Войти в систему

Home
    - Создать дневник
    - Написать в дневник
       - Подробный режим

LJ.Rossia.org
    - Новости сайта
    - Общие настройки
    - Sitemap
    - Оплата
    - ljr-fif

Редактировать...
    - Настройки
    - Список друзей
    - Дневник
    - Картинки
    - Пароль
    - Вид дневника

Сообщества

Настроить S2

Помощь
    - Забыли пароль?
    - FAQ
    - Тех. поддержка



Пишет nancygold ([info]nancygold)
@ 2024-11-13 17:53:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Настроение: contemplative
Музыка:Like the wind/The Most Mysterious Song on the Internet (2a03 + sunsoft 5b famicom cover)
Entry tags:computing

The Abortion Argument
For me the abortion argument (about the embryo having qualities of a human being) doesn't exist.

My argument is instead: why is it wrong to kill human beings, when they get in the way? If a person can kill the armed nigger who invaded the house to do harm, why a woman can't kill the baby which invaded her body and leeches her health, and harms her financially? Babies are parasites, since it is impossible to defend their usefulness to the host.

Farmers murder vermin, boutiques burn the unsold collections. So why human babies can't be incinerated that well, when there is no place for them on the planet? Why humanity wants to create more suffering?

I classify this question under computing, since I don't see fundamental difference between the humanity as a process and the processes we deal with in computing, like the memory management or killing a useless program. In this context, a birth of unwanted baby is similar to a memory leak, which evolves into memory corruption, going over the memory intended for useful tasks.



(Читать комментарии) - (Добавить комментарий)


(Анонимно)
2024-11-13 20:02 (ссылка)
>a useless

Obviously, one person's opinion isn't be all and end all thing. Even collective opinon isn't considered reliable enough to decide life and death, for obvious reasons. That's why enlightened states banned executions, because humans are fallible.


>usefulness to the host.

And since when general usefulness is defined by usefulness to the host. What's your usefulness to the Netherlands, your hosting country? Should they kill you?

>can kill the armed nigger who invaded the house to do harm

Only in America.

...

Anyway I too support abortions and even post birth abortions of Sadkovs, but "usefulness to the host" argument is incredibly idiotic. Typical psycho distortion weighting everything from the singular self-centered point of view. Moral questions are decided at worst based on "usefulness"/ utility to the society at large, and enlightened states also consider the individualist point of view, including the point of view of the would be new (potential or already born) human.

(Ответить) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-11-13 23:45 (ссылка)
your opinion

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-11-14 00:03 (ссылка)
да, но аргументированное

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-11-14 01:34 (ссылка)
your opinion

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-11-14 03:29 (ссылка)
а, так ты из этих... сорян

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)


(Анонимно)
2024-11-14 03:57 (ссылка)
your opinion

(Ответить) (Уровень выше)


(Читать комментарии) -