On The California-Texas Foiled Baby Murder Case, Part II: Ethics Verdicts

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Again, I don’t know how any thoughtful, ethical person could question the outcome in this case. Apparently the “intended parents” refused to agree that they would seek appropriate medical care for the child after he was born with a serious but medically correctable heart problem. Having been unsuccessful in their efforts to have the child aborted late term, these ghouls were going to get custody of the child and perhaps have a hospital administer “palliative care”…that is, let the baby die. Pleasantly, of course,

A legal battle, at least regarding the life of the child, was averted when the child was born ahead of the September 3 due date.

As with some of the other cases discussed in Part 1, how could a typical pro-abortion advocate who uses the standard pro-abortion rhetoric about women’s “bodily autonomy” argue that the parents could force the surrogate to undergo an abortion? Yet abortion activists are apparently immune to integrity, logic, and decency. The main thing is to get the unborn child disposed of.

The surrogate’s contract contained a clause obligating her to submit to an abortion if the “intended parents” demanded it. The lawyers who drafted that contract should be sued for legal malpractice, and there are arguable ethical violations as well. I am wondering how common such contracts are, and how often they are enforced. For human beings cannot sell themselves into slavery or otherwise contract away their “unalienable rights.” That contract provision is unenforceable as against public policy, and should be made illegal by statute.

Republicans should pass the bill in the House and make Democrats show their lack decency when they vote it down.

Ethics points:

Pages: 1 2

On The California-Texas Foiled Baby Murder Case, Part I: Prelude

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Yesterday, an ugly abortion controversy was resolved by the birth of “Baby Gabriel.” Here the legal/ethical gray areas involving hired surrogate mothers and the legal/ethical not-quite-so-gray areas regarding legal abortion mated to create a monster.

Upon learning that the baby gestating in their surrogate’s womb was not perfect (the unborn boy had a congenital heart defect), a California couple decided to exercise a provision in the surrogacy contract and force the mother-by-proxy to undergo an abortion. Instead, the surrogate fled to Texas, where abortion is illegal. Thanks in part to the intervention of Texas AG Ken Paxton (who is running for governor), the baby in question was born. Now there is a dispute over who gets custody. The birth mother has decided she wants the child anti-abortion activists have named “Gabriel.” The couple that wanted to have him killed wants him too.

Guess which I would choose, were I the infant.

I’ll examine that mess in Part II, but ahead, from the EA archives, is the last post Ethics Alarms had regarding the generally messy ethics issue of surrogate motherhood, from 2016, Pre-Unethical Conditions: Surrogate Mother Contracts And Making Babies With Jerks…

Pages: 1 2

On Second Thought, THIS Is The Most Unethical Quote Of The Week, The Month, And Maybe The Year. Attention Should Be Paid…

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

“I think that, you know, during lockdown, of course, rhetoric in that time is not rhetoric that we would use today.”

—-Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in her cynical and ominous reply to ABC News anchor Jonathan Karl after he asked how Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong would “get around” her past radical and unpopular positions on abolishing policing among others.

Later, she said, laughing, “I have a local city councilman that has this saying, ‘Woke 1 was crazy.'”

[A quick digression before the commentary starts. Ten years ago, I swore off using deliberately unflattering photos of public figures, especially Hillary Clinton, as unfair and akin to ad hominem attacks. I recognize that I broke from that pledge regarding Joe Biden, primarily because the mainstream media was unethically protecting him from public scrutiny of his galloping dementia, and photos like this one…

…conveyed important information. I will now officially declare that AOC will be another exception to that EA policy. She is a silly, light-weight, unethical Dunning-Kruger victim, yet the Axis keeps claiming she is charismatic and “cute.” Ignorance and dishonesty are not cute. The woman is a dangerous fool, and photos like the one above help clarify that.]

Digression over. Now, regarding that quote… the two quotes, in fact.

The main quote above, though the Axis of Unethical Conduct is working mightily to spin it, is a deceitfully worded admission that AOC and her ideological allies are now prepared to disavow their intentions and beliefs as expressed openly during the peak of The Great Stupid, highlighted by the duel afflictions of the George Floyd Freakout and the Wuhan Virus Ethics Train Wreck, because it is no longer politically expedient to reveal those intentions. So now they intend to lie.

Pages: 1 2

Lemonade Stand Ethics

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

Yeah, I’m a sucker for kids with lemonade stands, but especially children being disappointed when they had been excited about a new experinece. Few things tug on my metaphorical heart strings like seeing eager kids on a sweltering day, sitting behind a fold-up table with a pitcher of lemonade, a hand-lettered sign, and no hint of a customer. It’s a retrospective Golden Rule thing. I’ve been there.

Two adorable little girls, maybe 12 and 9, had one such struggling business set up on a nearby corner mid-morning this week. No shade, no hats, no chair….and there weren’t even any cars driving by. When I walked past them with Spuds, I asked if their stand had any business yet. No, they said. I promised to get my wallet and come back.

When I finally drove back to the stand, maybe an hour later, the girls had packed up and were walking down the street. I pulled along side them by the cyrb them and said, “Won’t you sell me some lemonade? I was looking forward to it.” They both smiled broadly. One of the girls brought me a Dixie cup of warm lemonade. “How much?’ I asked? “Oh, I don’t know, a dollar?”

I stopped the car, got out, and handed the older girl a five dollar bill and an old straw hat Grace had given me for a birthday years ago: I brought it along to give to the girls. “You need to wear a hat; it’s hot…share this,” I said.

“And don’t give up! Business is hard. Most important is finding the right location, and think about how you should advertise. Also, decide on a price! I ran a few lemonade stands myself. Keep trying!”

As I drove off, they were setting up their table again. Some workmen from the school expansion nearby were walking over to them. Maybe I had given them a good experience to remember instead of a disappointment. There would be enough of those in the years to come.

It was worth a shot…five dollars, and an old hat.

One of the Unethical Quotes Of The Week (There Have Been So Many…): Cambridge University Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

“In light of the focus on this troubling case [Jason Arday scandal] and the widespread commentary around it, I want to be very clear that we do not need the outcomes of an investigation to clearly and loudly affirm that our staff of colour are highly valued, for their scholarship, their achievements, and the contributions they make to the institution and the wider academic community. This particular case is an aberration and should not be used to cast aspersions on their work or the legitimacy of their roles at Cambridge.”

—-Cambridge University Vice-Chancellor Deborah Prentice, sounding stupid and making it clear that the investigation Cambridge announced it will be undertaking will be butt-covering exercise and that nothing it uncovers will dissuade the university from its education integrity destruction due to ideological commitment to DEI above all else.

You can read her whole letter here.

She just couldn’t do it! She just couldn’t say that the Jason Arday appointment was a profound embarrassment for Cambridge and obviously represents a breakdown in the University’s standards, values, evaluation and recruitment procedures as well as administration and oversight of faculty, and that serious reforms need to be instituted and will be instituted once an investigation uncovers all the elements of the humiliation for the school the Arday episode represents.

Yeah, we know your “staff of colour” are highly valued, because they are badges of virtue to the DEI cult the educational community has become, symbolizing Cambridge’s conformity, loyalty and commitment. That’s how a sociopathic fraud like Jason Arday got his position in the first place.

The Arday mess is not an “aberration.” It is signature significance. No competent and respectable institution of higher learning hires a faculty member like Jason Arday even once. Eric Rasmussen collected the names and published the bios of the eleven distinguished scholars, professors and administrators who thought hiring Arday would be a boon to Cambridge. They couldn’t have checked his credentials. They didn’t think carefully about his claims which were absurd on their face. They allowed him to be hired because he was “of colour,” and that was what mattered. They should all be fired, but Prentice’s letter proves that 1) that won’t happen and 2) Cambridge’s cultural and ethics rot goes far deeper than just those directly involved.

X-user “Smirkly” posted the most extensive list of the flaming, pulsating red flags in Arday’s claims and performance, and it is impressive:

Pages: 1 2

Comment of the Day: “Abortion On Demand Up To Birth”

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

John Paul submitted a thorough and perceptive comment on the recent post about Massachusetts adopting a law permitting abortion right up until birth.

I was reminded that my Nobel Prize-winning biology professor when I was a Freshman in college, George Wald (perhaps the best teacher I have ever had, and I’ve had some great ones), said, “To me, the question of when an unborn person acquires the status of a human being appropriately protected by law, morality and ethics comes down to two choices: at birth, or at conception. Any other dividing line is arbitrary. Given those choices, I have to conclude that it must be birth.”

Here is John Paul’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Abortion On Demand Up To Birth”:

***

“How can you honestly and sincerely defend the new Massachusetts abortion law? If you can, how do you look yourself in the mirror or sleep at night?”

Going to play (a little bit) devil’s advocate here, because I was genuinely curious. I too am horrified that such a law could be passed. I wanted to know what reason could even come close to anyone think this is a good idea. How could anyone look at this, say, “that seems good,” and sleep at night without having the fires of hell consume their dreams?

Desperate, I searched the internet, and this is what I came up with.

1. The language of the law does not permit women to abort babies after 24 weeks. It allows physicians and doctors to rely on professional judgment without fear of prosecution.

2. Abortion is so broadly defined that it includes miscarriages and stillbirths.

3. A patient’s mental heath might change after the 24th week.

4. Late term discovery of fatal fetal abnormalities discovered.

5. Late term severe (but non-fatal) abnormalities discovered.

6. Mothers having to travel out of state for abortion services.

7. Keeping the decision between doctor and mother.

8. The belief that viability is not a adequate legal dividing line.

9. The belief that the government should have no say in abortion at all, and this is the only way to guarantee it.

10. Political/ideological commitment to abortion.

11. Life of the mother.

There might be more. Most of what I have seen falls into one of these categories. If anyone has any to share, feel free to add to the list. However, just because it is a reason doesn’t mean it’s even a good reason or a well-thought-out reason.

Pages: 1 2

AAAAAAH!!! Scary…

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

By pure luck, I stumbled across the photo above of Demi Moore from earlier in the year right after watching a disturbing PBS documentary about the late Karen Carpenter, who died in her early thirties as a result of a long battle with anorexia. The frightening figure to the right is pop singer and actress Ariana Grande. Both performers chose to highlight their appearance; several publications that used the photo of Moore referred positively to her “toned arms.”

In a related development, women (and some men) as young as 18 are getting botox injections because the flat, unexpressive forehead look is unavoidable if one watches much TV. Icons such as Jane Fonda and Goldie Hawn send the message that natural aging is shameful—Jane’s appearance in her 80s is so disturbing I refuse to look at her. In the meantime, Nicole Kidman has found some elixir or spell that has kept her appearance at 59 creepily similar to how she looked at 30, with none of the tell-tale signs of touch-ups that make other actresses her age grotesque.

My late wife suffered from anorexia in college and was so traumatized by natural aging that by the time she died Grace had become a virtual recluse. The damaging behavior of youth-obsessed celebrities is hardly a recent development; still, after being reminded of how one of the most gifted female vocalists was taken from us by the body dysmorphia their narcissistic habits inspire, I felt it necessary to flag the issue—again—today.

Public figures become role models whether they like it or not, and they influence the behavior and attitudes of others, especially the insecure, the emotionally vulnerable, and those without healthy and responsible role models in their own lives. It is impossible to measure the damage they do, the Demis to the aging, the Arianas to the young.

But it is a lot.

Ethics Observations on the Francesca Hong Primary Loss In Wisconsin

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

The big story on CNN and MSNOW this morning is that Democratic-Socialist Francesca Hong lost the Democratic primary for Governor in Wisconsin. CNN is relieved, MSNOW is kind of sad. Meanwhile, Fox News wants to focus on the WNBA, because everything about it makes progressives, women, blacks, lesbians, and supporters of trans-males look terrible.

You can see the results above: Hong conceded a bit before 95% of the votes had been counted. Ann Althouse finds that susp…interesting. The Wisconsin bloggress observes,

“Why did Hong concede so quickly, with such a narrow margin? Why not wait at least until all the votes are in? Why not ask for a recount? She’s entitled to a recount if the margin is 1% or less, but it’s only paid for by the state if it’s less than 0.25%. To drag out the process after the primary would help Tiffany. That’s good reason not to indulge in a recount, but why not wait until all 100% of the votes are counted? She conceded when it was less than 95%.”

There is certainly a lot to trigger conspiracy theorists about this result. The winner, David Crowley, the black Milwaukee County executive, barely eked out a victory after his candidacy was resurrected late in the campaign. Democrats decided that Hong couldn’t win the general election, so Gov. Tony Evers (D), who had pledged to stay out of the race to replace him, became active in the effort to beat Hong. In July, Crowley had dropped out of the race, saying that it was “clear that I will not be the Democratic nominee for governor.” Then Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, who was the leading “establishment” candidate left, dropped out of the race.

Crowley was being pressured to re-run, and said he was praying for guidance. His wife asked for a “sign”that her husband should rejoin the race: if she saw a red bird, her husband should jump back in to the primary. I’m not kidding, unfortunately. She said she did see a red bird, and so 10 days after quitting, he spouse was in the race again. This is how seriously American take democracy in 2021. Who would vote for a candidate for governor who makes decisions like that? Not me. I’d rather vote for the bird.

More ethics-related notes:

Pages: 1 2

Abortion On Demand Up To Birth

/ Jack Marshall / 31 Comments

I have two simple questions for pro-abortion (or perhaps “pro mothers and doctors being able to kill viable infants at will” is a more accurate label…a bit long, I admit) advocates.

How can you honestly and sincerely defend the new Massachusetts abortion law? If you can, how do you look yourself in the mirror or sleep at night?

Abortion will now be allowed at any time before birth in Massachusetts after Governor Maura Healey (D, or course: what other party would do this?) eliminated the state’s abortion limits yesterday. Previously, the Bay State had allowed abortion only up until 24 weeks. Now a fully developed unborn infant can be killed any time during the 40-week gestation cycle, even second before birth. That means that the child could be delivered via C-section and instantly be protected by law as a living human being, but an unborn infant at the exact same state of development and fully viable can be murdered in the womb after the mother’s water has broken and contractions have begun.

To be fair, now, the home of my birth and happy childhood isn’t the only barbaric state with such an immoral law. Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and the District of Columbia of course, also believe that being able to kill living and viable infants in the womb is a human “right.” Peter Singer, the Princeton ethics professor, once caused an uproar when he said that as long as we were allowing abortions up to birth, why not let the mother see her baby first after it is born and then have the option to kill it? He was right: morally and ethically, either homicide is exactly the same. The distinction between born and unborn at that point is arbitrary and a legal fiction, created to let mothers feel better about a monstrous act.

Pages: 1 2

Flagrant Media Bias And Disinformation of the Year: NPR

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

Here is how National Public Radio reported those statistics on D.C. crime on the one-year anniversary of President Trump ordering the National Guard to patrol the National Capital.

“Multiple studies have since found that the National Guard presence in D.C. has had no effect on violent crime, although there has been a decrease in opportunistic crimes like petty theft and vehicle break-ins.”

That summary arrives after NPR spends nine full paragraphs burying the lede, only to lie about what the lede is anyway.

When I read that [Aside: NPR had the gall to send me a solicitation for a contribution via email, signed by the NPR host who blackballed me as its ethics commentator for telling the truth about late-hit sexual harassment complaints, because I “seemed to be defending Donald Trump.] this morning I was genuinely puzzled. When I surfed past Fox News last night, Laura Ingraham was declaring that the statistics proved that Trump’s use of the National Guard was prudent and has been a great success. Two completely divergent news reports. This is why our journalism has become untrustworthy and dangerous. This is why civil discourse is nearly impossible, with citizens operating under competing distortions of reality.

And this is why President Trump was and is right to call our news media “enemies of the people.”

However, NPR’s distortion and deceit qualifies the network as a media Ethics Villain and an Ethics Corrupter. Note the chart above from the D.C. police site. A 32% decrease in murder is not “no effect” on violent crime. That isn’t just spin or bias, that’s a lie. NPR also plays language games, because that’s the Left’s specialty. “Opportunistic crimes like petty theft and vehicle break-ins” is the euphemism this nauseating excuse for a news organization uses to describe the following crimes that have decreased significantly in the past year in the District:

  • Robbery
  • Arson
  • Motor vehicle theft
  • Theft
  • Property crime
Pages: 1 2