Why I Dread Shopping for Clothes

For the first time in years, I decided to shop for a new Easter frock.  After noticing the “styles” made for this season, I knew I would have to shop in the so called “women’s” department.  There are the juniors, misses, petite, and the plus or women’s departments in most stores.  The latter is referring to “full figure” gals.  Clearly, those designing for the bigger girls have serious issues.   These designers, and I use the term loosely, hate over weight folks.   They are saying, “The only way for you to look good is to lose weight, because I’m going to put fat enhancing styles and material on you.”   Most things I found should never be worn by the bigger girls.    Puff sleeves are a no-no for big arms.  Please, I’m trying to hide my arms, not position a spot light on them.  Vertical stripes and/or patterns will work, but horizontal is a disaster.  I don’t wish to say, “Look at me.  I’m overweight and I’m too stupid to choose flattering clothing.”  I say that most of the time, I’d prefer to not shout it on Easter Sunday. Sometimes, the full figure gal has breasts proportionate to her size.  Making a dress with an empire cut is brilliant.  Your breasts and your stomach will be in a tug of war over which can stick out more.  Cool!   That’s always attractive.  At least when I was younger, I was mistaken for being pregnant.  Now, just fat.  I tried on numerous dresses with a waist and belt.  Ugh! To set the look off, these dresses were accompanied by “bolero” type short sleeve jackets/sweaters.  One might refer to them as “half” jackets, similar to “half” shirts.  I once heard a comedian say these shirts were called half shirts because only half of us are supposed to wear them.  I concur. Even though this style is not always appropriate for the weight challenged, I did think it was an interesting sales strategy.  With the popularity of spanks and their knock offs, one must purchase this type of undergarment in order to attempt such a fashion faux pas.   Since I enjoy breathing, I abandoned this particular style.  The one good thing I learned from this journey into the fashion world is turquoise seems to be in.  I love turquoise, especially the jewelry.  Turquoise material was everywhere in all kinds of patterns.  For me turquoise is a reminder of my younger years and the 1970’s (and being skinny).   I wore out numerous bracelets in college, and wore a turquoise ring forever.  I recently purchased another turquoise ring.  So, I set off to look at jewelry to make myself feel better.  I returned home with my purchases of which none was a new Easter frock.   I may not have new clothes for Easter, but I will be properly accessorized, for my taste anyway.

Are You Kidding Me…Revisited

As it turns out, that’s what Dr. Francesca Minerva claims she was doing when she and Alberto Giubilini wrote an article about “after birth abortion” in the Journal of Medical Ethics.  I read the following from an article by Dave Andrusko:  We were just funning around, Dr. Francesca Minerva told the Sydney Morning Herald, when she and a colleague wrote that “We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. I didn’t mean to change any laws. I’m not in favor of infanticide. I’m just using logical arguments.”

According to the logical argument by Minerva and Giubilini a fetus nor a new born are considered a person because they have not established a “self or future.”  They wrote: “We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.  It might start having expectations and develop a minimum level of self-awareness at a very early stage, but not in the first days or few weeks after birth.”  In other words, if you are dependent on someone/something to survive, you are not worthy of personhood.  That leaves me in a pickle, as I’m sure it does a lot of Americans.  I’m dependent on certain drugs to fight ailments I have.   Left on my own, my life would most probably be cut short.  Heart patients are not only dependent on drugs, but also various objects implanted by a physician.  Without these modern devices, one might die.  The list of what could suddenly turn a human being into a non-person is endless.  Should everyone not capable of living without assistance of some kind be terminated? 

So far, I fail to see anything “funny” about their opinion.  They basically say if a mother wants to make the decision to terminate her baby after birth has occurred, she has that right.  The reasons that might be used are a problem during birth, losing a partner and not wanting the stress of raising a child alone, adoption might cause the mother to suffer psychological distress from giving her child up, and last, but not least, the child might be deformed or disabled.  Just kidding, huh?   In 1939 Hitler received a letter from the parents of a severely deformed child born near Leipzig, seeking his permission for their child to be put to death.  I suppose he was just kidding when he approved killing this child.  Soon, the parent/ guardians permission was taken out of the equation and all children under three with diseases and disabilities were put to death.  I think you know the rest of this story.  What Hitler did was a real knee slapper.  Was he trying to be funny?  I don’t think so. 

Are You Kidding Me?

Americans should be afraid, very afraid.  In the latest edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, ethicists Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva have published an article entitled, ‘After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’ In this article, the authors argue: “In circumstances occurring after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”  Ethics is defined as the study of moral standards and how they affect conduct.  An ethicist is one who studies ethics or ethical ideals.  These “ethicists” think it is moral or ethical to kill a newborn after it is born for the same reasons abortion is practiced.  If the baby is an inconvenience, kill it.  Not the gender you wanted, kill it.  The baby is somehow disabled, kill it. 

Part of the article actually reads: “Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and new-borns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a new-born) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the new-born is not disabled.”  The term for this practice is really infanticide.  But infanticide is illegal, so it is suggested we call it “after-birth” abortion.  I suggest we call it murder.  The article claims that the fact that a fetus and a newborn are both potential people is morally irrelevant.  Someone is confused about the meaning of what is moral, or the difference between right and wrong.  The last time I checked, murder was considered morally wrong.  It says so in the Ten Commandments.  Oh wait, the Ten Commandments are taboo most places.

Every person alive today was once a fetus and a newborn.  It boggles my mind as to why pro-abortion proponents can’t see that life begins at conception, and they should be thankful the person giving birth to them let them live. The elderly are no longer safe, the disabled are no longer safe, the fetus' are no longer safe, certain groups of people are no longer safe, depending on looks, faith, and ethnicity, and now new-borns are no longer safe.  It’s time to pay attention.  Never underestimate the power of any given idea.