h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I was thinking today about a sort of person, a sort of person who thinks that it's important to protect 'parents' rights' (I'm thinking here, of course, about the Conservative government of Alberta, which has explicitly excluded itself from the Declaration on the Rights of the Child because it wants to preserve the right of parents to whack their children). And I was thinking that the sort of people who argue that the parents' right to whack their kids trumps the kids' rights to be safe from harm are also the people who think that the foetuses' right to be born into a shitty situation and a life of utter crap trump the rights of the women to her own life and health.

So, if they're not born yet, they get their human rights, but as soon as they pop out, they lose their human rights until they become adult males?

How strange.


(Yes, I know an inversion of the above argument is possible. But the inversion really doesn't seem convincing to me.)

Thinking is good.

The whole foetus thing is based on Insurance standards. Giving the rights of a fully formed human to an unformed foetus would wreck the mortality tables and actuarial *science*. As with most everything else, for some people it all comes down to nothing but money.

Want to know when you'll die?

http://www.deathclock.com/

Although that is flawed, like most easily accessible actuary tests. The BMI is a joke-

http://suewidemark.netfirms.com/bmi.htm

And age contributors are rapidly fluctuating in relation to health.

Bottom line, should I beat my child? Well, if he or she dies I will definitely get a lesser sentence than if they were adult. They are officially worth *less* than an adult but not worth *nothing*. Just saying....

Actuarially yours,
zoomer

People are weird. And sometimes scary.

Thinking is, indeed, good.

TRiG.

I wish to point out that my previous post was supposition, proving that although I am weird, I am not scary.