|
Merrick wrote: It's obviously awful for the parents, but this really isn't the most important thing happening. People are going missing every day. Dozens are being killed in Iraq alone, every day.
But we love the innocent littel girls, don't we? Madeleine, Holly and Jessica. The older and more maile you are, the less coverage you get. As Bill Hicks said, they hit a certain age and they're off your love list.
Hm, yes, I think what this comes down to is the same as the fundamentalist anti-abortion stance which places the unborn, innocent life above the possible disaster for the life of the mother.
At the risk of souding as emotionally void as a Volcan, how on earth is it possible to put a young, inexperienced or even hardly existing life, a blank hard disk which only has potential, before an agent with a network full of experience?
I'm not saying it should be the reverse, but what really gets to me is that the only reason that people do so is because of religion and the notion of Sin. Therefore they always say that young life is "innocent". Well:
(a) Is older life "guilty" then? What is it that makes anything beyond child-state "not-innocent"? What kind of bollocks is that?
(b) Even supposing that this ridiculously should be the case, that does it mean that a "guilty" life is worth less than "innocent" life? Can we kill "guilty" then?
(a) and (b) are just religious poison. It's the premises that conservatives use to abhore abortion while at the same time endorsing the death penalty. The underlying idea that a person only accumulates evil or unworthiness and sin during a lifetime. I know we're not animals, but in nature the fit and experienced often come before the young and non-adult. In harsh circumstances, eskimo are known to have eaten the children.
Religion is poison, and the obsession with "innocent" life only gives us another example. Bastards!
arf!
|
