Friday, November 03, 2006

The Offspring Murder Club: New Male Member

Kill The Afterlife's Offspring Murder Club has a roll call that is heavily tilted toward the fairer sex. That changed today, with the induction of its newest member, Jason Thorbon.

The Offspring Murder Club has very strict membership requirements, so the question is, does Jason qualify? Let's take a look at the evidence:

Thorbon told Knox County Sheriff's Office Sgt. Jeanette Harris that he was trying to kill his son as a sacrifice to God when he began strangling the boy at their home on Blackwood Drive in January 2005.

Thorbon's wife managed to wrest the toddler away from Thorbon and flee. Testimony has shown that Thorbon, a former mental health counselor and honor student, suffers both mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse.


Intent and attempt to kill one's own child? Check. God/afterlife as a motivator? Check. Success in killing offspring? Not quite.

However, the technicality of whether or not Jason succeeded in the act is not as important as the spirit of the act, For The Offspring Murder Club is all about spirit, whether metaphorical or literal.

Therefore, I proudly introduce the newest inductee into The Offspring Murder Club, Jason Thorbon!

13 comments:

ryan maddox said...

Aaron, you should check this out:

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=18047;start=0

I'm becoming increasingly tempted on changing my personal ethical(not political!) position on abortion, in regards to self-ownership. My username on anti-state is ryanE. I'd appreciate if very much if you could check it out, and get back to me. I may have a poor understanding of the argument, but the rebuttles to my analogies were enough to make me reconsider the moral inplications. (I ask you specifically because I was introduced to self-onwership ideas by your blogs) Thanks.

Aaron Kinney said...

Hi Ryan,

Thanks for the info. I am going to read the thread in its entirety when I get home (im at a friends house at the moment).

I am flattered that you were introduced to self-ownership ideas by me and my friends blogs :)

Ive tackled abortion at this very blog in the past in this post.

Im not sure how much of that post applies to the LFL argument, because it was written in response to an argument from Paul Manata. However, I do explain in that post the foundation of my pro-choice argument (which is, in fact, self-ownership). Hopefully it will help you out for now.

And later on when I get a chance to read the thread you provided, I will hopefully be able to respond to it directly.

thanx for stopping by, and let me know what you think of the abortion post I just linked. :)

Francois Tremblay said...

So what does Jason Thorbon win?

Aaron Kinney said...

Membership in the club, and public scorn. Nothing more.

Remember, this club is a shameful club where the only reward is condemnation from the non-members.

ryan maddox said...

Aaron, I read the post in the link. It helped out a lot, however I was very much high and drunk when I read it before. I'll reread it and then I'll post a comment. Thanks very much

beepbeepitsme said...

It really is quite sad when they are deluded enough to believe that killing their own child for god is a good thing.

But then, what ancient, primitive religion is NOT based on some sort of a blood sacrifice?

ryan maddox said...

Aaron, I reread the post about abortion. I have many questions, so I apologise in advance.

An abortion is the "Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival."

I do not mean to ask such a dumb question but, in the process of abortion, is the fetus terminated (killed) inside the womb? or expelled from the body, and in consequence dies? or otherwise?

Is there a precise time in which a fetus is capable of survival outside of the womb? and if so, when?

The underlying question I mean to ask is, how do we know were not terminating and expelling a fetus that is capable of survival?

My example; If there was a time in which a fetus was capable of survival outside the womb, and that time was 8 and 1/2 months (for instance), could you have an abortion?

At first, one would think no; because the fetus was capable of survival. But, the definition of abortion negates that. According to the definition of abortion; only fetuses incapable of survival are aborted. This would mean you could only ever abort a fetus incapable of survival. There seems to be a contradiction to me, or information I missed.

So I'm guessing I have mixed up or confused concepts some where along the way. That issue needs to be cleared up before I can ask any more questions, because I'll just get more confused anyways.

Do you mind me discussing this issue in the comments section, or would you prefer elsewhere?

Thanks again, Ryan

Aaron Kinney said...

Ryan,

I do not mean to ask such a dumb question but, in the process of abortion, is the fetus terminated (killed) inside the womb? or expelled from the body, and in consequence dies? or otherwise?

An abortion in itself is the mere expulsion of the fetus. While it is possible to kill a fetus while in the womb, that act in itself is not an abortion. An abortion relates to the termination of the act of a womb carrying a fetus, not the actual destruction of the fetus itself.

To help illustrate, it is worth noting that a fetus can be killed in the womb without being expelled; in other words, without being aborted.

Is there a precise time in which a fetus is capable of survival outside of the womb? and if so, when?

There is a precise time for each fetus, but it is not an identical "moment" for all fetuses.

The underlying question I mean to ask is, how do we know were not terminating and expelling a fetus that is capable of survival?

You cant always know it for sure, but you can get an accurate estimation based on a medical inspection of the womb/fetus. However, for the purposes of my pro-choice argument, this question is irrelevant.

My example; If there was a time in which a fetus was capable of survival outside the womb, and that time was 8 and 1/2 months (for instance), could you have an abortion?

Not really. It would technically be premature induced labor or forced birth, unless you count all natural birthings as "Abortions" as well. But now I am getting into definitions...

At first, one would think no; because the fetus was capable of survival. But, the definition of abortion negates that. According to the definition of abortion; only fetuses incapable of survival are aborted. This would mean you could only ever abort a fetus incapable of survival. There seems to be a contradiction to me, or information I missed.

As I understand it, yes, abortions only occur with fetuses that are incapable of surviving outside of the womb. However, I do not understand where your "contradiction" is coming from. Can you help explain?

Do you mind me discussing this issue in the comments section, or would you prefer elsewhere?

Either/or. Feel free to email me at blue46gt at yahoo dot com if you wish to continue the conversation through email instead. :)

beepbeepitsme said...

RE abortion debate

Abortion is not a good method of contraception. (And that comment doesn't mean that I would like to see it become illegal.)

The reality is that it IS used as a method of contraception. Why?

I think that societies which consider sex to be dirty, sinful and forbidden except under "special circumstances", help to create the situation where abortion is prevalant.

Countries where sex is considered normal and natural generally promote (pre-pregnancy forms of contraception such as the pill, condoms, IUDS and spermicidal creams.

These countries have a low abortion rate as people are responsible about their sex lifes, and don't look for a quick fix after "the horse has bolted."

Anonymous said...

What exactly do you mean, "The Offspring Murder Club is all about spirit, whether metaphorical or literal." What would a "metaphorical spirit" be as opposed to a "literal spirit"????

ryan maddox said...

Aaron, that cleared up a lot of my confusion on the topic. I have one more question to ask; in relevance to self-ownership.

In the Paul Manata reply you stated that a) you are against murder, and that would include that of the unborn and b) your stance is based on self-ownership.

You adequetly proved abortion is not murder, but what if it were? Wouldn't that conflict with the self-ownership stance?

You said that whether or not the fetus is a "human" is irrelavent towards the self-ownership stance. I find it in conflict because if abortion were murder (killing a human), then you would support it.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I couldn't figure out a way around that problem.

breakerslion said...

So is it fair to cry "troll" because this post has been hijacked into another debate on abortion?

Let's be clear on this: Abortion is a devisive political non-issue. What that means is, abortions will take place regardless of the government's position. Meanwhile, real issues that are the purview of government are buried in this bullshit.

I think the Ruttles said it best when they said, "I know you know what you know, but you should know by now that you're not me." In other words, you have a right to an opinion, you have a right to voice that opinion. You have no right to pillory another person for actions that do not conform to that opinion. Take your skin bag full of genetic material and move on.

ryan maddox said...

breakerslion, interesting comments.

I brought this up not for political reasons. Just mere curiosity. I'm very interested in individualist philosophy.

There are many things about it I find confusing, and I knew Aaron might be able to help me out.

I wouldn't consider it trolling, because I'm actually indulged in the conversation, and I seek the truth, rather than starting a thread/topic and then just leaving.