Korimyr the Rat said:
I don't have to. We kill human beings all the time; being human isn't enough to warrant moral or legal protection.
Ummm...humans are killed under other circumstances for
legitimate reasons...war, self-defense, punishment for crimes committed. Only the unborn are killed without cause.
Korimyr the Rat said:
You know, I was just about to go into my usual diatribe about the maddening inconsistencies in most peoples' moral systems, but I'm getting tired of it.
So why don't you post a list of qualifications you believe you possess that justify your ability to discuss morality, or get down off your pedestal and try proving I'm wrong?
I already proved you were wrong, why should I have to repeat myself?
No person is born without special rights or powers over any other. That's because there's no God to give them this. That being the case, they can't steal, because they're not special. Killing is merely a specific form of stealing.
Since you can't dispute the fact that humans are human from conception (Steen makes an *** of himself every time he tries), it follows that incubators don't have any special rights to kill humans anywhere, including those she's volunteered to start inside her.
Since she did volunteer to start the child, she's already surrendered her claim for sole control of her body for the whole getstational period. Even in cases where she hasn't volunteered, the act of rape still doesn't give her a special exemption to murder a person that wasn't party to the crime.
I can discuss morality because I'm consistent.
Korimyr the Rat said:
My "earlier quibbling" listed the specific conditions under which it was acceptable to kill a partially birthed child, and in this thread I've already posted why.
Korimyr the Rat said:
I support partial birth abortion conditionally. While I am generally on the extreme end of the pro-choice spectrum-- I think taxpayer funding of abortion saves us money in Welfare and law enforcement-- I do not think that abortion should be elective beyond a certain point, generally the 26th week.
However, I believe that if it is necessary for the mother's health or there is evidence of serious deformity or genetic defect, late term or partial birth abortion should be allowed.
Yes, you said if the incubator decides she doesn't want the child for some reasons, it's okay to murder it.
Korimyr the Rat said:
I'm willing to entertain the notion that the State could impose some penalty for failing to notify them of the birth, so they'd get their fair shot at claiming it. After all, I've already noted that the State has an interest in claiming healthy but unwanted babies.
Tell me something, though. Do you think it does society any good to punish people for this?
In general, punish for criminal acts is intended as a deterrent to others to show them that they shouldn't engage in that behavior. It also serves to remove those individuals from the population that refused to be deterred.
Locking incubators up that have murdered their children is no different than locking up Scott Peterson....who murdered his child as well as his wife.
Personally, I'm opposed to informing the government of any birth, since the government only views children and people as resources to be exploited.
Korimyr the Rat said:
We treat unwanted dogs better than that. Any such euthanization should be painless and peaceful.
People aren't dogs, and shouldn't be euthanized without their permission. The unborn are not legally competent to grant that permission, nor are new-born infants.
Korimyr the Rat said:
It means what it says. If someone else wants to claim that baby and raise them, I'm sure as Hell not going to try to stop them or tell them that they shouldn't. They should probably get a medal for it.
On the other hand, the kid's got one parent who shouldn't be allowed to have kids and I don't see why anyone else would want to. It's better for the State to focus on either children that are more adoptable, or on children that have lost their parents.
Which is no different than throwing the unwanted ones in the dumpster. Do you think the trash kids should get an expensive lethal injection, an inexpensive .22 bullet, or a reusable club to the head, or should someone just be hired to swing them by their ankles and smash their skulls on the nearest tree?
Korimyr the Rat said:
Don't take this to mean that I'm saying anybody with a disability, or anyone whose parents were screwed up, should have been aborted, or that there is justification for killing them now. I'm the disabled son of two abusive parents, and I know plenty of people from similar situations who have something to contribute to society-- and even if we didn't, it's too late. We're already members of society, citizens of the United States, et cetera.
First you say that any "unwanted" child should be murdered, now you're saying that you're not saying that.
Korimyr the Rat said:
The loudest voices against abortion in this country say that it's wrong because it involves killing innocent human children, and then turn around to undermine the ability of single parents to support their children and support wars which involve dropping bombs on countries that are full of innocent human children.
Those are two unconnected issues. I'm not morally conflicted by the assertion that sterilizing the planet outside borders of the United States would secure the safety of my children from terrorist animals, and saying that individual incubators aren't granted special rights to commit murder.
The first case is a matter of self-defense and acts of war. War isn't about innocence. No one understanding war makes the mistake of mixing the two. War is about survival.
The case of voluntary slaughter of a baby by it's incubator is about murder. That is about innocence, and it's not war.
Korimyr the Rat said:
Whatever moral convictions people have, the world would be a hell of a lot better a place if everyone lived up to them.
Yeah, they should all be like me.
Korimyr the Rat said:
It means that once someone has agreed to raise a child-- whether biological parents or adoptive ones-- it can't be taken back. The child is a member of society and deserves the full legal and moral protection thereof, even if his parents die or run off.
Yes, the child is a member of society, even when it's waiting to be born.
Korimyr the Rat said:
Rape. It's infrequent, but it does occur. That's why most anti-abortionists, who claim that an unborn child is an "innocent human being", make an exception for children conceived by rape.
I don't. I understand where the guilt lies, and who's at fault. That some rapes last nine-months doesn't change the fact that the rapist is the criminal, not the child that didn't exist before the rape happened.
Korimyr the Rat said:
Responsible for the consequences, yes, which is why she has to make the decision whether to carry the child or abort, and then take the appropriate steps herself. Hell, she even has to pay for it out-of-pocket-- though I think government subsidization would be a lot cheaper in the long run.
No, abortion is an abdication of responsibility, an avoidance of the consequences. She already accepted the responsibility of incubating the child when she volunteered for the hot beef injection.
Korimyr the Rat said:
It still does not count as consent or an agreement to carry the child, any more than smoking counts as consent to die of cancer or walking down an alley alone at night is consent to robbery.
Yeah, it does, just like one accepts the consequences of jumping out of a flying airplane. There's no going back.