The Poor, Malthusianism, Eugenics and Abortion Alexander Blackstone The abortionist movement has succeeded in presenting abortion as a solution for the problems of mothers who are poor. But the truth of the matter is far from that. One of the roots of the deep socio-cultural problems that are facing the poor in this country are connected to the collapse of the two-parent family structure. Melissa S. Kearney has shown, first, that while in 1980 80% of the children of this country lived in two-parent families, in 2019 only 57% do. This is a dramatic decline. She has also shown that “children who grow up without two parents in their home are at a substantial disadvantage relative to kids who do.” [1] She bases this statement on very careful socio-economic statistical research. She does not investigate the causes of the collapse of the two-parent family structure, though. Towards the end of her book, in a careful way (covered with statistical and social science protec...
Entradas
- Obtener enlace
- X
- Correo electrónico
- Otras aplicaciones
Arguments and pseudo-arguments for abortion and replies to them Alexander Blackstone That abortion is illicit can be proved through this argument: It is illicit to directly kill an innocent human being; But the unborn is an innocent human being. Therefore, it is illicit to kill the unborn. It is a straightforward syllogism whose premises are obvious enough. However, that abortion is licit, at least in some cases, is a thesis that has been held with a variety of arguments. Here I will respond to all the arguments of this kind that have come to my notice. I will do it not because there are no other sources where to find this list but just to (a) make it easier for whoever happens to run into this blog and to (b) reply to people of flesh and blood that have held many of these arguments in discussion with me. Here, then the list of arguments and their replies: (1) Although I pers...
- Obtener enlace
- X
- Correo electrónico
- Otras aplicaciones
A Dialogue Concerning Abortion Alexander Blackstone (Nom de Plume) Yesterday I attended a friend’s birthday party and witnessed a fascinating discussion among friends. There, around a table with beers and tapas , John met Charles and they began to chat about their lives, the world and about South Dakota. The coming elections fell into the subject of conversation and soon after the referendum concerning abortion. (1) Charles obviously regards John as a sensible man, mindful of other people’s rights, because he looked surprised when John stated that he supports the legalization of abortion because, although he personally opposes it, he may not impose his opinion on other people. When Charles heard this, he was perplexed, because that is precisely what all laws, and especially criminal laws, do, to impose an opinion about what is right and wrong on all those who are subject to the legislator. So, he just stated this point, which he thought would be plain enough so ...
- Obtener enlace
- X
- Correo electrónico
- Otras aplicaciones
The hypocrisy and the lies behind amendment G Alexander Blackstone (nom de plume) This coming November South Dakota is going to vote on amendment G, that is to say, whether abortion will become a constitutional “right” or not. In other words, whether doctors should be entitled to kill an innocent human being. The promoters of this referendum declare that all they want is to empower South Dakotans, their families and their health care providers to be able to make decisions concerning whether to have or not to have an abortion, and to wrestle such power from the politicians in Pierre. They claim that now women may not access an abortion even if their health is at risk and that they run the risk of being punished if they abort. These allegations are a total misrepresentation of the truth. I must start by stating that there is no moral teaching or legal usage that condemns indirect abortion. That is to say, nowhere ever has been punished the killing of the unborn by an...