3 year old starved to death by her parents
I do not mean to offend anyone here with this, but…
There are very few things that illicit an emotional reaction from me and this is one of them. People ask if I believe in the death penalty. Truthfully, I would volunteer to put the bullets in their heads myself. These two are complete, total, and 100% evil. They deserve to die.
There are very few things that illicit an emotional reaction from me and this is one of them. People ask if I believe in the death penalty. Truthfully, I would volunteer to put the bullets in their heads myself. These two are complete, total, and 100% evil. They deserve to die.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
I'm sure you'll disdain me asking but I hope you'll give me an answer with all the condescension I am sure you're capable of.
Responsibility for the consequences of one's consciously chosen actions.
Consciously Chosen Action: Ms. X chose to have sex with some guy.
Consequence: She got pregnant. (Makes no difference to the moral issue if the pregnancy was unintentional).
Responsibility: She's morally obligated to care for that embryo-fetus until it's born. Then she's obligated either to care for it as her child, or put it up for adoption so that someone else can care for it.
If someone other wants the embryo-fetus and technology allows transplanting it from Ms. X to Ms. Y, fine. If technology advances to the point at which the embryo-fetus can be "evicted" from Ms. X's body and incubated in an "embryo development chamber", also fine. Technology's not there, yet.
The context was "responsibility for the consequences of one's own consciously chosen actions."
http://www.peikoff.com/essays_and_articl...
>The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. **The embryo is clearly pre-human;**
"Pre-human"? What the heck is a "pre-human"? I've never heard that term before. Abortion advocates used to describe the embryo as "Potentially human" (which it is not; it is an early state of an ACTUAL human being), but "pre-human" is a new one on me. Peikoff continues:
> "only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.
Peikoff's self-imposed ignorance of biochemistry and embryology is impressive. Actual, real, concrete, physical, material human life begins at conception — biochemists and embryologists all say so. See here, for one example of many:
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articl...
The last quote in the above link is interesting:
"[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo....
"I'll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
"The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena -- where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation -- as well as in the confines of a doctor's office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients."
* * *
It's clear, then, that Peikoff uses the term "pre-human" in a political sense, and for political purposes, and not in any embryologically exact, or scientifically precise, way.
Peikoff continues:
>"We must not confuse potentiality with actuality."
But that is precisely what Peikoff is doing. More accurately, he his *conflating* the two terms.
>An embryo is a potential human being.
No, it is an actual human being, but at an early stage in development. That it's in an early stage of development doesn't make it "potential." It's still "actual." Peikoff's epistemological confusions here are shocking.
>It can, granted the woman’s choice, develop into an infant.
And an "infant" is an actual, real, concrete, material human being at another early stage of development, which, if not left to starve by its parents, can develop into an adolescent. And an adolescent can develop into an adult. And an adult can develop into an old man or woman. Each stage of development — embryo, fetus, infant, adolecent, adult, senior — is simply a different stage of what is, at every point in time, an actual, real, concrete, material human being.
A "potential" human being is one that isn't actual, real, concrete, and material, i.e., it's the gleam in mom and dad's eyes when they decide to start making babies.
Peikoff continues showing his readers how ignorant he is of developmental biology:
>But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman’s body.
"Relatively undifferentiated"? The word "relatively" is Peikoff's attempt at hedging. "Relatively" compared to what? The embryo is "relatively" MORE differentiated than before it was fertilized, and "relatively" less differentiated than when it's an infant. So? Differentiation happens upon fertilization.
>If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.
Not it isn't. And to compare it to a frog or a fish is just plain ignorant. But basic biochem was never Peikoff's strong suit.
>If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an “unborn child,” we could, with equal logic, call any adult an “undead corpse” and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.
In fact, it is Peikoff who is equating — "conflating" is more accurate — the actual with the potential. As stated previously, an embryo is an actual human being that is potentially an infant; the infant is an actual human being that is potentially an adult; etc.
>That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm,
Fantastic ignorance. Peikoff sounds like old Ernst Haeckle from the 19th century, who believed (incorrectly) that the cell was simply a "mass of protoplasm", comprising a few chemical ingredients easily obtained from primeval "warm little ponds" billions of years ago. Sorry, Ernst! Sorry Lenny! The cell is a goddamn biochemical factory, run by means of a biochemical operating system — with "stop codes", "go codes", "either/or codes", etc. — encoded within a genetic algorithm. The actual moment-to-moment functioning of the cell being carried out by nano-technology: molecular-sized machines. Lenny, if you're too old, senile, or lazy to read books on this subject, you can at least watch some computer animations of it on YouTube. Most of them were made by atheist professors of molecular biology or biochemistry, so you can be confident they are not trying to smuggle in "stolen" religious ideas.
>It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism,
So? Why should physical separability/inseparbility be the differentia of what is or is not an "actual" human being? This is a pure assertion of an arbitrary definition on Peikoff's part. Did Ayn Rand ever say that spatial-extension + physical separability are the two criteria on which individual rights depend, because spatial-extention + physical separability are the epistemological criteria for the concept of "individual"? I don't remember her saying or writing that.
In any case, Peikoff is technically wrong, too. While it is true that *with present technology* an embryo cannot exist on its own outside of a uterus, that may change with advances in technology. And additionally, an embryo can be removed from one woman's uterus and inserted into another woman's to continue development.
>That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host.
Sure it can. In fact, there's an entire legal theory within liberatarianism called "eviction theory" that deals specifically with that issue.
Peikoff's arguments are weak and his assertions arbitrary.
Maybe he should practice what Ayn Rand preached: he should check his premises.
Ah, so it was the confinement — not the withholding of food — that constituted the physical abuse and therefore, the crime?
Got it.
So, by your lights, had the parents allowed the 3-year old to wander (or crawl) around freely, as well as allowing it to leave their home, catch a bus, or hail a taxi, and go to a job-placement agency to find remuniterative work in order to feed itself, then no crime would have been involved by the mere fact of witholding food.
Got it.
By the way, Objectivism does not say this; Ayn Rand never said it and never would have; and you are very confused on this issue.
Just letting you know that what you claim to believe in the name of Objectivism has nothing to do with Objectivism.
Try keeping the context of this thread in mind.
Wrong. YOU hold that; not Objectivism.
Human life begins whenever Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, or Harry Binswanger claims it begins.
>Are we not responsible to what we create?
Heck, not if it interferes with one's personal pleasure! "Just because I have sex for pleasure doesn't mean I'm obligated to enslave myself to an unintended consequence of my action."
"Just because I gamble for pleasure — with every intention of winning — doesn't mean that I must therefore enslave myself to honoring I debt I might incur if I unintentionally lose. C'mon! Enslaving myself to debt repayment interferes with my pleasure!"
[an Objectivist]
In Objectivism , there is a difference between doing something "willingly" and an act that is consistent with Rand's ethics of selfishness. Hitler certainly did what he did willingly, but he did not act in accordance with the ethics of selfishness. It is possible to take on handicapped children in a way that's consistent with Rand's idea of "selfishness." So, if these people you know are doing this from a place of society thinks it's a good thing or self-sacrifice, that would not be consistent with Rand. Objectivist view would preclude the Christianity notion of "the devil having a field day with this couple." Objectivism does distinguish between good and evil. Acting in a philosophically selfless or altruistic way is evil. it's a tough discussion but and we may disagree, but I appreciate your points.
This site is about AR's Objectivism and objectively, the mother is responsible for her own life first, as is the father.
A child's life is no more important than that of the mother or father.
The state or society has little or no business involving itself in such a matter, unless there's evidence of malice.
There's not sufficient information about this case to determine much of anything, other than a child with severe birth defects died.
A purely emotional (knee jerk) reaction is not Objective
The death penalty administered by the state 'for the good of all' is not Objective and serves no good or purpose. State sanctioned murder is murder, cold and calculated. The only justification for murder is self-protection.
In our society, a mother's duty to her child has been romanticized beyond reality, and the desire to 'save' every child's life at any and all cost and regardless of the viability of the child has only resulted in an enormous burden to a family, and detracts from the ability of that family to have and raise other viable children.
Equating this situation to abortion is nonsense.
And yes, I have two glorious sons. And further, I've experienced the abortion of neonates even though I wouldn't have had it been my decision alone, but they were the decisions of the mother. I accepted and respected those decisions.
KYFHO
Everyone knows something is wrong here, the fact that an innocent person is dead. The facts are that the person wasn't fed. Here's the gap we all assume: the parents were obligated to feed it. It is an easy gap to fill in any philosophy, everyone agrees the parents were morally obligated to feed it. To be consistent we have to determine what caused this obligation, and that cause either has to be universal, or we need to change our philosophy. Most philosophies would argue that by giving the birth to the child the parents implicitly agree to care for it. I personally dislike implicit contacts as do most of you in here who don't believe in the "social contract." The real cause of the parents obligation is that they must have at some point explicitly stated they were going to provide for the child until it was 18. It is hard to go through life without anyone asking you how your child is doing. At some point they said they were taking care of it. At some point, they lied.
There is no doubt the child could have received care either from the extended family or the state or charity. But no one was concerned because the parents were claiming the responsibility.
If you kidnap some one, and lock them in your basement against there will you have committed the crime of kidnapping. When you kidnap them, you are going to have to feed them, if they starve to death you have committed murder. By preventing someone from taking care of themselves or preventing a third party from giving the care you are committing murder.
As for the punishment, I'm not going to way in on that.
Your last statement is referring murder. Objectivism holds that not providing support is not the same thing as committing murder.
In this case on this post, the "parents" clearly engaged in severe abuse resulting in the death of a human being.The child was confined and severely abused. The axiom is I own myself. If we can make a moral case for hoarding food in a starving situation, then we must admit that no action can require you to ever be a slave to someone else. you can't say-well in these cases yes-but in this case no. It's not an axiom if there are a bunch of exceptions-there must be something more fundamental-no matter how uncomfortable.
As a mother, I understand the axiom-it sometimes makes me uncomfortable, but it would be immoral for me to force my decision on another.
yes, the jury would. Many laws are wrong, so what? . . . just because I have sex, does not mean I have contracted or made a moral obligation to support someone or become their slave.
Even Ayn Rand believed that we were responsible for our OWN actions. If you engage in an activity that may result in the consequence of the creation of a life, you must be prepared to bear that consequence. Just as if a man were to have sex with a woman and then kill her to prevent him from becoming a father, would have to answer for ending that life.
Load more comments...