2 days to get to the place, to find thousands of soldiers killed, died in their wounds waiting for the rescue and dying... Nice. Now the AU troops have been placed with UN troops. There are thousands of soldiers and five (5) helicopters - the very same civilian UN helicopters... US has hundreds of helicopters doing nothing useful in Iraq and Afghanistan, they could show some good will and give UN - or BORROW - 5-10 military helicopters to UN to make it easier for the poor general to deal with the issue. Sudan is bigger than Texas and very much bigger than Iraq. Do you think US does anything like that? No.

A courageous man in Zimbabwe video-filmed the Zimbabwean reality. The governing "political party" is nothing but thugs and terrorists. South African president - the same guy who said AIDS can be healed by sleeping with virgins and doesn't need any medication - supports Mugabe. What are the consequences to Mbeki? None, what so ever.

But there's good things happening too.

In India a man has started a school for the lowest of the low - to orphans, half-orphans, abandoned children, castless kids. Brahmanic education has not been allowed to those who aren't "worthy" - that is to everyone but those from Brahman cast. This man is giving the castless and low-cast members of India a chance to show what they can do. One step on the road to break the despicable cast system.

China is solving the growing energy problem by turning to the alternative, "green" sources.
In Saudi-Arabia they are preparing for the day when there is no oil. They are building a "green" city.

Ingrid Betancourt is free :-)

Save the children!

Please, sign this petition:
Prevent and eventually abolish child sexual abuse by UN

If I remember correctly, you need to sign in to Care2, but it's free, doesn't give you bad consequences and you can use a screen name. I've been a member of Care2 for 4 years.

Selfishness

I think abortion opposers are some of the most selfish people in the world. They don't care one bit about the QUALITY of life of the future child, only about the QUANTITY. They seem also totally oblivious to the mothers' situation or fathers' and the societies' responsibilities. They seem to ignore their own part of the stigmatization of unmarried mothers or over-sexualized environment which is hostile to sexual education and preventive aids.

"Abortion is the third biggest cause of death among children younger than 1 year old in South Africa (keep in mind that the unborn are referred to as "baby" or "child" in South African legislation and many South African statistical studies). The biggest case of death in the same age group is abandonment"

Some of the people opposing abortion say that there are people who would love to parent an unwanted child. Then why don't they? The world is already full of unwanted children.
Let the abortions be forbidden AFTER the human population of the world is decreasing instead of increasing as it is now.
Let the abortions be forbidden AFTER there are no street children roaming around the world.
Let the abortions be abolished AFTER rape, also in forms of incest and sex with children, has been abolished.

Some abortion opposers compare unborn children to slaves, which is insulting to all parts involved.

1. Slaves were human beings who would have been able to live on their own had the society only allowed it. Unborn babies cannot live outside the womb. That's the reason why they are unborn. Unborn babies ARE part of their mother's body. Slaves weren't part of their owners' bodies.
2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights covers ONLY HUMANS BORN. Unborn babies are not covered by UDHR.
3. Unborn babies are not legal persons. They are not separable from their mothers, they are not capable of taking an own course of action, it's even questionable if they are aware of themselves.

I think it would be better if the abortion opposers who compare unborn babies to slaves would first abolish treatment of BORN children as slaves. The majority of countries of the world still accept child abuse in form of "spanking". Most parents consider themselves having the right to decide over the child's health and medical treatment, mutilate the child through i.e. piercings and circumcision, even kill the child. Children are being sold and bought. Even though most Western parents wouldn't sell their child, they consider the children to be their property whom they can decide for - parents decide which schools their children attend, which religion they follow, what they may and may not own, have no scruples in limiting the children's rights - and most parents don't even think of asking the child's opinion on the issues concerning the child, his life, well-being and rights. Many abortion opposers would be highly offended if they were expected to treat their own children as equal human beings.

Stolen Childhood

Never Hit A Child

"85% (of Christian parents) thought that spanking a child as a form of discipline was well within their rights as parents"
Spankings An Acceptable Form Of Discipline

Arms of Love - alternative interpretation to help Christian parents avoid child abuse

Does the Bible justify child abuse?

No-one has the right to force their morality on other people. The abolishers didn't have the right to tell the slave owners that "it's wrong to own slaves". The point is that the slave owners didn't have the right to tell other people that they were slaves and thus someone else's property. Now, the abortion opposers don't have the right to tell the women that "it's wrong to abort the pregnancy". As long as the woman is pregnant the "child" is part of her body. Not an individual, not another human being, not a legal person. SHE decides what's right or wrong FOR HER.

She has the right to cut off her own limbs, any tumors growing in her, any organs, even her womb. Let's say she may not terminate the pregnancy - but she has the right to get a hysterectomy at any moment of her life without any need to consider the consequences of that operation to any other person, nor does she need a permission to go through that surgery from anyone.

"conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and a member of the human species"

Undoubtedly. And...?

"A landmark study of 674 abused children was conducted by University of Southern California professor, Edward Lenoski. He discovered that 91% were from planned pregnancies; they were definitely wanted by their parents. What is startling is that, in society in general, 63% of pregnancies are planned. Hence, among abused children, a significantly higher percentage were 'unwanted children' compared to the percentage of 'wanted children' in society at large.""

What? On the contrary! Of 100 children 27 were "unwanted". Of 100 abused and neglected children only 9 were "unwanted"... That's 1/3 of the ratio "in society at large".

Of 100 children, 63 are born as a consequence of planned pregnancy. 27 were "accidents". Of these children, 16 are being abused or neglected - 15 of them were "wanted", 1 was not.
32 pregnancies were aborted - it is quite possible that at least the half of these 32 children would have been added to the abused/neglected group... we don't have any statistics on that, but we know that "unplanned" children are not necessarily "unwanted" children, but every child aborted is "unwanted"... What would you think of a person forced into your life against your wish, will and request?

"Because all life was created by God and belongs to Him, no one has the right to murder another human being. "

About 72% of South Africans are against abortion. About 72% of South Africans are for death penalty. Most of these people are the same people... fighting for the life of unborn children but against the life of born children...

"When a poor person dies of hunger,
it has not happened because God did not take care of him or her. It happened because neither you nor I wanted to give
that person what he or she needed."

- Mother Teresa