2008 US elections top DIGG news

Kant believe it

Language matters. Any pollster will tell you that the results of any survey are dependent upon the language that is employed for the questions posed. Nowhere in the political arena has this been borne out than in the issue of abortion. I have long held that the biggest change in public opinion can be tied to the decision of the news-media to use the pro-life moniker rather than anti-abortion. Now in this issue there are pro-choicers versus pro-lifers. No one is “anti” anymore. Such is the case this past week. In the British parliament, where on a non-party line enforced vote where each member was free to vote his or her opinion, the House of Commons decided to over throw the Kantian “categorical imperative.” You remember the Kant’s “categorical imperative” from introductory philosophy, right? One of Kant’s major postulates is that the moral universe is governed by the rule that people are ends, not means. The implications of the difference between ends and means are profound. People are rights holders not property. Their lives are their own, not at the disposal of others. Yet, the Britain is about to say that it is fine that humans could be born for the express purpose of being used for the betterment of another person. That will be the reason they were conceived and that will be the reason that they are valued. Not because their lives will be precious in and of themselves, but because their body parts will be useful for another person. How can this be in a civilized society? How can such a law be passed overwhelmingly? Because the term used by the proponents and the media has been “savior siblings.” They get to be modern Jesuses. Unfortunately for them they haven’t been given the choice as to whether or not they want this role. Regardless of the fact that such children have no say as to whether one of their kidneys or another organ (or many organs…What’s the reason to stop at one organ?) gets ripped from their bodies, these babies are not called what they really are: “sacrificial siblings.” They really are more Issac than Jesus. They are to be conceived and born to be living warehouses of spare parts for the lives of others. How will they feel when they get older (I am making the assumption that such children will be allowed to live, not killed when their utility has ceased. This may not be a correct assumption, given the state of callousness of society.) to find out that they were not wanted for their own sake. How will they deal with parents, siblings and a culture that can see them as commodities? Who ever told you that sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you, has never been a “savior sibling.”

Txt

Related posts: Nba 2008 playoff schedule, Avent bottles, Godaddy down, Grey`s anatomy, Where is the grand canyon