...and sometimes they don't even bother wearing the mask:
Behold the re-emergence of the lebensunwertes Leben!
The OFloinn's random thoughts on science fiction, philosophy, statistical analysis, sundry miscellany, and the Untergang des Abendlandes
Reviews
A beautifully told story with colorful characters out of epic tradition, a tight and complex plot, and solid pacing. -- Booklist, starred review of On the Razor's Edge
Great writing, vivid scenarios, and thoughtful commentary ... the stories will linger after the last page is turned. -- Publisher's Weekly, on Captive Dreams
Great writing, vivid scenarios, and thoughtful commentary ... the stories will linger after the last page is turned. -- Publisher's Weekly, on Captive Dreams
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Whoa, What's This?
adam
amateur theology
anthropology
aphorisms
Aquinas
argument from motion
Aristotelianism
art
atheism
autumn of the modern ages
books
brains
breaking news
captive dreams
cartoon
charts
chieftain
clannafhloinn
comix
commentary
counterattack
crusades
culcha
dogheads
easton stuff
economics
eifelheim
evolution
factoids on parade
fake news
fallen angels
Feeders
fir trees in lungs
firestar
flicks
floods
flynncestry
flynnstuff
forecasts
forest of time
fun facts
gandersauce
gimlet eye
global warming
glvwg
headlines
henchmen
high frontier
history
home front
how to lie with statistics
humor
Hunters Moon
hush-hush
hypatia
in the house of submission
irish
Iron Shirts
irrationalism
january dancer
jihad
journeyman
kabuki
kool
letter
lion's mouth
lunacon
maps
mayerling
medieval
metrology
miscellany
modern mythology
moose zombies
music
new years
nexus
odds
odds and ends
paleofuture
passing of the modern age
philosophy
philosophy math
poetry
politics
potpourri
psyched out!
public service
quality
quiet sun
quote of the day
razor's edge
redefinition of marriage
religio
reviews
river of stars
scandal
science
science marches on
scientism
scrivening
shipwrecks of time
shroud
skiffy
skiffy in the news
skools
slipping masks
some people will believe anything
stats
stories
stranger things
the auld curmudgeon
the madness continues
the new fascism
the russians are coming
the spiral arm
the writing life
thomism
thought for the day
thread o' years
tofspot
topology
untergang des abendlandes
untergang des morgenlandes
up jim river
video clips
vignettes
war on science
we get letters
we're all gonna die
whimsy
words at play
wuv
xmas
you can't make this stuff up
So let me get this straight, she thinks that it's 100% within your rights to kill or let out to die ANYBODY and ALWAYS someone who is dependent on your body, no matter how arbitrary the reasons.
ReplyDeleteBy this logic, it seems that if you are keeping someone from falling off a cliff by holding onto them, that it is 100% OK for you to just let them freefall; oops, sorry, late to pick up the kids, see you in purgatory...
Sigh... I'm suddenly starting to feel sick...
Of course, building on my last post, we wouldn't want to take away from a woman the right to choose what to do with her arm; that would just be barbaric. (as we, with a straight face, insist that the lady in the front row keep her hands down until it is time to answer questions.)
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to feel queasy again..,
I love the phrase "what is right for her circumstances". I missed that one in CCD and confirmation class; non a sophisticate that I am, I fall back on the less nuanced "what is right".
ReplyDeleteIt is truly wonderful to see such an unstoppable force bearing down on such a vacuous obstacle:
ReplyDelete- On the one hand, a fetus is a life "worth sacrificing" (presumably because it is a life wholly dependent on another and, therefore, secondary in value).
- On the other, the division between what constitutes a "fetus" (or, a wholly-dependent human being without legal protection) and a "baby" (a being with such protection) is itself entirely dependent on the other's personal (and quite possibly momentary) feelings on the subject.
How dependent is "wholly dependent"? What kinds of dependence constitute "dependence" (e.g, financial, emotional)? What sorts of feelings constitute acceptance (and ontological promotion), and for how long? Is there a "no-takes-backsies" rule in effect? Why?
When Roe first came down, I was in high school. Even then, it seemed the most obvious argument was from enlightened self-interest: if we get to arbitrarily say when life begins and when and if life deserves protection, then we've just opened ourselves up to the inevitable Mao or Committee for Public Safety. who will decide *our* life is not sacred or worth protecting, as it inconveniences them, who, after all, are the real People Who Matter. After all, why should only mother's feeling about their own child count? Other people might suffer from my existence, too. Thus, any living person should hold the line at human life always being sacred and protected by law, and beginning at conception, which is the only non-arbitrary point and the point at which the question first arises - for their own safety.
ReplyDeleteAs I grew older, and became aware that our rulers have, for the last few centuries, consistently tried to define human life as having meaning only within the context of the state, such that our value as human beings is contingent on whether we advance the aims of the state (of the rulers, of course, in practice) or not, this willingness to accept arbitrary definitions of life became ever more alarming. Fichte, Hegel and of course Marx are most clear on this, but, apart from theory, the practices of many states starting in the 20th century are very enlightening in this regard. Bracing, even.
If I am using my finger, which is part of my body, to push the button that will launch a nuke at the offices of Salon, reason dictates that the live of everybody within a several mile radius of ground zero is dependent on my body and what I choose to do with it. So what if my choice ends their lives. I need to do what I need to do for me.
ReplyDeleteOne notices by their logic that if I donated an organ to save them, I would then have the right to hack them open to reclaim the organ -- and furthermore, to hack them open in a manner that maximized their chances of dying.
ReplyDeleteYou notice how they invariably claim that it's like their having to donate an organ, not noticing that if you don't donate an organ, you never have to lay a finger on the other person.
This story is a year old. It caused a few ripples at the time it was published but not so much since. It is the default position now. It is noteworthy, perhaps, in its nakedness, but the truly committed partisans all really think that way. This is why I think that the "photos", as they are called, don't really help. They either hurt women who have had an abortion, or they simply don't have an effect on the Williamses of the world. Only prayer can do that.
ReplyDeleteThe honest ones were saying this in the 1970's. "Life is cheap, 'cause we're realists! People die every day. Who cares?!" I knew because I grew up with one. Fortunately she has repented by now. The clarion call of convenience being a higher "virtue" than life itself is a seductive one. The seduced won't see the problem until the error affects the seduced personally.
ReplyDelete