If Ayn Rand had seen these, she would have been pro-life.
Posted by waynecarmichael 10 years, 4 months ago to Culture
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
The mother's body and independence comes first, as always.
It's awesome! My whole family is here, lots of food and beverages, nice music!
At 00:00 we'll be able to see tons of fireworks near the beach. :P
I hope you're having an amazing time as well, Khalling! Happy New Year! Take care!! :D
Why?
True but irrelevant. She invited a guest boarder in her bodily inn who didn't ask to be there, nor did it invade her. She has zero right to kill it just because she feels it's inconvenient to her social life.
Innkeepers own their inns. If they bring in helpless boarders, they have no inherent right to kill them just because they feel they'd rather have some empty rooms.
Either way--it’s none of your business because it’s not your Inn.
Congratulations. Silly argument. It's also none of my business if a hotel manager in Akron, Ohio decides to machine gun his guests to death because he wants to convert his property to a parking lot; and it's also none of my business if an NHS Trust in the UK involuntarily euthanizes its elderly patients in order to free up some beds for younger, non-retired, taxpaying patients. Nevertheless, I'd write a concerned letter to my local newspaper.
Anyway, it is the fetus's business because it's the one getting its head vacuumed off its spine. In place of writing a letter to my local paper, I'm posting here. You don't mind, I hope.
I have to say with the visuals of one "getting it’s head vacuumed off its spine”
this song cam to mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WktoMaqCp...
Sick, right? Yeah, I agree. I’m sorry it’s New Year’s Eve and I’m in the mood to go pillaging and take no prisoners. I’ll respond more appropriately next year. Happy New Year!
That sets my mind at ease.
You must also have no problem with my posting here on this topic.
And just FYI, Mimi: Mimi sent me.
We all know I can be graphic... anyone want me to describe the "eviction" procedure? Hmm?
First off, immigration should never be illegal in the first place. Second, you can only use violent force against people on your own personal private property, and even then only if they're actually posing a physical threat to you.
My duty is first and foremost to myself. On a personal level, It is a difficult moral decision depending on the circumstance. I advocate for any and all opportunities to offer solutions to someone in the process of making the decision. This article makes a very poignant appeal. I hope it has great influence. but it would be immoral to force someone to support another being legally. The US of course has laws enforcing such, but there are many more effective ways of promoting life than with a mandate against one in support of another, and turning women into slaves.
Owning oneself is a foundational principle under natural rights, upon which this country was founded. it is a derived principle under Objectivism.
If it's your child, and you intentionally withhold food from her, you most certainly are committing murder. And any jury in this country would justly find you guilty.
>>>My duty is first and foremost to myself.
The concept of "myself" includes obligations and responsibilities you have incurred as a result of your own actions. The ancillary idea of "owning myself" obviously means that you, and you alone, are responsible for your voluntarily chosen actions: if you "own" yourself, then you "own" the responsibilities that are the effects of your own first cause.
Have you seen the movie, "Sophie's Choice?" We can have this argument on an emotional level, but I'd rather stick to logic. btw, I am a mother
just because I have sex, does not mean I have contracted or made a moral obligation to support someone or become their slave. Have you read "We the Living
Sure it does, whether you wish to call your responbility to the effects of your actions "slavery" or not is irrelevant. And this is true whether or not the effects of your actions were unintentional, because an unexpected and undesired outcome — pregnancy — was forseeable and a possible outcome. You cannot say "I have no responsibility here because the effect was undesired on my part."
That would be an upshot of pure hedonism, not rational selfishness.
If you incur a debt intentionally or because you made an error in your financial transactions somewhere but knew that debt was a *possible* outcome in the deal, you still are responsible to repay the debt. You can't stiff your creditors by telling them, "I refuse to be your slave! I own myself, so I'm walking away from this debt."
So are many philosophical premises regarding ethics — even if held by an Objectivist.
Having sex does not mean I should bear the burden of giving birth. My body, my choice. I own myself. YOU have no right over ME on that. I reject your slavery argument.
I understand responsibility. It's a choice not a duty. The choice to have sex does not include the responsibility to give birth or care for the child.
I'm going to stick here, because we can't agree on the premises. I am aware of secondary questions.
According to you, I must share my breast milk with a starving man, I must feed every helpless child-if I am a doctor I must treat every patient. let's stick right here until you can explain these logical consequencses of your theory.
Your denial of reality and causality is irrational.
>>>you don't know my individual circumstances.
When it comes to sex and pregnancy, all circumstances are identical, being preordained biologically; viz., having sex MIGHT lead to pregnancy. If it doesn't, hey, have a blast. If it does, TOUGH. You and you alone are responsible for the consequences of your actions. Since the effect of your voluntary action was to bring another human life into the world, killing it simply because it's inconvenient for your social calendar is not an option: it's not an option because it's immoral; it's immoral because it's irrational; it's irrational because it's based on a denial of reality and causality on your part.
Wow. This is the new generation of Objectivists! Complete self-involved hedonists. This is not what Miss Rand had in mind by the virtue of selfishness. Rand was wrong about abortion, but she would not have claimed that you can simply give birth in the ladies room of a nightclub and leave the newborn to die of starvation and exposure on the tile floor (as some women have done).
Good grief. Objectivism has morphed into an "I'll do whatever I feel like doing, as long as I excuse myself with appeals to property rights, e.g., I own my body, therefore, I have no responsibility for the consequences of my actions."
Ayn Rand frowns.
>>>Having sex does not mean I should bear the burden of giving birth.
If having sex results in your getting pregnant, then yes, it does. You don't want to bear the risk of such a burden? You've got options: Have sex by yourself; have sex with other women; or abstain from sex entirely.
"just because I have sex, does not mean I have contracted or made a moral obligation to support someone or become their slave."
uh... yes you have. You performed the act to create the baby. At that point, you are responsible for its existence, and the same moral restriction against infringing upon its rights comes into effect.
You don't want a baby, don't perform the act to make one. That's what your reproductive organs are for; not for getting high.
You want to get high... masturbate.
Tell that to the police. Unlike a child trapped in your womb, the child has at least a chance of escaping your presence to seek food. The child sitting at your feet is also not necessarily there because you created it.
"Turning women into slaves"???
Aw, c'mon! RAPE IS ILLEGAL.
This is why I dislike libertarianism. It mistakes liberty for license. I didn't shove a baby inside you and say, "support that!" You either chose to flop on your back, or you were raped. The punishment for rape for the *other* victim, per your philosophy, is death by torture. The punishment for flopping on your back for someone with whom you didn't intend making a baby is, again per your philosophy, death by torture for the baby thus created.
If you own yourself, then the baby owns his/herself. The difference is, s/he didn't do anything to end up in the condition s/he finds his/herself, whether it was bumping uglies voluntarily, or walking down a dark alley unarmed, dressed like a prostitute.
The baby shouldn't pay the price of your inability to recognize what your reproductive system is for.
If women can't behave responsibly with their bodies, then someone needs to take responsibility for them... gee, maybe them there Victorians weren't so dumb.
I dunno from "natural rights". There are no rights save those which come from God. And if you have rights, so does a helpless, funny-looking, inconvenient "oneself" which *you* created.
And you people condemned ME for hyperbolically referencing the anal rape of 2 year old children, yet you advocate the brutal murder of unborn children.
THIS is what reveals Objectivists to be the selfish, self-centered, ego-centric, megalomaniacal creatures they're depicted as.
If you make a women's body analogous to a building you may as well say that she chose to live in an area where her "home" has a higher probability of some one breaking into it. (This is the part of the analogy symbolizing unwanted pregnancy.) She likes her neighborhood just like women like to have sex, and just because a drunkard or a mentally ill person accidentally enters her house doesn't mean she can't kick them out. Even if it means certain death for the individual she has no obligation.
If she were conscious . . . ?
In other words, in the case of a "virgin birth," it's OK to abort. I see.
However, in all other cases, sex *can* and *might* lead to pregnancy, even if unwanted. The subjective emotion of "wanting" or "not wanting" the effect of an action is irrelevant to the moral principle of self-ownership, self-responsibility, and self-reliance: the "self" that causes something, is responsible for its own effects. In the case of an action (sex) leading to an effect (pregnancy), "wanting" or "not wanting" the effect is irrelevant to the logic of the moral argument: there is still a moral responsibility entailed by causing an effect.
I thought one of the moral tenets of Objectivism was not to trample on the rights of another.... such as the baby's right to life.
An inapt analogy. That's actually the part of the analogy that illustrates the issue of rape leading to pregnancy (i.e., someone forcibly breaking into the inn).
You do realize the D.A. would almost certainly disagree that she can kick someone who is no threat out of her house if it means certain death?
There's no screwing followed by unwanted pregnancy. If you don't want a baby, do not perform the actions whose function is the creation of a baby.
So a creator has no responsibility toward her creation? I begin to understand why Objectivists *really* want to believe there's no God.
I don't like you Hiraghm. I promise to never comment on anything you ever say if you will grant me the gift of reciprocation.
Hmmm...sorry, Hiraghm. That’s not working for me.
(Pssst- I tried to drag you out of this thread before it’s too late.You are on your own pal. Have a happy New Year, Hiraghm.)
Sorry if I'm not buying your product... not that I'm not cognizant of life in the womb, but the "selling" of it reminds me of the same stuff PETA sells. Especially here... by a non-producer. --chortle-urp-belch--
Have a great evening, folks!!
Which is? That you're not the center of the universe, and your ass isn't its most precious occupant?
/sarc