Zombie reproductive health, it's an important topic. If you've ever watched Dead Alive then you certainly understand the importance of teaching zombies about their bodies and hormones. I'm sure none of us wants to deal with the consequences of zombie sex: pushing a zombaby around in a stroller, trying to keep it from eating people. But on a more serious note, is it even possible?
Do zombies still have use of their reproductive organs? It's certainly an interesting question. Obviously a zombie who has lost its reproductive organs wouldn't be able to reproduce. But it's a different question for those with intact genitalia and other essential organs. In my mind it comes down to how a zombie became a zombie.
A voodoo zombie should be able to reproduce if so directed. But would the child of a voodoo zombie be a zombie? I'm inclined to say no, on the premise that the baby would have to be put under the same kind of magic that its parent is under. Now, in general a voodoo zombie would have to be directed to reproduce, so he who is giving directions would probably be alert to the birth of the child.
It's simple for a space radiation zombie: the space radiation would render the zombies sterile and incapable of conception.
I'd imagine a virulent zombie would pass on the virus to its child, like in Dead Alive or the remake of Dawn of the Dead. There is an interesting difference between the two though: in Dawn the woman was pregnant when she became a zombie and in Alive both the nurse and the priest were zombies before they had sex. I would say that if one is pregnant and becomes a zombie she would have to be at least in the third trimester to successfully birth a zombaby. Otherwise I'd say that the pregnancy would end in a miscarriage or stillbirth, due to the fact that the organs necessary to keep the child alive would be inoperative. On the other hand, though, would be the thought that if the baby is a zombie in the womb it wouldn't need the same kind of nutrients and prenatal care that regular human babies need.
Then there's the issue of two zombies having sex and conceiving. To me it would seem that this would become harder to do the longer someone has been a zombie, especially for the male. Obviously after being a zombie for a few days the male would no longer have any active sperm, a condition which would render sex useless (being that neither party gets any pleasure out of it just as they don't feel any pain). Secondly is the question of whether or not the female's ovaries would still be functional. One can imagine that within the first month of a female becoming a zombie pregnancy would be possible (depending on where she was on her cycle before becoming a zombie) and possibly even beyond that point as a female zombie might not ever get menses. This could potentially mean that a female zombie could be fertile with one zombie egg indefinitely.
Which brings me to my final point: zombie rape. I recently watched the movie Deadgirl and I don't want to get too much into that movie on here because I'd like to keep this as PG-13 as possible. (I do recommend you watch Deadgirl but wait until the kids go to bed. Also, it is a very messed up movie so be prepared for that.) I will say that the movie brought up the idea of zombies being violated and the associate moral implications. I don't think I've pondered on these topics long enough to give you a definitive answer but I will leave you with some questions to ponder upon yourself. Do zombies have rights in regard to their own bodies? Is it morally wrong to rape a zombie or would it not count as a person? Is it wrong to keep a zombie "alive" for sexual purposes? Would there be a purpose for which it would be right to keep a zombie "alive"? Once someone becomes a zombie, would he then be considered less than human?
Sorry to get all philosophical on you, but I think that these are the important questions in life.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Just because it was on my mind
First of all, let me apologize for not posting for a while (like a month and a half). I hope you can excuse me if I tell you I haven't posted in so long because I recently got married. As you can imagine it takes a fair amount of time out of your normal, daily life (especially the honeymoon). But now that I'm back, and on spring break, I have some time to sit down and talk to all of you about something that has been beaten to death, but not specifically so in relation to zombies: AR 15 or AK 47?
Now, let me first tell you that although I've never fired an AR, or anything from the M 16 family, I have great esteem for both weapons. They were both well designed guns and were engineered well for their intended purposes. Let's also get down the facts that are generally agreed upon by all who engage in this debate.
1. The AR is more accurate than the AK.
2. The AK is more dependable than the AR when proper cleaning methods are not used.
3. The AK is cheaper than the AR.
4. The AK is more powerful than the AR (when each is in their most common caliber).
5. The AR has a much greater effective range than the AK.
6. 7.62x39 ammo is generally cheaper than 5.56x45.
7. The AK has a lot more kickback than the AR.
With all of this said I would rather have an AK slung over my shoulder when zombies attack. Let's be straight about this: the AK is not the better zombie defense weapon for everyone, it's better for me. The main reasons supporting the AK are obvious: a dependable, powerful rifle with lots of ammo is certainly a good thing when hordes of the undead surround you. For me, the downsides of the AK aren't so bad because I'm a marginal shot at best. Even with the best rifle in the world I still probably couldn't hit a zombie in the head at 500 yards. So why should I buy a rifle that can do what I can't, unless it's really cheap?
Speaking of cheap, you can get an AK for roughly $400 cheaper than an AR. For a little over $400 you can get 2520 rounds of old Yugoslavian ammo. So knowing that with the AK I'm 2500 rounds ahead for the same price makes me feel a little safer when surrounded by brain eaters.
When fully automatic the AR has a higher rate of fire, but I wouldn't, and you shouldn't, use any weapon on full auto against zombies. It's just a waste. Which brings me to the end.....
I declare the winner......... the Mosin Nagant 91/30. Yes, that's right, a rifle that wasn't even in the competition. It's that good.
The Mosin Nagant is cheaper than the AR or the AK (for the same price as an AK and 2500 rounds you can buy a Mosin Nagant and about 4000 rounds), it's more reliable than than either the AK or the AR (if you buy old, cheap Soviet ammo), it's more powerful than the AR or the AK and has about the same effective range as the AR. It's also prettier than the AK or the AR. It might be considered a little less accurate than the AR but like I already said, that doesn't matter to me. The first real downside to the Mosin Nagant compared the AR or AK is that it's a bolt action instead of semi/fully automatic, but if you're close enough to zombies that you need a semi/fully auto rifle you'd be just as well off using a handgun and your feet (you know, the ol' shoot n' run). The second downside to the Mosin Nagant is that the kickback is such that after a night of killing zombies your shoulder will feel a bit dead (and probably look like it, too).
Bottom line: When zombies attack you'd be just fine with any of these rifles and if money isn't an issue go ahead and buy all three. If money is an issue buy a Mosin Nagant, you can put 1500 rounds through it and still have the same amount of ammo as the guy who bought the AK and 2500 rounds and you'll be out the same amount of money as the guy who bought an AR and no rounds.
Now, let me first tell you that although I've never fired an AR, or anything from the M 16 family, I have great esteem for both weapons. They were both well designed guns and were engineered well for their intended purposes. Let's also get down the facts that are generally agreed upon by all who engage in this debate.
1. The AR is more accurate than the AK.
2. The AK is more dependable than the AR when proper cleaning methods are not used.
3. The AK is cheaper than the AR.
4. The AK is more powerful than the AR (when each is in their most common caliber).
5. The AR has a much greater effective range than the AK.
6. 7.62x39 ammo is generally cheaper than 5.56x45.
7. The AK has a lot more kickback than the AR.
With all of this said I would rather have an AK slung over my shoulder when zombies attack. Let's be straight about this: the AK is not the better zombie defense weapon for everyone, it's better for me. The main reasons supporting the AK are obvious: a dependable, powerful rifle with lots of ammo is certainly a good thing when hordes of the undead surround you. For me, the downsides of the AK aren't so bad because I'm a marginal shot at best. Even with the best rifle in the world I still probably couldn't hit a zombie in the head at 500 yards. So why should I buy a rifle that can do what I can't, unless it's really cheap?
Speaking of cheap, you can get an AK for roughly $400 cheaper than an AR. For a little over $400 you can get 2520 rounds of old Yugoslavian ammo. So knowing that with the AK I'm 2500 rounds ahead for the same price makes me feel a little safer when surrounded by brain eaters.
When fully automatic the AR has a higher rate of fire, but I wouldn't, and you shouldn't, use any weapon on full auto against zombies. It's just a waste. Which brings me to the end.....
I declare the winner......... the Mosin Nagant 91/30. Yes, that's right, a rifle that wasn't even in the competition. It's that good.
The Mosin Nagant is cheaper than the AR or the AK (for the same price as an AK and 2500 rounds you can buy a Mosin Nagant and about 4000 rounds), it's more reliable than than either the AK or the AR (if you buy old, cheap Soviet ammo), it's more powerful than the AR or the AK and has about the same effective range as the AR. It's also prettier than the AK or the AR. It might be considered a little less accurate than the AR but like I already said, that doesn't matter to me. The first real downside to the Mosin Nagant compared the AR or AK is that it's a bolt action instead of semi/fully automatic, but if you're close enough to zombies that you need a semi/fully auto rifle you'd be just as well off using a handgun and your feet (you know, the ol' shoot n' run). The second downside to the Mosin Nagant is that the kickback is such that after a night of killing zombies your shoulder will feel a bit dead (and probably look like it, too).
Bottom line: When zombies attack you'd be just fine with any of these rifles and if money isn't an issue go ahead and buy all three. If money is an issue buy a Mosin Nagant, you can put 1500 rounds through it and still have the same amount of ammo as the guy who bought the AK and 2500 rounds and you'll be out the same amount of money as the guy who bought an AR and no rounds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)