User Profile: The Third Archon

The Third Archon

Member Since: November 02, 2010


123 To page: Go
  • [1] July 31, 2015 at 9:13pm

    What’s so bad about using fetal body parts if they’re going to help others? The fetus has already been aborted–I know that that’s what conservatives are really opposed to, but insomuch as they’ve yet to succeed at actually stopping it, what sense (or moral principle) is advanced by trying to stop the beneficial use of fetal tissue by others? The fetus wasn’t viable, and it’s just going to decompose otherwise. What good, exactly, is the opposition to its use doing? If anything, it seems rather wasteful and anti-life to me…

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] May 24, 2015 at 1:10pm

    Oh because it would be “sacrificing a cop to public sentiment” to indict the guy who literally climbed on the hood of two unarmed people’s car and emptied clips into them? Is that how that works now?

    Responses (1) +
  • [-4] May 20, 2015 at 12:17pm

    Yeah except the KKK killed actual people.

  • [1] May 20, 2015 at 12:15pm

    Then you’re not opposed to the death penalty, you’d just apply it differently than we currently do.

  • [1] May 20, 2015 at 12:13pm

    You mean “murder of innocents”?

    Don’t you conservatives tend to support the death penalty? You know that at least SOME of the people who have and will be executed under such a policy are innocent, right (at least 4% by most estimates)?

    Don’t you conservatives also tend to support drone bombing strikes? You have even the faintest IDEA how many innocents have been killed by that policy? Or is that just one more thing you’re OH-SO-MORAL and well reasoned ideology just blindly supports?

    Responses (2) +
  • May 20, 2015 at 12:06pm

    Bitch were ALL just a clump of cells–the question is the scale, the functional capacity of that architecture.

    Gosnell was simply using a colloquialism to refer to the relative simplicity of this functional capacity in many/most/all fetuses.

    And it’s not what a thing or entity WILL (maybe) be in the FUTURE that determines PRESENT rights, at least not simply and in and of itself (as you seem to suggest in your implicit argument against the morality of abortion). Otherwise, by the SAME line of reasoning no ADULTS, CLEARLY people in the moral sense, would have rights because at SOME point in the future they’ll be dead (and this with FAR more certainty than that any given fetus would be born as a living child but for a medically induced abortion), and if we give the dead any rights (and personally I’d say we don’t, except vicariously by the rights/interests of the living) it’s CLEARLY far fewer rights than we insist on as minimally just for the living.

  • [-4] May 20, 2015 at 11:51am

    Oh so someone making an anti-Gosnell propaganda piece thinks he’s the epitome of evil? What a surprise.

    And this is what passes for “news” on the Blaze.

    And look I’m not even saying that Gosnell is s good person or SHOULDN’T be in prison. He had illegal unsanitary and unsafe conditions in his clinic, which if I’m not MISTAKEN actually resulted in the death of a woman. If this is true he totally belongs in prison–and I say this as someone who is about as pro-choice as Americans come. But that conclusion, my conclusion, is based upon reasoning applied to the facts–not some unthinking emotionally reactionary projection of my religious prejudices onto a situation, coupled with a knee jerk reaction that law/policy reflect all my stupid thoughtless baseless beliefs. This little piece of propaganda passing as an “article” is just nothing more than one giant appeal to emotion and a fap to conservatives’ preexisting beliefs with no substance or analysis to it (if it’s supposed to be an editorial) or novel facts (if it’s presenting itself as a traditional “news”piece).

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] May 16, 2015 at 7:32pm

    What happened to that whole conservative BS about “personal responsibility”? It seems PRETTY DAMN IRRESPONSIBLE to KEEP having children with the same genetic mix, when you KNOW there’s a 1 in 4 chance they’ll have CF. She didn’t even have to have an abortion if THAT’S her issue–she could have avoided the whole dilemma by adopting, having kids with donor genetic material WITHOUT the CF gene, or simply not had more kids.

    In reply to geeper35's comment on the contribution My 'Imperfect' Son's Valuable Life

  • [1] May 16, 2015 at 7:30pm

    No ideology is a bigger affront to the notion that ALL human life has some minimum intrinsic value than modern American “conservatism.” You people have NO moral high ground to stand upon, to pretend like your pro-birth invasion of the medical field is based upon any such high-minded principles.

    You just want to insert your baseless (almost always superstitious) preconceptions about the world into public policy, without any actual persuasive grounds for anyone, INCLUDING yourselves, to think your claims about the nature of reality (the nature of, for example, fetuses specifically–and their ability, or lack thereof, to have rights). Stop pretending you’re anything more than irrational busybodies–it’s positively LAUGHABLE for you to portray your position as anything but. At least be honest about what you believe–you don’t just want to not have an abortion upon your own unproven beliefs, you want to take away that ability from EVERYONE ELSE on that total lack of any factually demonstrable basis.

  • May 16, 2015 at 7:20pm

    In your mind apparently it can’t EVEN be that maybe you and them were placed in an IMPOSSIBLE situation with NO good options, and what EITHER of you chose was perfectly reasonable and moral, and that in either case be something that has benefits and drawbacks–something that is not a perfect choice in EITHER situation, a far from perfect situation. No–you can’t even FATHOM that. Let ALONE, that it’s actually YOU that’s guilty of everything you categorically paint those who don’t agree with you and make the same choices as you as being guilty of.

  • May 16, 2015 at 7:17pm

    We all suffer–MOST of us DON’T have to suffer the UNIMAGINABLE torment of a disease that vastly reduces quality of life with constant lung infections, complications, and sicknesses ON TOP of all the suffering we normally experience AND that cut’s short life expectancy. even IN the ideal conditions (the so-called “developed” world) your child was born into, to an average of 37 to 50 or so.

    Your child, NOW that he’s here, may not regret his existence–it’s doubtful if he, if ANYONE, can ever know enough to know better, to be truly informed, understand the alternatives, on that score. BUT, that doesn’t mean that IF you could have known BEFORE he was even conceived, that the moral choice WOULDN’T have been to have a child another way (or adopt a child)–even most CONSERVATIVES aren’t so absurd in their morality as to assert a duty to attempt to CONCEIVE at all possible opportunities (just because post hoc you can look at the child you have now and be happy with, and/or rationalize, your decision to have him, and just because he will probably never be able to know any better). And MAYBE, just MAYBE, you’re even wrong about abortion–MAYBE, just because YOU didn’t choose it, you’ve BALDLY asserted that it was an “outrageous” and “morally abhorrent” thing to choose to avoid having children with CF, DOESN’T just mean your right–MAYBE, in fact, you’re WRONG about that, and it is YOU who made the tragic, IMMORAL, decision. No–it has to be everyone who choose differently.

  • May 16, 2015 at 7:05pm

    Maybe just because everyone doesn’t AGREE with you, doesn’t make the decision YOU made, doesn’t AUTOMATICALLY make them wrong, you right, and their choice a “tragedy.” Your son’s birth birth with CF is not a tragedy–a tragedy is something preventable. Presumably, you didn’t have any way of knowing, as he was your first child, that you and your husband carried the genes that made such a substantial risk of CF in your offspring even a possibility. What IS a tragedy, is your KNOWING decision to thrust the hazard of this risk upon your FUTURE children, which you CHOSE to continue conceiving, CHOSE to continue rolling the dice with THEIR lives–when if you REALLY needed more children, you could easily have adopted, you could have used a sperm or ovum donor who had been genetically tested to ensure they didn’t carry the CF gene, guaranteeing no child would be born with CF (yeah, you’d have to give up the child being GENETICALLY both you AND your husbands…MAYBE that’s the MORAL thing to do in your circumstance? You don’t even CONSIDER that in your rush to judge everyone making different choices than you), even if abortion is off the table for you, you DID have options to make sure your children didn’t have CF.

    “No matter how much you may try to avoid it, everyone will suffer. Ours is just out there for others to see more.”
    And no, your equivocation between “suffering” in general, and the gratuitous exposure to the suffering of a HEINOUS disease is an ABSURD rationalization.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] May 16, 2015 at 6:57pm

    Let’s just say for the sake of argument that this woman ISN’T a terrible person–not even for not aborting a fetus with Cystic Fibrosis (or a high probability thereof), which she likely didn’t know of with the first child, her son, because she wouldn’t have probably even thought of the possibility of a genetic screening, not knowing she and her husband were carriers of the gene that causes CF–but for CONTINUING to to have kids, to cause more children to be conceived in the FIRST place, with the SUBSTANTIAL 25% of having this horrendous disease.

    Even setting aside that entire discussion–and yes, PLENTY of people would find her to be a HEINOUSLY selfish vile human being for KNOWING her genetics were so likely to cause offspring which would suffer tremendously but STILL conceiving them and bringing them to term, rather than either not having kids or adopting some of the MANY needy children already in existence–how does HER personal experience mean that this kind of thing:

    “To this day, I’m amazed that I was able to stop myself from the insults I wanted to hurl at her. I simply couldn’t believe her brazen audacity to suggest that my beautiful son, who was sitting on my lap smiling, was a mistake that could be avoided.

    Sadly, though, that’s what too many believe. In one study by Kaiser in California, over 87 percent of children diagnosed in utero with Cystic Fibrosis are aborted. This is a tragedy.”
    Somehow becomes fact? Maybe it isn’t a tragedy.

    In reply to the contribution My 'Imperfect' Son's Valuable Life

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] May 16, 2015 at 8:38am

    LOL–I, too, was amused at how the Blaze’s censors pick up the genus for our species as a “naughty” word. I’m also amused at how they involuntarily censor you, PERIOD–when this is CLEARLY not a site marketed towards children in any way shape or form–I certainly wouldn’t let my pre-adolescent children anywhere near it if I had any!

  • May 16, 2015 at 8:32am

    Similarly, with the individuals in a coma or persistent vegetative state, although they may VERY WELL have “left us,” and be functionally dead in the most important MORAL sense, of having irrecoverably lost their personhood. But whether we keep them alive or not, their position of indirect dependence upon the actions of others (and/or machines) to survive is in no way identical to the same kind of dependence on, and physical attachment to, the bodily functions of a particular individual that a fetus has. Nurses can came and go, machines can breathe for you–but a fetus is attached to one woman, and the woman can ONLY rid herself of that detachment if she desires through an abortion; we do not have the ability to transfer, yet at least, to transfer the fetus to another womb or the artificial equivalent.

    And another difference between the comatose/PVS individual and a fetus is that it’s UNEQUIVOCALLY clear that at least at SOME PRIOR point (as opposed to future HYPOTHETICALLY possible one) that they at least WERE a “person,” had moral standing. It might not be CERTAIN now, but there are at least good grounds for a “wait and see” for SOME reasonable period (on the possibility that they STILL are, or that there “loss of sapience/moral capacity,” is only temporary in the similar way to sleep–which we probably wouldn’t say is a grounds to say “no moral standing, do what you will” to someone) that have been UNDENIABLY established. No such certainty exists with a fetus.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 16, 2015 at 8:24am

    Thus when we are dealing with abortion, the moral question is not simply whether the fetus ever has moral standing (though this is a threshold question we must answer before the second question even becomes relevant)–the ULTIMATE question is whether or not the fetus, IF it has moral standing, has a right that OBLIGATES, or at a MINIMUM entitles, us to interfere with the choice of a woman (to trump her right to autonomy, to choose to take an action within her power withdrawing the use of her bodily functions from the fetus and removing it from her body) to have an abortion if she so desires and the abortion is likely or certain to cause death or injury to the fetus (presumably it would HAVE to do this, in addition to the fetus having standing, before interference would even become a moral QUESTION).

    By contrast, even an infant immediately after birth has no such conflict with the autonomy of the woman–it has been aborted, either naturally or artificially, and it is now in the world, an autonomous being of its own, whether we agree or not that its “moral standing” is the FULL equivalent of an adult human. Thus, there is no such urgent NEED to resolve a question between conflicting rights, because the woman (nor anyone else particularly) NEEDS to be, possibly, prevent (no moral question is raised) from taking an action which has the incidental effect of causing injury to the newborn. There is no comparable physiological dependence by that point.

  • May 16, 2015 at 8:11am

    And there is a critical difference between an newborn infant, and a fetus (the unborn at any developmental stage by definition)–the former is CLEARLY autonomous and not dependent upon the bodily functions of another for existence. Now you bring up the “need for support” some have in order to survive, but this is NOT the same thing. For starters, strictly speaking by that elastic concept we ALL pretty much qualify as social creatures. Second, dependency–LITERAL physical attachment to–upon the bodily functions of another IS a distinctive kind of dependence form this more attenuated social dependence upon the ACTIONS and/or care of another (to vary degrees of immediacy/urgency) for survival. It creates a conflict of rights that there are few if any natural analogies to–one must resort to rather unusual thought experiments, such as you being kidnapped and someone hooking you up involuntarily to a machine that uses your bodily functions to sustain their life, to make a true proper analogy of the moral dynamics to be considered–and therefore, even if we ASSUME for the sake argument that a fetus has moral standing at ANY point sufficient to make whether or not we can cause its death a moral question, it is NOT the same as when, say a newborn infant has the same standing, because in the specific context of abortion there is a rights conflict, between autonomy of the woman and any rights the fetus might have, not present (at least not as strong) in any other example given.

  • May 16, 2015 at 7:55am

    As such, I don’t particularly feel that the premature termination of a pregnancy–abortion as we call it–whether it kills a fetus or not, to be particularly likely to be a moral problem. Indeed, as you note, the capacity of newborn infants, for some period of time, is likewise not on par with adult humans, even (often) those with mental disabilities, and probably some healthy ordinary adults of other particularly sophisticated non-human species of animal (e.g. many/all kinds of dolphins, chimpanzees, etc.). Thus, I would not consider even “infanticide,” or the death of an infant at this time, the moral equivalent of the death of a human WITH the fully developed capacity for morality. That being said, these are not the ONLY considerations in the moral question of abortion, or in the moral questions about life generally, because STANDING only establishes whether or not one CAN have rights, and at a certain point, yes, it is a hard binary–is it alive or not?–or at least so it seems, but AFTER that point, I would argue it becomes a GRADIENT based upon, directly correlated to, capacity for morality. So, for example, while I think it is perfectly moral to kill and consume other animals for their nutrition, I do NOT believe we should GRATUITOUSLY kill them or inflict GRATUITOUS pain upon them. Returning to the example of abortion, while a newborn infant indeed might have LESS of a claim to moral rights than an adult, it still certainly has A claim.

  • [4] May 16, 2015 at 7:46am

    “For example, if we say that it’s the ability of people to reason and make judgments (rationality and sapience, as in **** sapiens) that gives them moral standing, then it looks like we’re leaving out not just the unborn, but also the newly born, as well as patients who are comatose or in a persistent vegetative state. If we instead take sentience…”
    Well since you didn’t suggest an answer yourself, I’d say of all the one’s you laid out, this one is the most reasonable seeming one to me more or less. The extension of moral recognition (standing as you call it, cleverly borrowing the legal term of art for the analogous moral concept we mean when we use the word “person/personhood” in the abortion debate) seems, to me, most sensibly tied to one’s capacity FOR morality–one’s ability to extend it back. So yes, even though MANY complex animals feel pain, that we kill and eat them presents no moral difficulty to mean, because we ARE animals (and thus need to kill and eat, as they do–whether they do it to plants, or other forms of life), but we, unlike they, are capable (though do not always use, of course) of a more sophisticated degree of perception of reality and control of our actions in response to the same (and thus OUGHT not, in most cases, kill one another because we NEED not, it is inefficient to do so, and a world in which we wantonly capriciously kill one another–the world we live in–is a far worse world to live than one in which we do not do this).

    Responses (5) +
  • May 16, 2015 at 7:33am

    sex…that you aren’t even a member of! Ridiculous. Stupid. And yeah, sexist.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love