The main reason the Cathevangelicals demand a mother's death so that the fetus can survive and make women carry to term even if the baby is their brother or sister is that these people are sick and unhealthy individuals. Unlike Buddhists, who know that suffering is universal and a key to enlightenment, the Evangelichristers seek out suffering in emulation of their pale Galilean god. Perhaps if we had a crucifixion festival, we could send a few on their way, hire a few jobless to do the hammering, participants buy the timber and the nails. Notice how phoney proud Sarah Palin was, strutting around onstage and holding that Down's baby like it was a prop in a stage play. Which of course it was: these slugs are not above using their deformities to curry the votes of like-minded sinners. This is what the whole concept of sin is all about: you let the priests and pastors tell you what you're doing wrong, and you make amends. The only possible reason people so debase themselves is that they fear death. I am hoping there is an afterlife, so that I can spend it with Darwin, Galileo, Hitchens, and Einstein. In that other place, I would be bored to tears.
I think all sorts of imperfect babies should be carried to term UNLESS the life of the mom is threatened. That is because I also support adoptions. And I think the Rick Santorums of this world should be forced to adopt all of the little unwanted babies, don't you? That is because, as the late great George Carlin observed, these religious bigots are very eager and aggressive in protecting you when you are nine months out and ending when born. To quote Carlin, "You're then on your own." I think that if the Rick Santorums and Sarah Palins are going to demand that all babies be carried to term and delivered alive, then the Santorums and Palins of this world should honor the mothers' desire not to keep them. The pols should adopt all such children, even if they are born on crack
I think people could have the right to bring their unsurvivable fetuses to term or keep human vegetables alive indefinitely as long as they and only they pay for it in a globally just system.
For example, every citizen of planet earth could share in the birth rights available (limited by the carrying capacity of Earth) by investing in the ideals/values of their choice. The invested group would be solely responsible for their collective medical and institutional care, and their offspring would be collectively obligated to support them in old age with the values they chose. Every collective would only get a prorated number of birth permits, keeping the overall population sustainable. When the body politic is no longer a commons, selective pressures would favor groups who choose wisely. If you opt for a group that has low standards, others will get to have crack babies instead of you having a child. If there are a limited number of rights to reproduce over which couples compete, the values you commit to will impact your family size. It won't impact families in competing collectives.
Groups that selected for healthy intelligent offspring would thrive. Groups that selected for spina bifida and achephalic babies would have heavier tax burdens, as the remaining members of the generation would have to make up for the terminally ill young the collective chose to have instead of healthy children.
Values wouldn't have to be imposed from a hierarchy or from a democracy. The world would have to be highly connected, but selection could act as a market force. Computer programs would spring up predicting the costs to the individual of every group value, not only monetary but raising or lowering your chances of reproducing. Second and later generation members of Cathevangelical groups would be less competitive as prospective mates, because they'd come with lower chances of having viable children, with higher medical bills, and a heavier tax to support their elderly. By the fourth or fifth generation, demands to switch out of fundamentalist/authoritarian religious groups (and values) or to restructure the values within those groups would rise spontaneously.
It all comes down to not exporting the consequences of your own choice to everyone else.
"Birth Permits" ... YES!!! I've believed in that idea for decades! And to get one, a person has to pass a whole battery of very stringent medical, intelligence, and psychological tests. Or at least the kind of investigations that adoption agencies are supposed to administer.
PS: I just started a discussion about Virginia's HB 462 in Hang With Friends...I called it WOW War On Women
If a fetus is not considered a human being, then abortions are OK for just about any reason. If a fetus IS considered a human being, then abortion would not be OK for almost any reason. Santorum and Palin are internally consistent, in that they believe and promote that abortion is murder, so the children of rape and incest, or children with developmental differences, can not be killed either before or after being born. I disagree that a fetus is a human being, so to me, if someone wants to prevent suffering by aborting a fetus with chromosomal or genetic disease, that is fine. And for that matter, if they just don't want to bring a child into the world, that's not for me to judge.
". The only possible reason people so debase themselves is that they fear death. I am hoping there is an afterlife, so that I can spend it with Darwin, Galileo, Hitchens, and Einstein. In that other place, I would be bored to tears."
LOL indeed. oh well... guess life is a broken record of immortality in that case? of after life being fact. which it's not.
My mom wishes their was an afterlife so she could go through peoples homes and see how they are decorated... lol
Rational Robot, wasn't it Descartes who devised an argument for hedging one's bets. I meant that if the believers are right, that there is a hell, then at least I will be amongst fellow travelers. Ironically, that is a bit too much like heaven, so we will have to resort to left hand path Gnosticism to resolve the matter. Bunuel anyone?