In Which History Is Not Actually A March of Progress
reposted from The Common Room
The Toltecs in ancient Mexico sacrificed their children to a rain god... presumably considering the exchange of their child's life worth the benefit (rain) to society.
The Vikings practiced female infanticide ~ apparently considering a daughter's life less valuable than that of a son. Better family life by killing a daughter...
Ancient customs in parts of Africa (and sometimes still carried out today) demand the murders of undesirable babies (including some with special needs). These babies are counted as undesirable for the peace and and prosperity of their families or community.
We reel at the ignorance and cruelty. We pat ourselves on the shoulder. We're too enlightened to even contemplate benefiting society by killing our children; we know it doesn't work like that.
Or do we?
A 1995 study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that a little over 17% of women who might consider abortion would be more likely to do it if the fetal tissue (ie, their baby) could be used for medical purposes.
A 1991 poll published in Time magazine found that 18% saw no problems with "conceive and intentionally abort a fetus so the tissue can be used to save another life."
Those stats, and more like them, here.
A mother is supposed to protect the life of her child no matter what society's supposed "needs" are... and we are in a dangerous, dangerous position when we forget that.
The Vikings practiced female infanticide ~ apparently considering a daughter's life less valuable than that of a son. Better family life by killing a daughter...
Ancient customs in parts of Africa (and sometimes still carried out today) demand the murders of undesirable babies (including some with special needs). These babies are counted as undesirable for the peace and and prosperity of their families or community.
We reel at the ignorance and cruelty. We pat ourselves on the shoulder. We're too enlightened to even contemplate benefiting society by killing our children; we know it doesn't work like that.
Or do we?
A 1995 study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal found that a little over 17% of women who might consider abortion would be more likely to do it if the fetal tissue (ie, their baby) could be used for medical purposes.
A 1991 poll published in Time magazine found that 18% saw no problems with "conceive and intentionally abort a fetus so the tissue can be used to save another life."
Those stats, and more like them, here.
A mother is supposed to protect the life of her child no matter what society's supposed "needs" are... and we are in a dangerous, dangerous position when we forget that.