Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

New Low In Depravity

Rate this topic


SapereAude
 Share

Recommended Posts

It looks like a pure publicity stunt to me. Trying to make money... or trying to make a point.

But that's exactly why I found it so shocking and unique... there is no angle to it that isn't just completely sick! In most horrific things people do you can see some angle where they may just be coming from a faulty premise, or they mean well but are mistaken.. but this is just fantastically inhumanly sick. Lets say they don't abort... can you imagine being the kid that eventually finds out his parents had an online vote by strangers on whether or not to abort him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's exactly why I found it so shocking and unique... there is no angle to it that isn't just completely sick! In most horrific things people do you can see some angle where they may just be coming from a faulty premise, or they mean well but are mistaken.. but this is just fantastically inhumanly sick. Lets say they don't abort... can you imagine being the kid that eventually finds out his parents had an online vote by strangers on whether or not to abort him?

What if they say... "We were never considering abortion. Not for a second. We just wanted to expose how sick the world is. So far 21 thousand people, without knowing us, have actually voted that we should kill the human being we have created and is currently developing into a person."

I don't know. I normally would ignore this crap. (I didn't say it wasn't sick, btw)

Balloon boy was a pretty sick stunt too.

Edit: My guess is they have an activist pro-life agenda and want attention. On the site http://www.birthornot.com/ they show ultrasound pics where you can see the fetus' shape and some video with it moving. They're not going to have an abortion. Never were. They think they're going to expose sick people. And they very likely will (even if two of them happen to be themselves).

Edited by freestyle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, some sort of hidden agenda as well as a possible money factor. I watched them interviewed on television last night and they used both 'pro life' and 'pro choice' arguments. At the end they said something about a woman's right being akin to the President's veto power. I was half way paying attention, but the stupidity of it made me cringe and chuckle. If I remember correctly, I think they said there was a potential money motive because of the number of hits to the website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in agreement with the post above me that there is some hidden agenda here. You can vote as many times as you want in the poll which seems like a mistake that would have not been made (or remedied) had these people wanted serious results. Nonetheless, as someone mentioned above, I would not be too thrilled to find that my parents made a site deciding whether to abort me or not.

edit:

Here's the original post on the site if anyone cares:

Well, Alisha is pregnant. wOOt. I am pretty excited about it. We have had difficulty in the past with three unsuccessful pregnancies and I am hoping this time will be better.

What worries me though is that two of them had issues with genetics, the fetus didn’t develop properly, heart beat was slow, centerline disorder kind of stuff. The third ended at a little over a month, so there wasn’t much detail to it, but kind of depressing after we had gotten into the second trimester just prior.

It is rather unfortunate too to have to reset the whole process, but I am excited at the prospects of being a father. I’ll cross my fingers and toes that this one goes off without a hitch. Alisha’s uncertainties however are valid.

We’ve put off having a kid for so long that I worry there is stagnation in our desire to do so. At first we put it off to finish our childhood, and then I decided mine was not going to end without a push. By that time Alisha had just gotten a new job and was getting settled, so we put it off longer. Now, nearly ten years after our marriage the prospect of being in my 50s when a kid graduates childhood is a bit unnerving. My parents had their two children in their early 20s and I’ve valued the bond I’ve had with my parents because of our closeness in age. I only hope that I could maintain such a relationship with any child we have.

We’ve talked often of having 3-5 children, and starting this process with some time in-between (a year at the most) would end up with a 30-36 year gap between me and the children. Would I be able to give them the same depth of relationship as my father did? This hill we told each other we’d climb is looking more like a mountain.

Edited by OCSL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! I am genuinely appalled by your responses! For a group of people who claim to be champions of individual rights, about the masses not having a say in the life of the individual, this is poor form.

First and foremost, none of us have the right to make a judgement (not to mention a consistently hateful one) about their lives, at all. And the fact that you are so quickly and willing to desire the seizer of the rights of others, is odd.

Secondly, what do you think socialized medicine will do? Place decisions of that magnitude in the hands of random others. The response, both here and on the site that was given, are from many of the same people who are demanding that we, as a nation, face this in our daily lives.

"Mr. Brian0918, you need open heart surgery, and a kidney transplant."

"Oh, my! When will you schedule me?!"

"I'm sorry Brian0918, but your not going to be able to receive this procedure. Your application for the surgery has been denied. It's too expensive for your group."

"Well gosh golly! I wish there was a place that had private doctors so I could get a loan from the bank (one available method right now) so I could pay a doctor who isn't overloaded by the State. And I still can't believe that two people I consider incompetent, would allow the decision of living or not to be decided by random people!"

(Nothing personal Brian0918)

Lastly, let's get real. A man and woman, who've been married for 10 years, with 2 miscarriages, are not going to leave this decision up to random people. Given the responses that I've read on the site that was posted, it'll most likely end up being around 50-50. Also, a woman with multiple miscarriages is more likely to continue to have them. That is a fact, known especially by women in general.

Edited by Lakeside
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and foremost, none of us have the right to make a judgement

What makes you think I have no right to judge them? I have a right to judge anyone I choose in any way I choose. Now, whether that judgement is accurate or not is a different story.

And the fact that you are so quickly and willing to desire the seizer of the rights of others, is odd.

I can only assume this is referring to Brian0918's post. If it's not, then just ignore this. However, if this is the post you're referring to, I'd like to point out that he never said the rights of the parents to have children should be taken away. He expressed his belief that they wouldn't make very good parents, based on the fact that they are putting the decision of whether or not to have their baby up for vote by complete strangers, therefore, were he to vote, he would vote for them to abort. Feel free to correct me if my interpretation is wrong, Brian.

Also, I didn't completely understand the socialized medicine bit (or at least I don't think I did). Are you trying to say that he advocates socialized medicine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not seen anybody here saying these people should be somehow prevented from doing what they are doing. There has only been commentary on what kind of people, especially what kind of parents possibly, these are that would look to make such a big decision about their lives and possibly that of another (meaning, if they decide to have it, if they don't then there's no extra person) by popular vote, especially in a forum where people often may not be giving serious answers even on top of that. Also, what do you mean we have no "right" to make a judgment on this? Since making judgments infringes on nobody else's rights because it employs no force, it is well within people's rights. If you think people should suspend their judgments here even if it is within their rights to do so, you'll need to present your case for that in this situation. However, as a general rule, judgment is an important thing to go through, not something which should be avoided, at least as long as one seems to have sufficient evidence to make a judgment. Judging what kind of people are in the world matters for the same reasons judging what other objects are in the world matters. You have to deal with things in your life and you cannot gain benefits by avoiding treating things for what they are. Furthermore, nobody and nothing exists totally apart from the rest of existence, so even though probably nobody around here will have any direct personal interactions with these people, their actions do have consequences on the world and those consequences will go on to have more consequences and so on. It's kind of like why it matters that a shoplifter not be held blameless even if they didn't rob you or anybody you know and probably never will. Additionally, nobody here is advocating for the acceptance of socialized health insurance and stuff like that even if it just so happens some people elsewhere who also didn't like this poll thing did support socialized health insurance. So, bringing that topic up as if it was some objection to what anybody here has said is completely non-sequitar. If anything, what you said about socialized medicine shows more of why these people seem to be doing a stupid move at best, volunteering themselves to be subjected to this kind of thing, even if they say they may not ultimately heed the poll results. "Lastly, let's get real. A man and woman, who've been married for 10 years, with 2 miscarriages, are not going to leave this decision up to random people." You don't know that. That's something people may hope is the case at best. There really ARE people out there that are not as independent-minded and levelheaded as we may like to think everybody is.

(edit to fix typos)

Edited by bluecherry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Brioan0918 was the first post and is a moderator. I assume you know each other somewhat. It was the easiest reference at hand for someone you know being forced into (and concurrently ) out of, well, anything, by the whim of others. It was nothing in regard to his post. Though it had the tone reserved for a judge.

Bluecherry - I was referencing the site that was posted. In the website (birthornot.com), they documented multiple attempts to thwart their work, many by those employed by us (the constituents of this country).

Edited by Lakeside
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the part of your reply directed at me, that was highly unclear at least then. Your post states the following:

"Wow! I am genuinely appalled by your responses! For a group of people who claim to be champions of individual rights, about the masses not having a say in the life of the individual, this is poor form.

First and foremost, none of us have the right to make a judgement[sic] (not to mention a consistently hateful one) about their lives, at all. And the fact that you are so quickly and willing to desire the seizer[sic] of the rights of others, is odd.

Secondly, what do you think socialized medicine will do? Place decisions of that magnitude in the hands of random others. The response, both here and on the site that was given, are from many of the same people who are demanding that we, as a nation, face this in our daily lives."

I've bolded the parts that make it look like you are referring to problems with things said by people here. Not only do you normally use "you" and "your", but responses "here" looks like you mean on this website at least unless you were to state state you are copy/pasting a comment you put originally some place else, which you did not state. Furthermore, claiming to be be champions of individual rights sounds like people here. If you meant pro-choice people in general who may be responding to this issue elsewhere, they much more typically would just say "rights" or "human rights", furthering the confusion. They also don't usually phrase it as an objection to "the masses" having a say in individual lives in general and more object to the government mucking around on this one issue of the application of bodily integrity.

If you did mean to say these things directed as objections to people elsewhere, not us here, please try to remember to say so directly or at least say "they" instead of "you" in the future. Also though, that doesn't really cover still the part about what you said about nobody having the right to judge them. My objection on that one still stands. You didn't mention anything in response to that point, so if you are now clear on that point I'd appreciate knowing that was settled, but if you still have further objections, I'd like to hear what they are to hopefully work further on clarifying them to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't know Brian0918 at all. And my arguement is basically the same as bluecherry's.

Wow! I am genuinely appalled by your responses! For a group of people who claim to be champions of individual rights, about the masses not having a say in the life of the individual, this is poor form.

This, as well as what bluecherry bolded in their previous post, made me believe you were talking about the posts in this thread, and Brian's was the only one I saw that could possibly deserve that response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current results are:

Give Birth 32.04% (274,325 votes)

Have an Abortion 67.96% (581,996 votes)

...4chan has gotten involved, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...