Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Susanne 9 years, 4 months ago
    Silly article - by definition, during the birthing process the (former) fetus is "aborted" from the womb. So the phrase "post birth abortion" is meaningless, as ALL births are "post birth abortions".

    Now if you're talking about Infanticide (which is practiced in a number of countries, some ol' Potus likes to call friends), then that's another story, but even upon reading the article, it seems more like something written for either (a) the Onion, (b) a high school newspaper, or (c) a facebook (should I say farcebook?) post.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by khalling 9 years, 4 months ago
    I am downvoting this post. 1. there is no cite to an actual study 2.There are terms used in this article taking jabs at Objectivism, including the term "self aware." I find this article unfounded and outrageous.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by EskimoBro 9 years, 4 months ago
      I'm sorry.

      On an educational note, I would actually like you to explain Objectivism regarding to the term "self aware." I'm still learning a lot and I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 4 months ago
        You have no need to be sorry. Read my response to kh below. Objectivists think that they can have it both ways - abortion and personal rights. What they cannot do is square the circle. When does a child growing in the womb of a woman attain those same rights? Many of them will say that it happens by some miraculous event that occurs while travelling through the birth canal (they somehow cannot answer the question regarding Caesarian section births). So, 10 mins prior to birth the baby has no rights and therefore can be murdered via abortion. But the instant that it exits the birth canal, suddenly it is bestowed miraculously with rights (and according to this article, perhaps not even then).

        Take that logic even further - should those suffering from Alzheimers or other mental illness where they can no longer perceive reality or interact with their surroundings rationally be euthanized? They are no longer "self aware" and thus, by the reasoning used no longer retain their rights as a human. Where does it end?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 4 months ago
          " When does a child growing in the womb of a woman attain those same rights? "
          When, in your view, does a child attain rights?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 4 months ago
            I've discussed this before, though you might not have been part of the discussion. A child 10 mins after birth is no different from the same child 10 mins before birth. Since there is no distinction from 10 mins before, when does that distinction actually occur? I don't now specifically, but I do know that some where it does occur. I'm willing to set up some parameters for such. Unlike the atheists who want to say that anything prior to some arbitrary vision of "birth" is the dividing line.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 4 months ago
              Every atheist has the same view on this issue? Or, is it that most atheists have this view? Wow, Robbie, how did you come up with that conclusion?

              Is this where you open the can of red herrings or take another pompous, cheap shot?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by EskimoBro 9 years, 4 months ago
          I appreciate the response. Definitely a lot of good thought right there. And the "I'm sorry" comment was supposed to have a ? At the end of it. Anways I'm gonna have to stick around and listen to what you and everyone has to say on this forum. I've definitely been learning a lot!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 4 months ago
      And I'm downvoting you for your downvote. There is no citation of Objectivism in the article. And if you cannot handle the moral equivalency of those who state that a child is not "self aware" until the age of 4 or 5, thus can be killed up to that age with the statements made by Objectivism that only "self aware" individuals have a right to self-ownership and thus a right to life, then you need to do some deep soul searching (oh, yes, that would be a problem, just think about it rationally, then).

      Yes, that's a slight ad hominem. Buck up. If you cannot handle the logical extension of your philosophy, then you better think whether that is a good philosophy to hold. I've said numerous times here - what's the difference between a baby 10 mins before vs. 10 mins after being born. You refuse to confront this question. The people cited in this article (and the linked video from O-State) see no difference and in that I agree. But they extend that by saying that thus a born child can thus be killed. I find that morally reprehensible. What say you?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 9 years, 4 months ago
        From the baby's first realization of a ray of light upon being born, he is acknowledging existence and therefore simultaneously consciousness (eg self aware). He cannot divorce the two realities. They are. A is A. The article did not cite a study, made outrageous claims regarding university students. We are left with no objective information. We are subjected to an abortion rant and a discrediting of 20 somethings. I reject it outright. It was a wasted read. Further, some are reading it and taking it on its face as truthful.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo