Aborted Reasoning
Think about it, the people that favor abortion, generally decry capitol punishment. So death to the innocent (generally soft-termed "right to choice") allows humans the right to end the life of a person that has never made a choice, but disallows humans the right to collectively put an end to someone who has chosen to end a life.
Does this make sense? It is okay to kill an innocent, but inhumane to kill the perpetrator guilty of a heinous crime.
Probably it all comes down to what is seen and what is not seen, what is little and what is big. A human fetus is very small, it hardly looks human, and it is unseen (hidden within a woman's body), whereas a mass murderer is comparatively big (in relation to a fetus) and is generally not hidden within a woman's body, and usually passes for human. So we cringe at terminating the life of a big person which appears human that we can see, but find it reasonable to end a human life because we cannot see it and it hardly appears human.
When does the fetus cease to be "part of a woman's body" or a "woman's choice?" Is it when it is separated from the host? So that a baby whose umbilical cord is severed is a human on its on right, no longer a piece of flesh sprouting from another person -- at this point it would be a crime to jab a scalpel into its head, correct?
Is this right? Does it make sense?
But when the baby's head has not crowned, it is not a person, and a sharp instrument that is inserted to find and destroy the baby, a penetration that rips and tears the infant brain mass, perforate the tiny beating heart, eradicate the fluttering bloodstream and process of cell production, ceasing all life functions -- this is nothing more than removing a tumor from a patient's body? Or liposuction? It's just fat, fluid, matter, no substance that any yuppy would affix a price tag. As long as the human being is hidden within another human being, it is not a human being, but part of the body which it is hidden within, isn't this the logic prevailing in our society today? It is not a baby, because it has uttered no discernible cries, nor has its tiny fingers gripped an adult's pinky finger, it has made no choices, consumed no products -- it's just not human. It is wet and disgusting and helpless.
(Of course, five minutes later, cleaned and sponged, screaming like the Dickens, it is recognizable as a human, and we can place diapers upon its lower half thus ensuring that it is now a consumer of our goods, and so of course this is a baby, don't be stupid!)
And yet a sociopath, someone who judges themselves to be "real" and other people outside their orbit to be mere inflatable objects -- when this sociopath goes on a wanton killing spree and ends the lives of ten to fifteen people and even boasts of his feat, comparing himself to other serial killers he has idolized -- we as human beings do not have the right to terminate this sociopath's life, correct? Isn't this the logic prevailing in our society today?
Isn't this Michael Moorlock Think?
But it's not a baby, the Eloai protest, it cannot live on its own, it is a mere parasite attached to an innocent host, it cannot be called human! And the sociopath? He's not guilty of his crimes because it is a callous society that has created him! Frankenstein's monster is not guilty because Doctor Frankenstein created it, so as a society we cannot punish Frankenstein's monster, but only shackle it and keep it from hurting future torch-wielding peasants.
Does this make sense? It is okay to kill an innocent, but inhumane to kill the perpetrator guilty of a heinous crime.
Probably it all comes down to what is seen and what is not seen, what is little and what is big. A human fetus is very small, it hardly looks human, and it is unseen (hidden within a woman's body), whereas a mass murderer is comparatively big (in relation to a fetus) and is generally not hidden within a woman's body, and usually passes for human. So we cringe at terminating the life of a big person which appears human that we can see, but find it reasonable to end a human life because we cannot see it and it hardly appears human.
When does the fetus cease to be "part of a woman's body" or a "woman's choice?" Is it when it is separated from the host? So that a baby whose umbilical cord is severed is a human on its on right, no longer a piece of flesh sprouting from another person -- at this point it would be a crime to jab a scalpel into its head, correct?
Is this right? Does it make sense?
But when the baby's head has not crowned, it is not a person, and a sharp instrument that is inserted to find and destroy the baby, a penetration that rips and tears the infant brain mass, perforate the tiny beating heart, eradicate the fluttering bloodstream and process of cell production, ceasing all life functions -- this is nothing more than removing a tumor from a patient's body? Or liposuction? It's just fat, fluid, matter, no substance that any yuppy would affix a price tag. As long as the human being is hidden within another human being, it is not a human being, but part of the body which it is hidden within, isn't this the logic prevailing in our society today? It is not a baby, because it has uttered no discernible cries, nor has its tiny fingers gripped an adult's pinky finger, it has made no choices, consumed no products -- it's just not human. It is wet and disgusting and helpless.
(Of course, five minutes later, cleaned and sponged, screaming like the Dickens, it is recognizable as a human, and we can place diapers upon its lower half thus ensuring that it is now a consumer of our goods, and so of course this is a baby, don't be stupid!)
And yet a sociopath, someone who judges themselves to be "real" and other people outside their orbit to be mere inflatable objects -- when this sociopath goes on a wanton killing spree and ends the lives of ten to fifteen people and even boasts of his feat, comparing himself to other serial killers he has idolized -- we as human beings do not have the right to terminate this sociopath's life, correct? Isn't this the logic prevailing in our society today?
Isn't this Michael Moorlock Think?
But it's not a baby, the Eloai protest, it cannot live on its own, it is a mere parasite attached to an innocent host, it cannot be called human! And the sociopath? He's not guilty of his crimes because it is a callous society that has created him! Frankenstein's monster is not guilty because Doctor Frankenstein created it, so as a society we cannot punish Frankenstein's monster, but only shackle it and keep it from hurting future torch-wielding peasants.
DCLWolf Links:
posted by DCLWolf | 2:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home