Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 1 month ago
    So who here would voluntarily donate to a, “Save the Infants Foundation”, which uses its own money and resources to help save infants?
    Of course with the compulsory system we have now this question is fairly meaningless.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years, 1 month ago
      I would and I would not be surprised if Mercury One would start a fund very soon just for that purpose.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by Solver 5 years, 1 month ago
        So if the mother decided to abort the child but the child still survived, should the surviving child be taken away from that mother and given to the care of the foundation, with the voluntarily funded resources to take care of the child?
        That enforcement would be the role of a government.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years, 1 month ago
          If the mother or the mothers family/husband still didn't want the baby then that would be the correct solution.
          Just read a story this morning about a mother that birthed a baby boy and it was discovered that the boy had down syndrome and they have a program that takes care of babies like that,
          The mother made the decision to give up the baby and told the husband to choose, get rid of the kid or get a divorce...the husband chose to keep the boy.
          She filed for divorce.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Arthgallo 5 years, 1 month ago
    The logical question is this: How many breaths does a baby have to take before it is protected by law? Is it 1 breath or 100 breaths or something in between......or what if it survives for days and then dies? When exactly is it declared immune from the law allowing it to just die? Taken to the absurd extreme, what about a troublesome two-year old?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by edweaver 5 years, 1 month ago
    Are you opening up this can of worms again? :)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 1 month ago
      I want to see "saving infants from botched abortions" come under attack here.
      Me dino has no interest in expending the time and energy that I did last time.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by edweaver 5 years, 1 month ago
        My guess is it will. I expect in the next 5 -10 years it will be okay to off a 2 month old that became an inconvenience. Really, it has no more chance of survival than a preemie at 30 weeks. No care, it dies. In fact, that's pretty much true up to a number of years old. Makes me wonder what the future holds.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • -3
          Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 1 month ago
          Why would you think this would be OK?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • -2
            Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 1 month ago
            You said, "My guess is it will. I expect in the next 5 -10 years it will be okay to off a 2 month old that became an inconvenience."

            What made you come to such a conclusion?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by edweaver 5 years, 1 month ago
              Why wouldn't it? If it's too inconvenient in the womb, wait until it's born. Once the child is past 24 weeks, they have to inject it to kill it before it can be removed. In my book that's murder because it can survive with assistance after 24 weeks. So at some point it will no longer matter if it's a before birth kill or an after birth kill, if it becomes too inconvenient it will become accepted
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                -
              • -2
                Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 1 month ago
                "Why wouldn't it? If it's too inconvenient in the womb, wait until it's born."
                What does this mean?
                You can't do anything with a "child" in the womb since that's not a child.
                Nothing done, to the unborn is "murder" and "your book" doesn't have a proper definition of it.
                This entire post seems to be the typical religious, leftist, conflation of abortion with harming children, in order to advocate banning or regulating the former, because you have no arguments to directly do so.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  -
                • Posted by edweaver 5 years, 1 month ago
                  You are sidestepping the fact that the fetus or child (whatever name you use) has to be killed prior to removal after 24 weeks. This is the simple fact that tells me at some point in the future it won't matter what age, if it becomes inconvenient, just snip the back of the neck.

                  I'm not advocating banning, just upholding natural law. I have plenty of arguments but I wont respond to you anymore. I know I'm not changing your mind, even if I'm right. I don't have time to waste on futile arguments.

                  No need to put titles on people for whom you don't know.

                  Good day.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -3
                    Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 1 month ago
                    "You are sidestepping the fact that the fetus or child (whatever name you use) has to be killed prior to removal after 24 weeks. This is the simple fact that tells me at some point in the future it won't matter what age, if it becomes inconvenient, just snip the back of the neck. "
                    A fetus is not a child and most abortions occur in the first trimester, where it is an embryo. So, I'm not sidestepping anything, you have not grasped the "facts" and have jumped to an impossible conclusion.
                    Also, more importantly that the above, abortion doesn't violate rights, so even if you can't tell the difference between an embryo and a child, it should still be perfectly legal.
                    This is the Objectivists and proper right wing position on abortion.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo