Some have inquired about the two blondes looking at the moon while sitting at Dorchester Heights. The first thing to understand is that Dorchester Heights is not in Dorchester anymore than the Dorchester Hotel in London is in Dorchester. The Dorchester Heights is located in South Boston which I did not understand how that could be when I was a youngster.
You’d expect then that the two blondes were young ladies from South Boston if they were at that location this dark summer night. If that is what you thought you may be wrong. They could be from anywhere. We were never told where they were from. All we knew about them was that they were dropped off there by Tucker and Spring who had some business to conduct in Southie and did not want to involve them in it. Yes, at that time these two blondes were their girlfriends. How long after this night they stayed together we’re not sure. That is not important for the story.
The reason I know any of this is a cousin of mine who lived in Southie happened to be at Dorchester Heights this night He was with his girlfriend at the time sitting a short distance away. They needed a church key so he went over to see if the blondes had one. He got into a chat with them. They did not have one but they knew Tucker — the one named Ivanka said “Tucker has one on his key chain. “ My cousin knew of a Tucker from my siblings so he said “is that Tucker of Tucker and Spring?” The blondes laughed and affirmed that it was and both would be back shortly.
Tucker and Spring went together like peanut butter and jelly. When you thought of one you thought of the other. They had prosaic first names as most people had in those days. They had the same middle name: “Trouble.” When they were together they lived up to their names as double trouble.
I first saw Tucker — he was several years younger — one summer afternoon when I was in a my teens walking up Playstead Road coming back from the beach. A car drove by me. Looking at it I saw this kid about ten years-old sitting on the rear bumper (they had those things in those days) clinging to the trunk latch. How he did it left me amazed. I’d later learn his name.
Unfortunately neither Tucker or Spring lived long lives. Tucker could never get the monkey off of his back; Spring didn’t seem to understand that the protections afforded in the USA did not apply on some of the Caribbean islands.
My cousin stood near by waiting and he listened to the blondes speaking to each other. The moon was full and lighted up the grass leading up to the monument. Both were sitting on a blanket gazing at it.
The better looking one, who said she was with Spring, asked her friend: “I wonder what is closer. The moon or Miami?
Her friend said: “Duh! Can you see Miami?”
My cousin never told.me if he got the church key.
“Someone said if you prohibit abortion women would go to Mexico to get abortions. Sad but true, but the same thing could be said about heroin.”
Not really. I agree with much of your posts but a junkie is not going to travel to Mexico to get high. Heroin is easily shipped to the US (and no wall is going to stop that) but an abortion is not going to be shipped here. And the underground abortion industry was alive and well in this country before Roe v. Wade. Lots of women just didn’t know how to plug into it. Mexico was just a tragic alternative.
This brain waves thing doesn’t make much sense to me. I do appreciate all the effort you put into your posts. If a woman has a living human fetus within her I just don’t see the need to split hairs and try to determine when it is human. To me it is human from the first. But that’s just my opinion. I’m pro choice but strongly anti abortion. The laws are in place. If someone wants to have an abortion then they can. Not with my blessings, but go ahead and exercise your rights. The law is on your side. I have tried to put myself in the place of a woman with a developing human inside me. There is no way I could terminate that life.
Like many issues that can determine an election, the abortion issue is a sad statement of how people vote. They know nothing about a person’s abilities as a pol but will vote for them on an issue that is etched in stone. I know so many people that vote on a politicians stance on abortion or gun control or many other issues and after the election of that person absolutely nothing is done about it. That’s because they can’t do anything about it. I know dozens of Rednecks around here that hated Clinton for one reason. (And many un-red necks, too.) “He’s going to take away our guns!” Right. How many conservative presidential terms have been served since Roe v. Wade? And what has been done about it? Just about nothing.
Most politicians don’t work for us. They just work to get our vote.
” How many conservative presidential terms have been served since Roe v. Wade? And what has been done about it? Just about nothing.”
The House of Representatives and Senate pass legislation, including budgets. The President may sign that legislation into law or veto that legislation. Why the focus on the President when it is the Congress that is clearly not doing what you want them to do?
My point exactly. People vote because presidential candidates say they believe in one way of doing things and think something will be done about it. As I stated, it is often etched in stone and nothing will be done about it. It is the ignorance of the voters that constantly amazes me. Like Bill Clinton will take away their guns. Pathetically stupid reason to vote or not vote for someone.
What physician would diagnose someone “dead” (or declare someone brain dead), when the prognosis was virtually certain that that human being would be alive and kicking, a bundle of joy, within a few months?
Abortionists declare a fetus “not human” so they can kill it. Why is it not human? Because it’s not big enough!
However, if it’s 20 weeks gestational age in the incubator of the neonatal ward, it’s a human being, a human life, a baby. (@ 20 weeks is the earliest recorded survival.)
If it’s 28 weeks gestational age in the womb, it’s only “potential human life.”
Yuh!
This post is about Abortion. I will post it again. I think it is a revolutionary insight.
I awoke last night at 3:A.M. with this insight and confirmed it by reviewing scientific journals.
Pro-Choice folks say a fetus is not a human being until it has “brain waves.” They argue that when an adult’s brain waves cease, he is declared clinically “dead”, so a fetus cannot be declared “alive” until it has brain waves.
Their error: Brain Death is defined as both (1) the cessation of brain waves (flat line eeg indicating no cerebral function) plus(2) no function of the brain stem. The bedside physician does a series of tests to assess whether the brain stem functions.
However, we know the fetus’s brain stem functions at 8 weeks (the fetus is sensitive to touch around the lips and cheeks) and at 9 weeks (breathing like movements of the chest) and at 12 weeks. ( It swallows.) All three of these functions (1. facial touch response, 2. breathing-like movements and 3. swallowing) are mediated through the brain stem. The fetus’s brain stem is functioning.
No physician would declare a man dead who (1) responded to light touch around the mouth, lips, cheeks; (2) whose chest moved to breath; and (3) who swallowed. Every physician would declare that man alive. Therefore the fetus is alive. Says who? Says medical science.
No physician can declare a man dead with a functioning brain stem. Says who? Says Massachusetts General Laws and the laws of all civilized societies.
Moreover, we know that although the fetus has no “brain waves” until the third trimester, it has brain activity from about 50 days. It takes time for the brain to get organized. Even the newborn’s brain waves need to time to mature and some scientists say a newborn does not become conscious until 5 months. We know, too, of course, that a fetus’s heart starts beating at about 40 days. We know it has it’s own body, it’s own organs and it’s own unique genetic code.
We know Roe v Wade made abortion legal. That does not make it morally right, nor does it excuse the fact that abortion terminates the life of an individual human being. We know suicide is legal, which does not make it moral. We know six states legalized assisted suicide, which does not make it moral. Some societies legalize killing unfaithful spouses.
The point is I’ve yet to encounter a pro-choice argument that is not readily refutable by scientific facts.
Roe v. Wade examined the science and law and concluded the human fetus was only “potential human life”, not fully human, extinquishable at the whim of the woman. It said the law can’t impose the burden of carrying a child for several months – – – except it could impose that burden after “viability” from about 20 weeks to 40 weeks – – – and it forget to say that the law imposes the burden for 18 years on parents of raising their children.
In other words, Roe v. Wade was irrational, unscientific, and self-contradictory.
Someone said if you prohibit abortion women would go to Mexico to get abortions. Sad but true, but the same thing could be said about heroin.
For many years, I’ve examined in depth all these issues, and I’ve come down decidedly, unequivocally and firmly on the pro-life side.
Nice story, Matt.
Regarding Dorchester Heights being located in Southie, you also have West Roxbury District Court located–as you well know–in Jamaica Plain.
And, recalling some sophisticated barroom talk back in the day with two West Roxbury acquaintances, the phone book listed the West Roxbury telephone exchanges under Jamaica Plain.