Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling

[Joe DeFuria]

In short, you could call science and humanity my "god," if you want to equate it in some way shape or form to religious constructs.

Indeed. Sounds like a "religion" to me. You seem to have the same problem that many religious zealots do: you don't simply belive that your religion is the "right one" (which is natural), but you seem to dismiss other ones outright: which is just closed mindedness.

I thought I have though in my prior posts? What would you like me to elaborate on?

No, in your prior posts you made arguments against why other people believe it is wrong. You didn't argue "why you think it's right." There's a major difference there. At best, as far as I can recall, your argument "for" homosexuality is (oversimplified paraphrase) "they should be able to be just as happy as hetero couples".

I have no issue with polygamy. If people want to get married to multiple husbands or wives, then so be it. It's really only in monogamous cultures where polygamy is shunned, but that is because of religious reasons moreso than anything else.

You haven't said why it's OK. "If people want to get married to multiple spouses" is not an explanation of why. You are just re-stating that it's OK, but not saying WHY.

The reason why I'm against incest is because of the genetic defects that it can cause.

So what's morally bad about genetic defects?

Doesn't someone with a genetic defect deserve "happiness" just like anyone else? What is your moral issue with genetic defects?

Are you saying that two people whom after having had genetic compatibility testing, find out that they have an increased chance having a colorblind child....is an immoral relationship?

However, if the incestuous couple were sterilized, or if they used genetic manipulation (obviously some time far in the future) to make sure that none of the recessive genes that could cause issues were stamped out then there could be no objection to incest anymore by anyone.

Oh, so now you are carving "exceptions to your moral rules?" I thought these things needed to "cover all bases" and shouldn't need any additional explanation?

At it's base, incest is a heterosexual construct.

No, it's not. At it's base, incest is just another type of sexual relationship. There can be incestual homosexual as well as heterosexual relationships.

Remove the issues of deformity and it becomes just like a "normal" heterosexual relationship.

You have stated over and over that "homosexuals deserve the same kind of happiness" as everyone else. How are incestual relationships any different? Shouldn't a brother and sister be able to have the same "happiness" through marriage as anyone else?

To reiterate, you are saying that these defects and deformities are what makes incest immoral to you, because that is the "difference" between incest and for example, normal hetero relationships. So I ask again....why? What is morally objectionable to deformities or genetic defects?

 

[Natoma]

From a humanist standpoint, the moral objection to genetic, physical, and mental abnormalites/deformities are the problems they can cause the child.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

From a humanist standpoint, the moral objection to genetic, physical, and mental abnormalites/deformities are the problems they can cause the child.

Who are you to make decisions about people with such deformities / abnormalities, and their ability to cope with them? Sounds like you are playing GOD to me. Don't these people deserve to have a chance at their own happiness? You've already decided for them that they don't even deserve a chance?!

So where do you draw the line? When does a genetic defect or abnormality go from being something acceptable or "tolerable" for the child, to something that's not?

What about Downs syndrome? If people are of the age where there is a "high risk" of having a downs syndrome child, is it immoral for them to continue to have a sexual relationship?

You "humanist" basis for incest being immoral is full of holes, Natoma. You're going to be making qualificaions left and right because it doesn't cover all cases. And that just isn't acceptable, right? That must mean your basis is fundamentally flawed...I believe is the way you put it.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

From a humanist standpoint, the moral objection to genetic, physical, and mental abnormalites/deformities are the problems they can cause the child.

Furthermore...

Many people consider homosexuality as such an "abnormality". (Possibly genetic, or psychological, etc.) You yourself have documented several times the pain and problems it caused you growing up.

For "humanity's sake", let's pray for the so-called "homosexual gene" to be isolated. Then we can take steps to put an end to the problems that homosexuals endure through their lives...

 

[nggalai]

Hi Joe,

sorry to barge in, but . . .

From a humanist standpoint, the moral objection to genetic, physical, and mental abnormalites/deformities are the problems they can cause the child.

Who are you to make decisions about people with such deformities / abnormalities, and their ability to cope with them? Sounds like you are playing GOD to me. Don't these people deserve to have a chance at their own happiness? You've already decided for them that they don't even deserve a chance?!

Err . . . where does Natoma say or imply anything like your "paraphrase?" I don't see Natoma judging said people not to "get a chance," not at all. Rhetorics or misunderstanding?

Many people consider homosexuality as such an "abnormality". (Possibly genetic, or psychological, etc.) You yourself have documented several times the pain and problems it caused you growing up.

For "humanity's sake", let's pray for the so-called "homosexual gene" to be isolated. Then we can take steps to put an end to the problems that homosexuals endure through their lives...

Err . . . strawman? Or is this really your opinion? Sorry for asking, but I've heard this exact argument, in ernest, from a few people, all of them affiliated to gay rights groups, and quite frankly, I rather hope no-body will find such a distinct gene. But that's just me, I suppose.

93,
-Sascha.rb

 

[Natoma]

Joe:

Easy rebuttal.

There are differences between a disability affecting one's ability to live because it affects their level of intelligence (for example, Down Syndrome), not to mention their physical well-being (Cystic Fibrosis for example), and a genetic "abnormality" like homosexuality which only affects a person's ability to live simply because society is too prejudiced.

It would be akin to at one point equating dark skin color with a genetic defect because of how blacks were shackled by society, literally and figuratively.

They are completely separate issues.

p.s.: Thanks nggalai for stating the obvious wrt my opinion on people "getting a chance". As you have so rightfully pointed out, I'm not espousing eugenics.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Hi Joe,

Hi!

Err . . . where does Natoma say or imply anything like your "paraphrase?" I don't see Natoma judging said people not to "get a chance," not at all. Rhethorics or misunderstanding?

Oh no...now you've opened the door to Natoma responding with something like "That's what Joe usually does." Blah...Blah...Blah...

Natoma has said that
1) incest is morally wrong.
2) When probed furhter, he said it is wrong because of the "defects" (Genetic, physical, etc.) that can result
3) When probed even further, he said these defects are "wrong" because of his "Humanist" outlook that they set the stage for "problems the can cause the child."

By definition, we strive NOT to do immoral things. If Natoma is consistent with his morals, he would not enter a relationship with someone where genetic abnormalities in offspring are a high possibility. (Or if he did enter such a relationship, we would do so knowing that it's wrong, much like "sinners" may do things even though they know it's a sin.)

I'm not asserting that Natoma believes that there should be laws against incest or other "genetically incomaptible" relationships. However, Natoma does think it's morally wrong. So such relationships are immoral.

My paraphrase is a direct consequence of his moral system. He believes it's "wrong" to enter a relationship where genetic/physical/mental defects are a high probability. These types of relationships are not limited to incest. Incest is but one type of relationship where high probability of genetic defects in offspring can result.

Many people consider homosexuality as such an "abnormality". (Possibly genetic, or psychological, etc.) You yourself have documented several times the pain and problems it caused you growing up.

For "humanity's sake", let's pray for the so-called "homosexual gene" to be isolated. Then we can take steps to put an end to the problems that homosexuals endure through their lives...

Err . . . strawman? Or is this really your opinion?

STRAWMAN FOR SURE!! Again, this type of proposal can be a direct consequence of Natoma's (thus far) stated Moral system. It certainly is not my own desire / want, and obviously it's not Natomas...that's the point.

My point is, "defining morals" is cloudy at best. Natoma has repeatedly tried to poke holes in other people's arguments on immoral behavior, because we have had to "qualify" or "clarify" our arguments, he sees this as some shortcoming of the underlying basis for the argument.

This is an exercise to show how "defining morals" is not a science. It's not even always logical. It is sometimes (Of course, logic helps support the case for the moral position.) I'm sure Natoma really believes that Incest is immoral. And yet he's having a difficult time "explaining" that rationale, without having some probably unintended consequences of such an explanation.

 

[nggalai]

Hi Joe,

thanks for clearing that up. One short question/remark, though:

My paraphrase is a direct consequence of his moral system. He believes it's "wrong" to enter a relationship where genetic/physical/mental defects are a high probability. These types of relationships are not limited to incest. Incest is but one type of relationship where high probability of genetic defects in offspring can result.

Well, yes--but I still can't see anything like Natoma then making the quite huge leap to, quote, "Don't these people deserve to have a chance at their own happiness? You've already decided for them that they don't even deserve a chance?!" All I see are the three points you mentioned, in Natoma's reasoning:

1) incest is morally wrong.
2) incest is also wrong because of the possible genetic defects in the offspring.
3) incest is morally wrong, from his humanist standpoint, because said offspring might suffer great problems from these defects.

i.e. 3) is the elaboration of 1), 2) would be the way of reasoning to get there, and incest was used as an example (a quite popular one at that, concerning the number of posts on that subject in this thread about gay marriage rights). No-where does it say anything like "they have no chance at their own happiness" or "they don't deserve a chance." Just that facilitating such "problems" is morally wrong. Not that the offspring itself doesn't deserve to make something of it anyways. That's what puzzled me in your post. Thanks for clearing it up, mind.

But as you said--defining morals is best left alone; they are more in the realm of "belief" than "science." In that respect, yes, I concur that Natoma's argueing might have been sub-optimal by taking the bait and getting all muddled up with definitions, but still--just stating this point of view might have been a better way to lead the argument. It certainly would have saved me writing a too-long post.

Anyway, can we drop this meta-discussion and get back on track, please? It's hard enough catching up on this thread as is.

93,
-Sascha.rb

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe:

Easy rebuttal.

What does that mean? You are already making "qualifications", the fact that you're making a rebuttle at all is the problem, isn't it? But let's poke holes in your rebuttle just for fun.

There are differences between a disability affecting one's ability to live because it affects their level of intelligence (for example, Down Syndrome), not to mention their physical well-being (Cystic Fibrosis for example), and a genetic "abnormality" like homosexuality which only affects a person's ability to live simply because society is too prejudiced.

I thought that many homosexuals (and bisexuals / transgenders) ...regardless of "societal prejudices", have "problems" simply "finding their own way." Often, they don't even know what "orientation they are" up until some point, and that causes much stress and hardship.

In any case, you are "further qualifying" your moral standard. It used to be just "genetic". And now its "genetic, with some exceptions."

It would be akin to at one point equating dark skin color with a genetic defect because of how blacks were shackled by society, literally and figuratively.

They are completely separate issues.

Right. In other words, it comes down to how you define "defect", right? Skin color is obviously not some genetic defect. There is no basis on that grounds for societal rejection. We agree. What about homosexuality though? In essence, you are saying while it is genetic, but not a genetic defect. Society is the defect in this case.

So, you're making a circular argument. (Where' Antlers?

In any case, you haven't directly answered my question, for example, about downs syndrome. You have made it clear that this genetic "anomoly" is a different class than "homosexuality." And you of course see homosexuality as moral. So, I take it to mean that knowingly having a sexual relationship that has a high probabilty of a downs syndrome child is immoral.

At lest, if you consistently apply your morals across all, that is your belief. Correct?

So, downs syndrome generally comes with a decreased intellectual capacity. What is immoral about that? What is immoral about other defects that come with physical limitations? What inherently makes these conditions immoral? Don't we all have our own "problems" in life? What makes their problems such that it is wrong to bring such children into the world?

 

[kyleb]

Does that also fit under the umbrella of "wrong"? I know you haven't specifically stated whether you think it's "right" or "wrong," but I'm interested in knowing your opinion.

My personal opinion is, "it depends". (And as I said, we can devote a whole additional topic to this.)

Just a recap of my definition: basically "if the relationship goes against the proliferation of the Human Race, it's wrong." So very generally speaking, if an "act" goes against the proliferation of the human race, it's wrong.

Whether or not "choosing" to become sterile (vasectory, etc.) is right or wrong then, would generally depend on the impact it has to the proliferation of the human race.

In your specific exanple: If one has such an operation (before having ANY kids) solely because "they don't want to have kids", then that would be wrong, IMO. You have chosen to purposefully not contribute to the proliferation of the human race.

However, what if the person believes that by reproducing, they are causing damage to the proliferation of the human race? For example, if the person has a genetic disorder, and they believe proliferation of that disorder is "bad" for the human race, it could very well be argued they are furthing the human race by not reproducing. So he/she may choose sterilization on that basis. IMO, this type of choice is not wrong.

There certainly are gray areas (as there often are in "right and wrong"). What if you have sterlization after you have some childern? Again, it depends IMO mostly on the reason for getting sterilized. Is it simply because "you don't want more kids?"

Or because having kids when the mother is is in the late 30's or 40's significantly increases the chances of genetic disorders...which could be considered a detriment to the proliferation of the human race?

but that is beside the point. using the same argument which you applied to homosexuality, heterosexual acts are immoral when it involves someone who is known to be sterile. is that how you see it? or even things such as using birth control, or sexual acts other than copulation. are you against your girlfriend giving you a b.j.? are you really that prude?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Hi Joe,

thanks for clearing that up.

No prob!

One short question/remark, though:

No-where does it say anything like "they have no chance at their own happiness" or "they don't deserve a chance." Just that facilitating such "problems" is morally wrong. Not that the offspring itself doesn't deserve to make something of it anyways. That's what puzzled me in your post. Thanks for clearing it up, mind.

I'll try and be more clear. I don't mean to imply that if a downs syndrome child is born, that Natoma thinks we should kill it to nip its problems in the bud. (I don't know if he feels that way or not, but I'm not making an assumption either way.)

It is clear, however, that Natoma believes that if there is a high probability of bringing such a child into the world, it is wrong if you go ahead and try to have kids. That's what I mean by "not deserving a chance."

In other words, here's an example:
* A couple has a high risk of say, (insert intelligence genetic defect here) for their child.
* Natoma thinks it's wrong to try and conceive a child because of that probability. There is a high risk of bringing a child with "problems" into this world. And he believes the child is better off not conceived in the first place (not given a chance), than having him born having to deal with his "problem"

But as you said--defining morals is best left alone; they are more in the realm of "belief" than "science." In that respect, yes, I concur that Natoma's argueing might have been sub-optimal by taking the bait and getting all muddled up with definitions,

It's not that he "took the bait", it's that he is hypocritical about it all. He places a different standard on everyone else than apparently applies to himself. Natoma's opponents are not affored a position on homosexuality without backing it up with some simple, air-tight explanation for which there could possibly be no question about its soundness. Unless we can provide such a thing, we're just laying down baseless and fundamentally flawed reasoning.

but still--just stating this point of view might have been a better way to lead the argument. It certainly would have saved me writing a too-long post.

True, although defending your morals is sort-of like defending your "religion." Unless you can "defend" it in some way, it lacks "teeth." It would be pretty boring discussion to say "I think homosexuality is moral / immoral, because that's what I believe."

Fleshing out the reasoning is useful. Nit-picking ad infinitium, without at some point accepting the opposing view as "legitimate, but one I disagree with" is what is tiresome.

 

[Natoma]

There are differences between a disability affecting one's ability to live because it affects their level of intelligence (for example, Down Syndrome), not to mention their physical well-being (Cystic Fibrosis for example), and a genetic "abnormality" like homosexuality which only affects a person's ability to live simply because society is too prejudiced.

I thought that many homosexuals (and bisexuals / transgenders) ...regardless of "societal prejudices", have "problems" simply "finding their own way." Often, they don't even know what "orientation they are" up until some point, and that causes much stress and hardship.

We have "problems" because of the societal prejudices Joe. That is where all of the pressure comes from. Society. Most of us know what orientation we are, but try to suppress it and live "normal" heterosexual lives because we're afraid of what society will do. Be it lose a job, lose a home, lose one's family, etc.

I know for instance in my case, I lived in utter terror that I'd be kicked out of my mom's home, and that I'd lose my family. Not to mention the fact that I used to feel I'd bring shame upon our family name by coming out.

Where did all these psychological issues come from? Society.

In any case, you are "further qualifying" your moral standard. It used to be just "genetic". And now its "genetic, with some exceptions."

Huh? I stated exactly what my moral standard was, based on my humanistic principles. No further qualification is required. Each human being should be born as healthy as possible so they can live their lives to the fullest. Free from Down's Syndrome which would lower their intellectual potential. Free from Cystic Fibrosis or Muscular Dystrophy or Spina Bifida which would lower their life span and cause great physical pain.

It would be akin to at one point equating dark skin color with a genetic defect because of how blacks were shackled by society, literally and figuratively.

They are completely separate issues.

Right. In other words, it comes down to how you define "defect", right? Skin color is obviously not some genetic defect. There is no basis on that grounds for societal rejection. We agree. What about homosexuality though? In essence, you are saying while it is genetic, but not a genetic defect. Society is the defect in this case.

So, you're making a circular argument. (Where' Antlers?

And yet there was a eugenics movement in the latter half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century in the United States (which btw greatly influenced Hitler's own beliefs on the races) that stated that blacks were inherently inferior, and their skin color was an instance of that inferiority. Not to mention the big lips, big noses, etc etc etc. Remember "Blackface"? Remember the "Noble Savage"? The Bell Curve?

There were quite a many scholars who thought it was a genetic problem. And you'd have had a difficult time in that era debunking them. Again, hindsight is a wonderful tool.

And yes, I'm saying that society is the defect, not homosexuality.

In any case, you haven't directly answered my question, for example, about downs syndrome. You have made it clear that this genetic "anomoly" is a different class than "homosexuality." And you of course see homosexuality as moral. So, I take it to mean that knowingly having a sexual relationship that has a high probabilty of a downs syndrome child is immoral.

If you know that you have a high probability to pass on Down Syndrome and you don't do anything to try and prevent your child from getting Down Syndrome, then yes, I believe that is immoral, because you knowingly give your child an intellectual handicap. The same as if you have a child knowing you're going to pass on Muscular Dystrophy. If you are able to prevent such an occurrence, you should do everything in your power to do so. Homosexuality however is not physically or mentally disabling, when you remove society's prejudices from the picture.

At lest, if you consistently apply your morals across all, that is your belief. Correct?

I have been completely consistent.

So, downs syndrome generally comes with a decreased intellectual capacity. What is immoral about that? What is immoral about other defects that come with physical limitations? What inherently makes these conditions immoral? Don't we all have our own "problems" in life? What makes their problems such that it is wrong to bring such children into the world?

I've addressed this above.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

but that is beside the point. using the same argument which you applied to homosexuality, heterosexual acts are immoral when it involves someone who is known to be sterile. is that how you see it?

You need to separate sexual acts from a sexual relationship. I am not talking about the morality of indivdual sex acts. I am talking about relationships / unions.

I did not say, nor do I believe, that a sex act needs to be of the design / purpose of having a child, for the sexual relationship to be moral in my view.

It's (simplistically) possibility of the sexual relationship to result in the furthering of the human race.

 

[Natoma]

but that is beside the point. using the same argument which you applied to homosexuality, heterosexual acts are immoral when it involves someone who is known to be sterile. is that how you see it?

You need to separate sexual acts from a sexual relationship. I am not talking about the morality of indivdual sex acts. I am talking about relationships / unions.

I did not say, nor do I believe, that a sex act needs to be of the design / purpose of having a child, for the sexual relationship to be moral in my view.

It's (simplistically) possibility of the sexual relationship to result in the furthering of the human race.

1) So let me ask you this. My partner and I are in a completely committed relationship. We have discussed having children with one surrogate mother through invitro so that our children would be related to one another. Since our completely committed relationship would have produced children, despite the lack of a female in it for sexual purposes on a day to day basis, would you consider that "moral" in your view? And I'm being completely serious. We have discussed this.

2) Why is the "furthering" of the human race such a big deal to you? If 10% of the population is homosexual, that would mean there are 600 Million homosexuals on the planet today. Probably half of whom actually live out their lives with homosexual partnerings, the other half who suppress their natural sexuality because of societal fears.

If anything, we as a species are going to be faced with serious overpopulation issues during this century. It's been speculated that the worldwide population will hit 10 Billion by 2100. So I seriously doubt we're going to be going extinct anytime soon.

So again, why is the "furthering" of the human race such a big deal to you wrt the "moral" validity of a relationship? We are far and away beyond survival levels thank you very much technology and civilization.

 

[antlers]

but that is beside the point. using the same argument which you applied to homosexuality, heterosexual acts are immoral when it involves someone who is known to be sterile. is that how you see it?

You need to separate sexual acts from a sexual relationship. I am not talking about the morality of indivdual sex acts. I am talking about relationships / unions.

I did not say, nor do I believe, that a sex act needs to be of the design / purpose of having a child, for the sexual relationship to be moral in my view.

It's (simplistically) possibility of the sexual relationship to result in the furthering of the human race.

So any sexual relationship that can't produce offspring (such as one where one or more partners is known to be sterile) is by your definition immoral?

BTW, I think the argument of whether or not homosexuality is genetically determined is misplaced. Suppose it is not genetically determined, but a product of environmental factors. Does this change its moral status at all?

 

[kyleb]

ya really. i mean i look forward to having children but if it turned out that the woman i fell in love with was barren i imagine i would come to terms with that and carry on the relationship regardless, but you consider me a deviant for that by the standards you presented, eh Joe?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

We have "problems" because of the societal prejudices Joe. That is where all of the pressure comes from. Society.

So, you speak for all homosexuals / transgenders / bisexuals?

Most of us know what orientation we are, but try to suppress it and live "normal" heterosexual lives because we're afraid of what society will do. Be it lose a job, lose a home, lose one's family, etc.

Most of you?

I know for instance in my case, I lived in utter terror that I'd be kicked out of my mom's home, and that I'd lose my family. Not to mention the fact that I used to feel I'd bring shame upon our family name by coming out.

Where did all these psychological issues come from? Society.

But it's OK for "your society" to set some bar for intellect as being "acceptable?"

You still haven't answered why someone of lower intellect doesn't deserve a chance.

Huh? I stated exactly what my moral standard was, based on my humanistic principles. No further qualification is required.

Um, yes it was. You said geneitc abnormalities, and then you qualified that by excluding genetic "abnormalites" that in your opinion, only cause problems because of social pressure.

That's called a qualification.

Each human being should be born as healthy as possible so they can live their lives to the fullest.

Why not, each human being should be born in whatever state, and then free to live his life to the fullest of his ability?

Free from Down's Syndrome which would lower their intellectual potential.

And "intellectual potential" is all that humans have to offer? Are you that shallow? What about LOVE. Shouldn't someone of lower intellect be free to love others, and have others love him in return?

Free from Cystic Fibrosis or Muscular Dystrophy or Spina Bifida which would lower their life span and cause great physical pain.

So a lower life span means not deserving of life at all? Again, (another unanswered question from you) where do you draw the line?

What about dwarfs? They don't have the physical strength or characteristics of "normal" people. They certainly will not have all the same opportunities as "normal" people. Should we spare them as well?

At what point does enduring "physical pain" outweigh having at a life at all? These are all questions that need qualification from you.

And yet there was a eugenics movement in the latter half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century in the United States (which btw greatly influenced Hitler's own beliefs on the races) that stated that blacks were inherently inferior, and their skin color was an instance of that inferiority.

And your point, besides another lesson on black oppression? So one line of belief back then was that blacks were in fact "not up to the full potential of "normal" people." Right?"

So then that would give "humansists" such as youself the right to try and prevent blacks from reproducing.

Again, you are making a circular argument. You reserve the moral right to not bring "problem" children into the world....but that means you have to define what a "problem child" is.

Some consider homosexuality a genetic disorder. You say it's genetically linked, but since it doesn't inhibit their "ability to live life to the fullest" claim it's not a disorder. What if I say by definition, they can't live life to the fullest, because they can't pass on their combined genes with their mate of choice.

What? There's more to life that homosexuals can offer than just offspring with the person they love? Great. But somehow, a downs syndrome child doesn't offer enough?

And yes, I'm saying that society is the defect, not homosexuality.

Of course, and that's your circular argument.

If you know that you have a high probability to pass on Down Syndrome and you don't do anything to try and prevent your child from getting Down Syndrome, then yes, I believe that is immoral, because you knowingly give your child an intellectual handicap.

What does an intellectual handicap have to do with living life? Is everyone on this planet born with the same inherent mental and physical capacity? Is intellectual capacity required to have a meanigful life? Exactly what IQ, Natoma, is required to NOT have an intellectual handicap.

Natoma, you really are cold and heartless, aren't you.

Homosexuality however is not physically or mentally disabling, when you remove society's prejudices from the picture.

According to you it's not. According to me, being homosexual has the physical "disabler" of not physically being able to pass on your genes with the person you love.

Why is that any less of a "limitation" than lower intelligence of downs syndrome?

I have been completely consistent.

Yes, aside from all those holes and instances of inconsistency.

I see you haven't answered one of the questions posed before, and now I'd like to explore it.

It's two days before a baby is due to be born. At that time, it is discovered to have Downs Syndrome. You have 3 options:

1) Abort the baby at 8 months and 27 days.
2) Kill the baby upon birth
3) Give birth, and raise the child so it may live to the fullest of it's ability

What is the "morally right" thing to do? Only options 1 or 2 will prevent this child from "suffering from its problems" though life, which is what you claim your moral compass is guided by.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

ya really. i mean i look forward to having children but if it turned out that the woman i fell in love with was barren i imagine i would come to terms with that and carry on the relationship regardless, but you consider me a deviant for that by the standards you presented, eh Joe?

This goes for you too, Antlers:

Um, this is covered way back in the second post when I re-entered this thread:

If two people, who are individually capable of sexual reproduction, enter into a relationship where sexual reproduction is not possible, that is "wrong."

Is your BARREN WIFE individually capable of reproduction? No. Then that doesn't apply.

Go back and read my entire post on the bottom of page 16.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

1) So let me ask you this. My partner and I are in a completely committed relationship. We have discussed having children with one surrogate mother through invitro so that our children would be related to one another. Since our completely committed relationship would have produced children, despite the lack of a female in it for sexual purposes on a day to day basis, would you consider that "moral" in your view? And I'm being completely serious. We have discussed this.

And I have answered it. This relationship did not produce a child that is the combination of your DNA and your Partners.

2) Why is the "furthering" of the human race such a big deal to you?

Because that's the basis of my moral compass. (Because I want the human race to evolve and prosper.

Why is having every individual be born without certain "handicaps" such that they meet your definition of a individual who can meet your definition of "potential to live life to the fullest" such a big deal to you?

If 10% of the population is homosexual, that would mean there are 600 Million homosexuals on the planet today. Probably half of whom actually live out their lives with homosexual partnerings, the other half who suppress their natural sexuality because of societal fears.

If 1% of the population are serial killers, that doesn't make serial killing any less moral to me.

If anything, we as a species are going to be faced with serious overpopulation issues during this century. It's been speculated that the worldwide population will hit 10 Billion by 2100. So I seriously doubt we're going to be going extinct anytime soon.

Cool, then serial killers are a godsend, no? The number of any particular "immorality" is irrelevant.

So again, why is the "furthering" of the human race such a big deal to you wrt the "moral" validity of a relationship? We are far and away beyond survival levels thank you very much technology and civilization.

That same technology that allows "handicapped" individuals to live more comfortable lives, and longer lives?

 

[antlers]

If two people, who are individually capable of sexual reproduction, enter into a relationship where sexual reproduction is not possible, that is "wrong."

So you have no problem with homosexual relationships among the sterile? What about people who might have children with others, but are genetically incompatible with their partners? Is their relationship "wrong"?