Hildegarde

We’re having a little trouble with the blog program. 

Maybe it will pass.

But–I’m not having an hiatus.  I’m finishing a Gregor.  And writing Gregor takes precedence over any other writing.  So here we are.  The deadline is approaching.  I’ve got my murderer up a tree without a paddle.  I have no idea what’s going to happen next.

Cutting can do crazy things to a book.

Anyway. 

First, to address the “women and children first” thing.

Women and children first did not originate in any attempt to infantalize women.  It originated in the social acceptance of a fact of nature–the most expendable part of any human population is its adult men.

Women and children are the future–women, because they can procreate, and children, because they’re the next generation.

If you can only save some, you save what will all your society to extend into the future.

My best guess is that the rules against women in combat originate in the same place, especially since those women who could best serve in combat would also be of childbearing age.

We don’t think of our job as preserving the species any more, but we either preserve it or not much else matters.

As for the Singer-acolyte thing:

Well, you know, whatever.

I bet the principle writer teaches courses in “bioethics,” too. 

And it’s cute–“after birth abortion” instead of “infanticide.”

But I said a something a few years ago that got a lot of you upset with me, and I think it’s time for me to say it again.

I don’t know which side is right about the uses and abuses of religion, or the ability of the secular community to arrive at objective moral rules that treat human beings as human beings–

But I do know whose side I’m on.

And it’s not the side of the people who do not know what’s wrong with this.

I’m going to go wander off in search of dinner.