What kind of depravity is required to think this way?
Posted by AmericanGreatness 10 years, 1 month ago to Culture
Evil that's hard to fathom...
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 9.
But you'll kill that thing that's in the womb, would not want no baby boom.
Steve Taylor, Song writer.
We now know that EKG can detect brain activity as early as six weeks, and premature babies can survive much earlier that thought.
If life doesn't begin at conception, someone please prove to me when it does.
Now you have to ask yourselves: how long has this been going on?
I make no secret. I say it's human from the moment a zygote forms. That the law does not treat it that way, leads straight back to the ancient Roman practice of exposure-at-birth.
for each new baby, assistance should be decreased if you have another baby. Presto - birth control.
I've told my sons to cremate me, have a memorial if they wish, find a good trout stream in some mountains and throw my ashes in it, then remember me in any way they wish. If someone could make an ethical (Objectivist only) use of part of my body, I wouldn't mind, but I'm afraid that this old body is past the use-by-date. It seems to me that it's the height of self aggrandizement to place an obligation of your body on your family to preserve, protect, and worship after death. It's almost neolithic.
I don't see anymore worth to a dead (for whatever reason) fetus, and if a researcher can use it for some benefit for future people, why not. Death is a part of life from conception on and there's no guarantee either prior to birth or after. The only reason I can see for all of this turmoil is some religionists beliefs that a supernatural being somewhere has a spare soul sitting around that he wants to stick in it and some of their beliefs that the bodies go into a grave and wait for the end when god pulls them out of the ground and restores them or some such stuff.
In some ways this argument seems to align with PETA's objections to what we do with animals and animals' bodies.
As for the last sentence the originator of that thought put it this way. Our society cares more about dogs than children. Robert Heinlein wrote that. It was true then and more true now and for the same objectively provable reasons.
Third none of the late term, partial delivery when the fetus is viable.
I would also look at the welfare baby factories and be in favor of tubal ligation and vasectomies after the first ''accident'' and before receiving any assistance.
Speaking in a general welfare of the nation way.
Oath of Fealty.
It's more pipe dreams to justify killing unborn children.
Or using the infant tissue for conversion into stem cells. Someone (Jbrenner maybe?) linked a story about that process some time back. They have developed, or are experimenting with a process to convert differentiated tissue back into stem cells.
However that does not stop them from using "Its for the Children" as a rallying cry for any silliness they want to pick your pockets to fund.
That aside, what we are talking about here is a problem that I see as one of our biggest problems in this country - a failure to recognize the value and sovereignty of life. This, in my opinion, is part of the foundation for Objectivism. Our lives, our bodies, and our minds are our own...
If you think our society values babies any more after their born I have a bridge to sell you. Our society (our government) doesn't give a rat's ass about children.
Load more comments...