I noticed a new article up at ProLifeTraining.com about a pro-abortion argument that is defended by top pro-abortion scholars. The interesting part about this argument is that they concede the full humanity and personhood of the unborn child.

I’ll let the article explain it:

Spend any amount of time talking about abortion, and you’re likely to hear a variation of the following scenario:

You wake up one morning in bed next to a famous Violinist, who has been connected to you surgically by the Society of Music Lovers. The Violinist has a fatal kidney ailment, and without your bodily support, he will die. The doctor at the hospital informs you that after nine months, the Violinist will have recovered to a point he will no longer need your body for support.

Now, you have a choice to make. You could stay hooked up to this Violinist, and it may very well be good of you to do so, but is it just for the law to compel you to do so? Most people would say no, which raises a further question: What about a woman who becomes pregnant? Is it just for the law to require her to stay attached to a person to sustain their life against her will?

The above scenario is a paraphrase of an argument first made in an essay by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson in 1971, titled “A Defense of Abortion”. The argument has gone on to appear in countless forms, and has been updated and defended by philosophers such as Eileen McDonagh and David Boonin.

Thomson’s argument is strong for a couple of reasons. First, she asks the reader to put themselves in the position of a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy, something everyone, pro-life or pro-choice, should be willing to do. It’s easier to see abortion as a sort of abstract topic without actually thinking of how we would feel if we were to find ourselves in the same position.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, Thomson reframes the argument over abortion by conceding a central element of the pro-life argument: The unborn entity in question could very well be a valuable member of the human family, a “person”, as Thomson argues.

And it doesn’t matter. In the view of Thomson(as well as McDonagh and Boonin) just because someone is a human being with intrinsic value in virtue of their humanity, that does not give them the right to use the body(or bodily tissues and organs) of another person to sustain their own life. This line of argument has become very popular in online as well as in-person discussions over the past year, with pro-life arguments dismissed offhand as ultimately irrelevant. A common assertion online goes like this: It doesn’t matter if abortion kills a life, because no one has the right to use your body without your consent.

Thomson’s argument, and others in the same manner, succeed if the analogies employed can demonstrate the moral principles at play in the decision to get an abortion are similar or the same to the other analogous scenarios.

The article lists a whole bunch of problems with the argument. Before you click through to read it, think about what you would say to the argument. How is the position of the violinist different from the position of the unborn child? How is the position of the violinist’s unwilling donor different from the position of the unborn child? Is having a disease the same as being conceived by the decisions of adults? I made a list of problems, but the list of problems in the article was longer than mine!

Technology is being used to record what the powerful people of the world are saying, so the rest of us can find out what they really think, and plan accordingly. One of the largest corporations that caters to parents of young children is the Disney corporation. After we see some anti-child comments by Disney executives, we’ll look at some sex crimes committed by Disney employees against children.

Here’s a story from Legal Insurrection.

Disney corporate president Karey Burke says:

“I’m here as a mother of two queer children, actually, one transgender child, and one pansexual child and — and also as a leader. And that was the thing that really got me because I have heard so much from so many of my colleagues over the course of the last couple of weeks, in open forums, and through emails and phone conversations. And I feel a responsibility to speak, not just for myself, but for them. To all of us, we had a — we had an open forum last week at 20th, where, again, the home of really incredible, groundbreaking LGBTQIA stories over the years, where one of our execs stood up and said, ‘You know, we only have a handful of queer leads in our content.’ And I went, ‘What? That can’t be true!’ And I — and I — and I realized, ‘Oh, it actually is true.’ We have many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories, and — and — and yet, we don’t have enough leads and narratives in which gay characters just — just get to be characters and — and not have to be about gay stories. And so that’s been very eye-opening for me.”

Watch:

Disney executive producer Latoya Raveneau says:

“Our leadership over there has been so welcoming to like, my like, not-at-all secret gay agenda… I felt like… maybe it was that way in the past, but I guess, like, something must have happened… They’re turning it around, and then all that momentum that I felt, that sense of ‘I don’t have to be afraid, let’s have these two characters kiss in the background…wherever I could, I was basically adding queerness to the show, if you see anything queer in the show, ‘The Proud Family,’ nobody would stop me and nobody was trying to stop me.”

Watch:

I found a very interesting article over at the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, that talks about some of the crimes committed by Disney employees with children.

Excerpt:

But behind its meticulously curated self-image, Disney has had a long-standing problem with child predators gaining employment within the company and exploiting minors. In 2014, reporters at CNN published a bombshell six-month investigation that discovered at least 35 Disney employees had been arrested for sex crimes against children, attempting to meet minors for sex, and possession of child pornography over the previous eight years.

Disney didn’t learn anything from the 2014 CNN story:

Even after the CNN report, Disney has seen a steady stream of employees caught in the dragnet for child predators. In 2019, police arrested a Disney cruise “youth host” for molesting a ten-year-old boy in the ship’s “Oceaneer Kids Lab” and, later that year, arrested another Disney cruise employee for raping a girl “over 100 times” at her home starting when she was 11 years old. (The charges regarding the molestation of the ten-year-old boy were later dropped when the parents did not want to bring the child in for testimony at trial.) Since then, three Disney employees have been arrested for soliciting sex with minors, two have been arrested on 40 total counts of child pornography, and four more were arrested earlier this month in a sting operation targeting “human trafficking, child predators, and prostitution.”

Disney’s attitude to sex crimes with children is to cover them up, and water down the laws against sex crimes:

In 2014, after a crewmember on the Disney Dream cruise ship was caught on security cameras molesting an 11-year-old girl, Disney authorities failed to report the crime until after the ship had left port, which allowed the man to evade arrest. When one security officer protested, Disney authorities allegedly told her to “keep your mouth shut” about the crime. Moreover, according to advocates associated with the International Cruise Victims organization, Disney’s trade-association lobbyists had worked to oppose and then water down federal legislation that would have required stringent safety and reporting protocols for sexual abuse on cruise ships.

So what should we think of these “compassionate” Disney people, who want to promote a sexual agenda to young children, on the grounds of “inclusion” and “tolerance”? Well, what I think is that their “don’t judge” religion really means “don’t protect the weak from predators”. And that’s not surprising – secular leftism has always championed the rights of the strong over the weak. Survival of the fittest – that’s their religion. They don’t judge the predators because they want to be liked by the predators.