In addition, as I noted in my statement with regard to keeping abortion legal, we need to rely somewhat on natural selection to get rid of parental characteristics that would tend to drive them to destroy their own offspring. The state should not forcibly interfere with that natural weeding-out process. As Murray Rothbard pointed out, the state should not even criminalize child neglect, since the child has no rightful claim to the parent's resources.
11 comments
"parental characteristics that would tend to drive them to destroy their own offspring."
"The state should not forcibly interfere with that natural weeding-out process."
You just said to weed out those that would destroy children. Then that the state shouldn't interfere. And now you would destroy the child. Good for the goose is good for the gander. To borrow from the great Anon-e-moose, you said it, we didn't.
Ladies and gentlemen, the end product of Randian libertarianism.
Even Anton LaVey (whose branch of Satanism was heavily influenced by Rand) considered children sacred.
Technically, Nate, that's only true if the factors that cause people to have abortions, or abuse or neglect their children, were genetic . If they're cultural or environmental you won't find much luck with that approach. Also it takes hundreds or thousands of generations to effect that sort of change. I guess maybe our descendants of the year 10,000 might thank you (but probably not).
On the other hand, at least we should all give thanks that his ridiculous contorted logic is leading him to support the right to abortion access.
A child born has definite claim to the parent's resources. That is why you have to make sure that you're actually able to take care of a child BEFORE you give birth.
What you describe, asshole, is what happened before abortions were safe and medically available. People gave birth and then left the newborn out in the open or hid it somewhere to die from exposure or be killed by wolves or other predators, or gave it over to a baby farm (in Sweden known as Angel-maker), where the child was either neglected until it died or just killed as soon as possible. I'd say an abortion before the embryo has a functioning nervous system is much more humane than that.
Didn't they find a large amount of baby and children skeletons and remains near a convent recently? I think it was in Ireland, but I'm not sure. They were probably the offspring of unmarried young girls who were taken there to have the kid and "give it up for adoption".
" As Murray Rothbard pointed out, the state should not even criminalize child neglect, since the child has no rightful claim to the parent's resources."
Let the evolutionary weeding out begin. Starting with Rothbard.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
