Pick Me!
Day 4: Are they cute or what?
Three healthy baby Cardinals. I took this last planned photo today, as it was warm and sunny,
there will be rain the next few days, and the day I'm home again is their likely fledge day.
Mama and Papa Cardinal are being wonderfully attentive and hard working.
I admire them greatly. And I leave a grub on the porch for them whenever I find one.
Harriet Tubman is FIRST!
ReplyDeleteNew US $20 bill with anti-slavery activist Harriet Tubman delayed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48375140
This blog officially misses Alan!
ReplyDeleteI don't know who wrote this. No name was given, but it is worth the read.
ReplyDelete.................
Reasonable people can disagree about when a zygote becomes a "human life' - that's a philosophical question. However, regardless of whether or not one believes a fetus is ethically equivalent to an adult, it doesn't obligate a mother to sacrifice her body autonomy for another, innocent or not.
Body autonomy is a critical component of the right to privacy protected by the Constitution, as decided in Griswald v Connecticut (1965), McFall v. Shimp (1978, and of course Roe v. Wade (1973). Consider a scenario where you are a perfect bone marrow match for a child with severe aplastic anemia;, no other person on earth is a close enough match to save the child's life, and the child will certainly die without a bone marrow transplant from you. If you decided that you did not want to donate your bone marrow to save the child, for whatever reason, the state cannot demand the use of any part of your body for something to which you do not consent. It doesn't matter if the procedure required to complete the donation is trivial, or if the rationale for refusing is flimsy and arbitrary, or if the procedure is the only hope the child has to survive, or is the child is a genius or a saint or anything else - the decision to donate must be voluntary to be constitutional. This right is even extended to a person's body after they die; if they did not voluntarily commit to donate their organs while alive, their organs cannot be harvested after death, regardless of how useless those organs are to the deceased or how many lives they would save. That's the law.
Use of a woman's uterus to save a life is no different from use of her bone marrow to save a life - it must be offered voluntarily. By all means, profess your belief that providing one's uterus to save the child is morally jut, and refusing is morally wrong. That is a defensible philosophical position, regardless of who agrees and who disagrees. But legally, it must be the woman's choice to carry out the pregnancy. She may choose to carry the baby to term. She may choose not to. Either decision could be made for all the right reasons, all the wrong reasons, or anything in between. But it must be her choice, and protecting the right of body autonomy means the law is on her side. Supporting that precedent is what being pro-choice means.
Thanks for that quote, Susan. I would love to credit the person who wrote it. Let me know if a name turns up.
DeleteHoping all went well for you in LA, Alan!!
ReplyDeleteHere: blow your mind. Read this.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens if you fall into a black hole?
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150525-a-black-hole-would-clone-you
Well, I disagree. “Life” is one of those immaterial categories humans come up with to justify immoral behavior. All organisms, agglomerations of chemicals that transform matter into changing and self-sustaining entities. Fetal cells are no different and, until they differentiate and multiply enough to become self sustaining in a gaseous, rather than watery, environment, they exist as a parasite whose effect on the host may not be lethal, but is never benign.
ReplyDeleteReproduction is hazardous. In some species (mostly vegetative) it occurs after the parent is dead (think dandelion and cattail). Therefor, because it is hazardous to reproduce, any coercive measures, before, during or after the fact, violate the principles of justice by which humans claim to live. Living without justice is, of course, the norm for organisms we refer to as beasts.
Humans have invented complex systems for killing their own kind absent the need to eat. Cannibalism is, as far as we know, a rare occurence. However, not only has virtual destruction been normalized as sacrifice, punitive measures short of actual death are uncritically applied as a matter of routine.
Just think what “no free lunch,” a slogan routinely spouted by the stewards of our material resources and assets, actually means. “If you do not work (do what you are told), you will starve to death.” But, no, it will not be the fault of those who designated the resources for exclusive use by a few and then made sure there would be no pay for work. That’s the responsibility of the person who will not, cannot obey.
Blaming the victim comes in a variety of flavors. The false attribution of agency is an error in logic. Its prevalence in the press and popular culture suggests it is not unintentional.