Got up this morning and one of the lead stories in the paper was UA to close Flandrau; trim arts, 2 museums | www.azstarnet.com ® . It figures. The worsening economy has every branch of government and the private sector scrambling to make ends meet. I haven't taken a close look at what percentage these cuts are supposed to represent, but they sound pretty deep. I just don't understand the states call to zap education. Of all the services offered by the government I can't think of a more important one, or a better investment. What happens to the un and under educated? They have a tendency to become huge burdens on society. I don't know where the cuts should be made and I am at a loss.
Now the U of A decides it will make huge slashing cuts to programs that are part of the community (not counting the sports programs of course, because those bring in money). The article specifically says they are closing Flandrau while at the same time they have no idea how much that will save. There is even a comment latter on in the article stating that these programs where chosen in order to irk some people into making a change. It's a pretty good plan, but also irritating. All the misery going on and coming up just reek of greed. Why is are society so self serving and greedy, why is money so loved? Didn't we all grow up with the same fables, and fairy stories, and warnings of what greed does?
One of the best parts of the article was seeing the huge list of comments on-line that just sounded of chest thumping and name calling. Cries of "Hear, Hear I never used those programs anyway so good riddance", and denunciation of first one political party and then the other. Most of the comments read as if they came from the under educated with little culture offered them in their lives. Maybe I'm too petty as well.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Grandma: Octuplets mom obsessed with having kids - Yahoo! News
Grandma: Octuplets mom obsessed with having kids - Yahoo! News
This is an amazing story. From the sound of things this mother of now 14 children is mentally ill along the lines of those people who want to be amputees. It doesn't sound as if she had any interest in adoption or fostering. She is not in a good position for raising 14 children (of course I don't know who would be) with no husband and no job. It really sounds like there is some sort of chemical imbalance.
I have some issue with in vitro fertilization because of the questions regarding what happens to those not implanted. I also get confused when people say they will risk their life and that of all the children implanted because God would want them to carry them all, but they don't consider the idea that God didn't let them become pregnant in the first place and they decided to trust to science.
Those issues are personal though and highly debated as to their legitimacy. What I want to know is what the doctor who approved this at all was thinking? Were there any red flags that went up? Were there any attempts to have the woman evaluated psychologically? Should this doctor have his/her license revoked for? If so, for what exactly? Pride?
The story seems to make a lot about the fact that the woman has no husband. Odd because our media and society constantly seem to present the idea that a dad is not that big a deal, a strange twist to new morals. They went to great lengths to defend Murphy Brown's right to have a child, but seem more appalled when the numbers get bigger. My own view is that a father is the desirable situation and it should not have been allowed, but legally I don't know where it should stand.
The facts now are that there are eight more beautiful people in this world who need love and affection. They should not ever be scorned or made to feel that they should not exist. The medical community needs a serious moral overhaul, just because things are possible does not mean they should be done. We all should look closely at our beliefs for inconsistencies and hypocrisy.
This is an amazing story. From the sound of things this mother of now 14 children is mentally ill along the lines of those people who want to be amputees. It doesn't sound as if she had any interest in adoption or fostering. She is not in a good position for raising 14 children (of course I don't know who would be) with no husband and no job. It really sounds like there is some sort of chemical imbalance.
I have some issue with in vitro fertilization because of the questions regarding what happens to those not implanted. I also get confused when people say they will risk their life and that of all the children implanted because God would want them to carry them all, but they don't consider the idea that God didn't let them become pregnant in the first place and they decided to trust to science.
Those issues are personal though and highly debated as to their legitimacy. What I want to know is what the doctor who approved this at all was thinking? Were there any red flags that went up? Were there any attempts to have the woman evaluated psychologically? Should this doctor have his/her license revoked for? If so, for what exactly? Pride?
The story seems to make a lot about the fact that the woman has no husband. Odd because our media and society constantly seem to present the idea that a dad is not that big a deal, a strange twist to new morals. They went to great lengths to defend Murphy Brown's right to have a child, but seem more appalled when the numbers get bigger. My own view is that a father is the desirable situation and it should not have been allowed, but legally I don't know where it should stand.
The facts now are that there are eight more beautiful people in this world who need love and affection. They should not ever be scorned or made to feel that they should not exist. The medical community needs a serious moral overhaul, just because things are possible does not mean they should be done. We all should look closely at our beliefs for inconsistencies and hypocrisy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
