The RG on Abortion...
The Right Gestalt wonders why, exactly, we are willing to prematurely deliver and spend much time and effort saving the life of a child who cannot continue in the womb, for some reason, but that same child could be killed in the womb without consequence, and wonders if the difference of if it's wanted or not by the mother should be the ultimate determinator of its end. Certainly, most of the children who have been aborted would be wanted by _someone_ out there, so it really comes down to the mother.
The RG wonders what is magical about birth, anyway? Gestation being 9 months, if the child is born at 8 months and you subsequently suck their brains out with a vacuum, it would be right to consider it murder, but not if you do it while part-way in the womb.
The RG wonders when it _is_ okay to kill a child. Certainly, the RG can conceive of pathological cases - if the life of the mother is threatened it would be self defense. If the child was going to be born with a congenital disease which will most assuredly kill them, and/or would make their lives a misery in the meantime, certainly the RG isn't going to say we should deny some kind of humane solution, no more than we would suggest passively torturing someone (say, by denying them food) who actually, for instance, murdered someone, before putting them to their rightful death.
It appears to the RG that the Left Ideation has infected it's hosts with the concept that an inconvenience is an injustice, and thus should be removed by any means, no matter what the side-effect.
The RG further wonders how there can be people who are against, for instance, medical testing on Animals, but who support the killing of children for selfish reasons.
The RG wonders about the 'privacy' assertion in connection to all this. It occurs to the RG that the LI thinks that murdering a person in the privacy of one's own home shouldn't be considered murder. It is reminded of the case of the cannibal in Germany, looking for 'the ultimate kick', who killed a willing victim and then subsequently ate him, was cleared of 'murder' charges and instead convicted of 'manslaughter' charges. Cannibal jailed for eating willing victim .
The RG feels that children should be protected, but that there are too many variables for it to make a hard-and-fast rule of law to preempt the practice in the appropriate cases: there should be a presumption of freedom to act, and of parents 'doing the right thing' in the edge cases - and there should be reckening for not 'doing the right thing'. So, perhaps people who choose abortion should be put, as a matter of form, under penalty for manslaughter, and if any of the DA or one of 13 people on a jury think that they had a good reason to do what they did, they should be let off, otherwise, not. The penalty of even a minimal sentence will serve the deterrent effect of putting the 'inconvenience' matter in perspective.
The RG wonders what is magical about birth, anyway? Gestation being 9 months, if the child is born at 8 months and you subsequently suck their brains out with a vacuum, it would be right to consider it murder, but not if you do it while part-way in the womb.
The RG wonders when it _is_ okay to kill a child. Certainly, the RG can conceive of pathological cases - if the life of the mother is threatened it would be self defense. If the child was going to be born with a congenital disease which will most assuredly kill them, and/or would make their lives a misery in the meantime, certainly the RG isn't going to say we should deny some kind of humane solution, no more than we would suggest passively torturing someone (say, by denying them food) who actually, for instance, murdered someone, before putting them to their rightful death.
It appears to the RG that the Left Ideation has infected it's hosts with the concept that an inconvenience is an injustice, and thus should be removed by any means, no matter what the side-effect.
The RG further wonders how there can be people who are against, for instance, medical testing on Animals, but who support the killing of children for selfish reasons.
The RG wonders about the 'privacy' assertion in connection to all this. It occurs to the RG that the LI thinks that murdering a person in the privacy of one's own home shouldn't be considered murder. It is reminded of the case of the cannibal in Germany, looking for 'the ultimate kick', who killed a willing victim and then subsequently ate him, was cleared of 'murder' charges and instead convicted of 'manslaughter' charges. Cannibal jailed for eating willing victim .
The RG feels that children should be protected, but that there are too many variables for it to make a hard-and-fast rule of law to preempt the practice in the appropriate cases: there should be a presumption of freedom to act, and of parents 'doing the right thing' in the edge cases - and there should be reckening for not 'doing the right thing'. So, perhaps people who choose abortion should be put, as a matter of form, under penalty for manslaughter, and if any of the DA or one of 13 people on a jury think that they had a good reason to do what they did, they should be let off, otherwise, not. The penalty of even a minimal sentence will serve the deterrent effect of putting the 'inconvenience' matter in perspective.
posted by J. R. P. at 7:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home