Saturday, August 20, 2005

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 7

The Threadlet continues:

In response to the following quote by Rand:

"The purpose of an individual's life is not to serve God, the government or one's neighbor. Rather, the purpose of life is one's own happiness, which is secured through productive achievement and by engaging in voluntary, mutually-beneficial relationships with others. A necessary condition for the pursuit of happiness is the recognition and protection of the right to property: "

John responds:

Thus the purpose of a child's life is not to serve your purposes.

I answer: If it wants to live in my body - it better suit my purposes or it won't have the benefit of the use of my body

I had previously remarked:

Lets just say that while the Embryos are frozen - the mother dies. What happens to the RIGHT of embryos to be implanted, gestated and born?

John responds with:

What happens to an infant's rights if both it's parents die? The child's rights are perfectly intact, and nobody has a right to kill the child. But it is also true that nobody remains who has a responsibility to secure the child's rights and preserve it's life. Just because the child has a right to live doesn't mean that those who didn't bring the child into the have any responsility to provide for it.

My response:

If both the parents die - then the child's right to support is dependent upon whether or not anybody is WILLING to provide for it. If nobody is - then it's toast unless it can provide for itself.

Similarly if a parent is incapable of providing for it's child for reasons beyond the parents control - like brain injury - or famine or any number of naturally occuring events in this terribly hard thing called "life" - then the child is shit out of luck unless somebody else steps up to the bat.

I had said:

Reality would dictate that you implant them in the corpse
of the mother - since she has the OBLIGATION to provide for them - and see how long they last...

John says:

Would reality dictate that you put her surviving infant on her cold dead breast to nurse?

My response:

You are the one that claims that the mother has an obligation to provide for her infant children no matter what the circumstance or the choices she has made. Not me.
It's your sick little theory that would place the child at the dead mother's breast not mine.

John says:

Corpses don't have any obligations.

My response:

And a frozen blastocyte, embryo or fetus has exactly the same amount of "right to security" and to be hosted, "fed" or to be cared for, as there are people who are with their free volition - willing to provide for it.

That's nature John. And you can't blank it out - just because is doesn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy.


Post a Comment

<< Home