If Ayn Rand had seen these, she would have been pro-life.
Posted by waynecarmichael 11 years, 4 months ago to Culture
- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
It's awesome! My whole family is here, lots of food and beverages, nice music!
At 00:00 we'll be able to see tons of fireworks near the beach. :P
I hope you're having an amazing time as well, Khalling! Happy New Year! Take care!! :D
We all know I can be graphic... anyone want me to describe the "eviction" procedure? Hmm?
Sorry if I'm not buying your product... not that I'm not cognizant of life in the womb, but the "selling" of it reminds me of the same stuff PETA sells. Especially here... by a non-producer. --chortle-urp-belch--
Have a great evening, folks!!
That sets my mind at ease.
You must also have no problem with my posting here on this topic.
And just FYI, Mimi: Mimi sent me.
I have to say with the visuals of one "getting it’s head vacuumed off its spine”
this song cam to mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WktoMaqCp...
Sick, right? Yeah, I agree. I’m sorry it’s New Year’s Eve and I’m in the mood to go pillaging and take no prisoners. I’ll respond more appropriately next year. Happy New Year!
An inapt analogy. That's actually the part of the analogy that illustrates the issue of rape leading to pregnancy (i.e., someone forcibly breaking into the inn).
If she were conscious . . . ?
In other words, in the case of a "virgin birth," it's OK to abort. I see.
However, in all other cases, sex *can* and *might* lead to pregnancy, even if unwanted. The subjective emotion of "wanting" or "not wanting" the effect of an action is irrelevant to the moral principle of self-ownership, self-responsibility, and self-reliance: the "self" that causes something, is responsible for its own effects. In the case of an action (sex) leading to an effect (pregnancy), "wanting" or "not wanting" the effect is irrelevant to the logic of the moral argument: there is still a moral responsibility entailed by causing an effect.
Sure it does, whether you wish to call your responbility to the effects of your actions "slavery" or not is irrelevant. And this is true whether or not the effects of your actions were unintentional, because an unexpected and undesired outcome — pregnancy — was forseeable and a possible outcome. You cannot say "I have no responsibility here because the effect was undesired on my part."
That would be an upshot of pure hedonism, not rational selfishness.
If you incur a debt intentionally or because you made an error in your financial transactions somewhere but knew that debt was a *possible* outcome in the deal, you still are responsible to repay the debt. You can't stiff your creditors by telling them, "I refuse to be your slave! I own myself, so I'm walking away from this debt."
Have you seen the movie, "Sophie's Choice?" We can have this argument on an emotional level, but I'd rather stick to logic. btw, I am a mother
just because I have sex, does not mean I have contracted or made a moral obligation to support someone or become their slave. Have you read "We the Living
Congratulations. Silly argument. It's also none of my business if a hotel manager in Akron, Ohio decides to machine gun his guests to death because he wants to convert his property to a parking lot; and it's also none of my business if an NHS Trust in the UK involuntarily euthanizes its elderly patients in order to free up some beds for younger, non-retired, taxpaying patients. Nevertheless, I'd write a concerned letter to my local newspaper.
Anyway, it is the fetus's business because it's the one getting its head vacuumed off its spine. In place of writing a letter to my local paper, I'm posting here. You don't mind, I hope.
If it's your child, and you intentionally withhold food from her, you most certainly are committing murder. And any jury in this country would justly find you guilty.
>>>My duty is first and foremost to myself.
The concept of "myself" includes obligations and responsibilities you have incurred as a result of your own actions. The ancillary idea of "owning myself" obviously means that you, and you alone, are responsible for your voluntarily chosen actions: if you "own" yourself, then you "own" the responsibilities that are the effects of your own first cause.
My duty is first and foremost to myself. On a personal level, It is a difficult moral decision depending on the circumstance. I advocate for any and all opportunities to offer solutions to someone in the process of making the decision. This article makes a very poignant appeal. I hope it has great influence. but it would be immoral to force someone to support another being legally. The US of course has laws enforcing such, but there are many more effective ways of promoting life than with a mandate against one in support of another, and turning women into slaves.
Owning oneself is a foundational principle under natural rights, upon which this country was founded. it is a derived principle under Objectivism.
Either way--it’s none of your business because it’s not your Inn.
If you make a women's body analogous to a building you may as well say that she chose to live in an area where her "home" has a higher probability of some one breaking into it. (This is the part of the analogy symbolizing unwanted pregnancy.) She likes her neighborhood just like women like to have sex, and just because a drunkard or a mentally ill person accidentally enters her house doesn't mean she can't kick them out. Even if it means certain death for the individual she has no obligation.
True but irrelevant. She invited a guest boarder in her bodily inn who didn't ask to be there, nor did it invade her. She has zero right to kill it just because she feels it's inconvenient to her social life.
Innkeepers own their inns. If they bring in helpless boarders, they have no inherent right to kill them just because they feel they'd rather have some empty rooms.
Why?
The mother's body and independence comes first, as always.
/sarc