Canada leaders accept gay marriage ruling

[kyleb]

Kyle wrote:

genetically incompatible.

Well Kyle I know what genetically means, and I know what incompatable means. The words themselves mean nothing by themselves.

ahh, but do you know what incompatible means?

but seriously, sure the words mean things by themselves, and in the context of the discussion they mean even more. is this some sort of beating around the bush way for you to try and dismiss the fact that some couples are incapable of reproduction even though neither of them are inertial?

and that goes for you too Joe, if you sink any lower you will be argueing that it depends on how you define the word "is".

 

[Joe DeFuria]

To know that you and your wife have a high propensity for Down Syndrome should clue you into getting tested and doing whatever you can to prevent your child from having Down Syndrome. If you don't do that and say you'll just leave it up to chance, then I would consider that irresponsible because you are potentially saddling your child with physical and/or mental disabilities that otherwise it would not need to experience.

Natoma,

You're dodging the question. There is often nothing you can do to "prevent" genetic disorders. I can't "prevent" a child from having downs syndrome. It will either have it, or it won't. All we have is "risk factors".

Some education for you:

http://content.health.msn.com/content/healthwise/97/24033

The question that you're dodging, Natoma is this:

At what point is the "risk" of having a downs syndrome child great enough that the parents should not attempt to conceive a child? If we have a 100% chance of conceiving a child with a genetic disorder...is it immoral to try and have a child? 85%? 50%, 10%

First off, *you* stated genetic abnormalities. I kept that language from your post merely to keep it within the flow when answering your post. I do not believe homosexuality is a genetic abnormality anymore than I believe dark skin color is a genetic abnormality.

I said "abnormality". (NOTE QUOTES). I used quotes specifically because I assume you don't see it as an abnormality, even though I do.

The fact is, you believe it is a genetic trait of some sort, correct? Something in the genetic make-up determines your sexuality?

I believe they are both merely variations on a theme. Homosexuality is a sexual variation while dark skin color is a pigment variation.

And here's an example of each of us defining something to fit our moral prejudice. I believe it IS an abnormality, and not just some "variation."

Abnormality by definition is something is "not normal". And to me wanting to participate in sexual activity with a partner that cannot result in the bilogical process of reproduction, is "not normal."

You see it as nothing different than a change in hair color. I see the differences as obvious.

Now, excluding your obviously biased words, there is no qualification required.

As if your words aren't biased to your own viewpoint?

Because we have the ability to try and help each human being be as good as they can possibly be.

Now that is not saying we should enhance intelligence of bone structure or musculature.

Why not? Why make that qualification? The child isn't as good as he can be, if there are ways to enhance those things, and we don't take them, correct? What's so special about "enhancing"? Is it just because it's going beyond what is natural?

However, we should make sure that there are no abnormalities such as Cystic Fibrosis, Muscular Dystrophy, Down Syndrome, Spina Bifida, Retina Pigmentosa, Asthma, etc etc etc, present that would hinder that child's ability to be as good as they can be.

Again, your problem is in "making sure." In many cases, the only way to "make sure" is to not have a child.

Is it immoral for a mother to be drunk 24 hrs a day and chain smoke during pregnancy? I'd probably agree.

What about 1 drink and one cigarette every week? Every month? One time during pregnancy on New Years Eve?

There are DEGREES to which one can "ensure" that no abnormalities. Where does one draw the line?

It is no different that the steps taken today to correct problems in the womb.

Of course it is, that's the point. No one is arguing that one shouldn't take steps to minimize risk, or take corrective measures if problems are found.

What you have not answered, is what if the ONLY way to not give birth to a "problem child", is to not conceive a child in the first place.

By your logic, we should let a child with Spina Bifida be born and try and live their life as well as they can with that disability.

Wrong. That's not my logic at all. My logic is that if a man and a woman have a high or even 100% probability of bringing a "problem child" into the world, they are not immoral for doing so.

Firstly that was the first statement of my point. With regard to intellect *only*, they should be given as much of a chance to develop normally as possible. Obviously I'm not stating that a mentally disabled child cannot be loving. But would it not have been better for that child and his/her parents and family if he/she could have been born without that disability?

With Downs Syndrome, it's not possible for the child to be born without that disability. That's my point. There is nothing you can do to prevent or "cure" a downs syndrome pregnancy. Before you get pregnant, you can be made aware of the "risk" of having a downs syndrome child. End of story.

You have not answered the question about when the risk becomes to great.

And another question: if you find out you have a downs syndrom pregnancy, is it moral to abort him on the grounds that he's not, and never will be "normal?"

And don't give me that indignant attitude of yours because if you honestly don't believe children should be given every chance to develop with a healthy mind and body, you don't deserve children.

You know, it's bad enough that you just dodged the overriding question. It's worse that you make erroneous assertions based on not what I said, but what you think I said.

It's downright offensive that you, who will never know the true joy of fatherhood, to say whether or not I do or do not deserve children. It's downright offensive that you, who admits to not believe in complete self reliance and would rather the government pay your way with special treatment, should have anything to say about what I would or would not do for my kids.

You, Natmoa, are a laughing stock.

Frankly your son is lucky he was born healthy because if this negligent attitude of yours is anything to go by, you'd have let him come out deformed or psychologically retarded, even if you had a chance to correct the problems before birth.

Frankly, my son and daughter are damn lucky to have myself and my wife as his parents.

And obviously, you couldn't be more wrong. I suggest you don't any further into this Natoma.

Again, I *never* stated that a lower life span, or a life full of pain is not deserving of life at all. I said that the *parents* should take every possible precaution within their power to make sure their child is born healthy.

But you didn't answer the implied question. I'll repeat it in a sec.

If even after everything the parents did, the child still was born with abnormalities, then so be it. The parents can do whatever they can to love that child and care for it for as long as the child lives and needs care.

You have not explored the fact that one thing the parents can do, is not bring such a child into the world at all.

For shits and giggles though, lets take this out to today's technology. Next time you have a child, don't let your wife go through pre-natal care. Don't do anything out of the ordinary. Don't do any tests whatsoever to check for any possible deformities or genetic defects that could hinder the life of the child. Let your child be born naturally, as it was decades ago before all of our technology allowed us to intervene inside the womb.

If your child needs to be born a trimester premature, don't put it in an incubation chamber. Just let it live in the crib. If it dies, it dies. Don't do anything within your power to help that child live a healthy life.

Well gee, Natoma, that's just stupid, and again avoiding the question. This time I just have to demand it....please quote for the the part where I said it doesn't matter what type of care we give our kids.

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?

Uhm hello. Eventually we will have the technology to stop dwarfism. Duh.

Um, hello? You just dodged the question.

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

The continuation of your fallacious assumption, which I addressed above.

Wrong. It's a continuation of a question you have never addressed.

The question is: at what (if any) probability of parents having having a problem child, does it become immoral for attempting to bring such a child into the world.

As I have stated above, skin color is a variation. Just as sexuality is a variation.

Sure, I accept that opinion. I don't agree with it. Sexuality is an abnormailty, unlike skin color which is a variation.

Cystic Fibrosis is an abnormality. Congenital Heart Defects are an abnormality. Muscular Dystrophy is an abnormality.

There would be no reason to try and prevent black people from reproducing. It would be about changing *society*, which is what occurred.

So there IS a reason to try and prevent people "who can pass on abnormalities", like Congenital Heart Defects, and Muscular Dystrophy from reproducing?

HELLO? DO YOU SEE THE QUESTION I'M TRYING TO GET YOU TO DIRECTLY ANSWER NOW?

So...you again directly imply that there is a reason to try and prevent people from repropducing when an abnormality will be the result.

You have just stated the direct implication of your "moral code" that I am trying to get a direct response to. Instead, you continually try and deflect this to some nonsense about be not "caring" to provide the best care possible....

As I said before. Parents should take every precaution available to them to make sure their child is born healthy in mind and body. This is a simple concept.

Yes it is, and one that I never disagreed with nor implied disagreement.

You're a parent.

And you're not.

I would assume that you should know this. But if you don't, heaven help your next child if it has problems while in the womb.

And heaven help your child if it has problems, uh, in your partner's colon. (There will be technology that makes that possible, right?)

I mean, hevaen forbid your child has Downs Syndrome. You'll be looking at him from day one not as your child, but your problem child, and will undoubtedly reinforce your "you're not as good as everyone else" attitude throughout his life. I'm sure you'll push for quotas and other discriminitory treatment for him so that he can feel even more useless and dependent on others than he needs to be.

But then, "society" did that to you, so I guess you'll site that as your "excuse" to pass on the same treatment to your child. The buck never stops with you or any other liberal, does it Natoma? It's "society!"

1) I, Malik Graves-Pryor, believe that parents should take every precaution to make sure their child is born healthy in mind and body.

Do you, Malik Graves-Pryor, believe that parents with a high or even certain probability of having a "problem" child, are immoral if they try and conceive a child?

Do you, Malik Graves-Pryor, believe that having one alcoholic drink during pregnancy is less than doing "everything", and is therefore immoral?

2) I, Malik Graves-Pryor, believe that if parents do not take every precaution they can think of to make sure their child is born healthy in mind and body, they have failed that child in that respect.

Do you, Malik Graves-Pryor, believe that parents with a high or even certain probability of having a "problem" child, are immoral if they try and conceive a child?

Do you, Malik Graves-Pryor, believe that having one alcoholic drink during pregnancy is less than doing "everything", and is therefore immoral?

3) I, Malik Graves-Pryor, believe that after the child is born, the parents need to do everything within their means to care for that child, regardless of mental or physical deformity.

Do you, Malik, Graves-Pryor, consider it moral to abort a problem child before its born a problem child, rather than give birth to it? If so, "how severe" must the problem be?

4) I, Malik Graves-Pryor, do not believe that everyone is born with the same level of intelligence. I am not as intelligent as Albert Einstein, or Newton, or any other super intelligent person you can think of. However, I wasn't born with a genetic defect or physical abnormality that caused my intelligence to dip into the mental retardation range, i.e. Down Syndrome or Spina Bifida. I began life with no physical or mental problems. I believe that every baby should have the chance to be born without physical or mental problems.

Do you, Malik Graves-Pryor, understand that one cannot "do anything" to "prevent" someone being born with downs syndrome, other than either not conceiving the child at all, or aborting the child once conceived?

It's quite amazing to me that you can make numbered lists, and absolutely address nothing of relevance.

Because homosexuals are physically capable of having children. Not with each other....

Which is exactly my point. Not with each other. That is the basis for my moral stance on a relationship, which is to one another.

...but certainly the physical tools are there. Being in a relationship to have a child is a *societal* qualifier Joe. That is *society's* problem.

Um, no Natoma. Society has NOTHING to do with the fact that your sperm cannot fertilize the sperm of your partner.

I have been completely consistent.

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

Maybe if you would stop creating your own tangents and acting as if I was the one who created it, then rebutting that tangent as if I made that point (such as saying that I said that the mentally and/or physically disabled don't deserve to live. ), we wouldn't have these "inconsistency" problems you keep bringing up.

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.

Give birth to the child. You didn't know the baby had Down's Syndrome. You couldn't do anything about it. But it's still your child. I would keep the baby. But that is my personal decision. I would not fault a family for deciding to abort the baby. But I would feel very saddened by it.

Holy hell, you actually answered a question!

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Natoma wrote:

Natoma wrote:

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.

Now right now, we have the ability to correct *some* issues, but not all. All will be far into the future.

So, to be consistent you want to sterilize those couples whom may have the risk of children with Down Syndrome? I mean, let's be fair here. Your words Natoma, you said " if the incestuous couple were sterilized..." and untill such time that genetic manipulation can work, then it would seem you would want to sterilize a lot of potentially at risk couples.....

Bingo.

That's exactly what he failed to address in that book of a post to me. (And I repeated enough relevant questions in my book back to him that maybe he'll address it.)

1) He says incest is immoral based on resultant defects.
2) Defects are of course not limited to incest.
3) he has no problems with "sterilized" incestual relationships.
4) Does this mean that a couple with a knowingly high risk of downs syndrome should be sterilized for the relationship to be morally acceptable?

 

[nggalai]

Err . . . even though I usually quite enjoy heated arguments, could we please return to the argument at hand and stop the name calling? I've seen quite a few rather personal attacks over the past couple of postings, and frankly, I wonder whether anybody will "get" anything out of this apart from an ulcer or two.

Is it possible to leave the personal stuff for the PM system? Would be much appreciated--it's hard enough to catch up as is.

93,
-Sascha.rb

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Couples who may have the risk of children with Down Syndrome can take steps to prevent the passage of that gene today.

Please...define "high risk." There is always SOME RISK for downs syndrome. At what "risk level" does it suddenly become "immoral" to not undertake whatever financial or health risks that might be invovled with preventive measures?

Oh, and BTW:

http://content.health.msn.com/content/healthwise/54/13554

Down syndrome cannot be prevented.

Not sure if that is the "definitive source", or if whatever "preventive methods" you are referring to are just prohibitively expensive, or not proven to be any more effective than luck.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Err . . . even though I usually quite enjoy heated arguments, could we please return to the argument at hand and stop the name calling?

Apologies. Natoma draws his line at generic comparisons of homosexuality to beastiality, and I draw my line at personal insults relating to parenting skills and care for my children, especially coming from a non parent. He crossed the line, and I'm unfortunately not big enough to just ignore it.

 

[MfA]

...if you are religious and you need to rationalize your god's commandments then maybe you should reconsider your religion ...

And if you are "not religious" and you need to rationalize your own moral code, you should reconsider that as well.

If a religious person rationalizes his morals, and isnt trying to use that as a tool, it is likely a symptom of his innate sense of right and wrong clashing with those of his religion ... which has been a reason for plenty of people to loose their religion over the ages.

A non religious person has no alternative to his innate sense of right and wrong, so even if he feels the need to rationalize it there isnt really much to reconsider ... it is just a symptom of being to anal to be able to let go of ratio where it becomes useless.

Point?

Well the point was in the other bit, the rather blatantly obvious observation that it is all about morals.

 

[Natoma]

Err . . . even though I usually quite enjoy heated arguments, could we please return to the argument at hand and stop the name calling?

Apologies. Natoma draws his line at comparisons of homosexuality to beastiality, and I draw my line at personal insults relating to parenting skills, especially from non parents. He crossed the line, and I'm unfortunately not big enough to just ignore it.

God save your kids if they're gay. That is, if you even believe in god. I'm sure they'll love to know that you think they're abnormal.

 

[Natoma]

To know that you and your wife have a high propensity for Down Syndrome should clue you into getting tested and doing whatever you can to prevent your child from having Down Syndrome. If you don't do that and say you'll just leave it up to chance, then I would consider that irresponsible because you are potentially saddling your child with physical and/or mental disabilities that otherwise it would not need to experience.

Natoma,

You're dodging the question. There is often nothing you can do to "prevent" genetic disorders. I can't "prevent" a child from having downs syndrome. It will either have it, or it won't. All we have is "risk factors".

It's called In Vitro Fertilization. You can't do anything to prevent Down Syndrome when having sex and sending a few hundred million sperm to fertilize an egg. You're playing russian roulette.

However, you test individual sperm for the defective gene, and choose that one. It has been done. Dude, keep up with the times.

At what point is the "risk" of having a downs syndrome child great enough that the parents should not attempt to conceive a child? If we have a 100% chance of conceiving a child with a genetic disorder...is it immoral to try and have a child? 85%? 50%, 10%

No need for injecting morality into the equation. If you know you are a risk to have genetic problems and you want to not leave it up to chance, go the InVitro route and use genetic screening.

First off, *you* stated genetic abnormalities. I kept that language from your post merely to keep it within the flow when answering your post. I do not believe homosexuality is a genetic abnormality anymore than I believe dark skin color is a genetic abnormality.

I said "abnormality". (NOT QUOTES). I used quotes specifically because I assume you don't see it as an abnormality, even though I do.

The fact is, you believe it is a genetic trait of some sort, correct? Something in the genetic make-up determines your sexuality?

If you had been reading you would have seen that I've stated this.

I believe they are both merely variations on a theme. Homosexuality is a sexual variation while dark skin color is a pigment variation.

And here's an example of each of us defining something to fit our moral prejudice. I believe it IS an abnormality, and not just some "variation."

And you would be incorrect.

Abnormality by definition is something is "not normal". And to me wanting to participate in sexual activity with a partner that cannot result in the bilogical process of reproduction, is "not normal."

So by your definition, interracial couples are abnormal. That is "not normal".

And to me wanting to participate in sexual activity with a partner you do not wish to be with is "not normal."

Because we have the ability to try and help each human being be as good as they can possibly be.

Now that is not saying we should enhance intelligence of bone structure or musculature.

Why not? Why make that qualification? The child isn't as good as he can be, if there are ways to enhance those things, and we don't take them, correct? What's so special about "enhancing"? Is it just because it's going beyond what is natural?

That's not a qualification on making sure a child is healthy mentally and physically.

However, we should make sure that there are no abnormalities such as Cystic Fibrosis, Muscular Dystrophy, Down Syndrome, Spina Bifida, Retina Pigmentosa, Asthma, etc etc etc, present that would hinder that child's ability to be as good as they can be.

Again, your problem is in "making sure." In many cases, the only way to "make sure" is to not have a child.

In Vitro testing before fertilization. After you've conceived, there's not much hope for some of the above mentioned ailments, other than gene therapy (still in its infancy) or surgery.

Is it immoral for a mother to be drunk 24 hrs a day and chain smoke during pregnancy? I'd probably agree.

Indeed it is.

What about 1 drink and one cigarette every week? Every month? One time during pregnancy on New Years Eve?

Smoking and drinking during a pregnancy is imo immoral because you are potentially, and most likely knowingly, putting your baby at risk. Why are we even debating this point? I would assume that you as a parent would understand this.

It is no different that the steps taken today to correct problems in the womb.

Of course it is, that's the point. No one is arguing that one shouldn't take steps to minimize risk, or take corrective measures if problems are found.

What you have not answered, is what if the ONLY way to not give birth to a "problem child", is to not conceive a child in the first place.

Why are you making this ridiculous assertion? As I've said before, the parents should do everything in their power to make sure that their child gets the best pre- and post-natal care in order to take care of mental and/or physical deformities.

If they don't, I consider that *lack of action* to be the immorality. I have answered this before. You just keep ignoring it.

By your logic, we should let a child with Spina Bifida be born and try and live their life as well as they can with that disability.

Wrong. That's not my logic at all. My logic is that if a man and a woman have a high or even 100% probability of bringing a "problem child" into the world, they are not immoral for doing so.

And I've never said that!

Firstly that was the first statement of my point. With regard to intellect *only*, they should be given as much of a chance to develop normally as possible. Obviously I'm not stating that a mentally disabled child cannot be loving. But would it not have been better for that child and his/her parents and family if he/she could have been born without that disability?

With Downs Syndrome, it's not possible for the child to be born without that disability. That's my point. There is nothing you can do to prevent or "cure" a downs syndrome pregnancy. Before you get pregnant, you can be made aware of the "risk" of having a downs syndrome child. End of story.

You can prevent it by using InVitro. Once the child is conceived however, there is nothing you can do *today*, save for gene therapy, wrt to Down Syndrome.

And another question: if you find out you have a downs syndrom pregnancy, is it moral to abort him on the grounds that he's not, and never will be "normal?"

I've stated that while I would keep the child, I could understand why a family could choose to abort the pregnancy. But I will not pass a moral judgement on that because that is a personal issue for the family.

Considering my family has first hand experience in this matter, I know from where I speak.

And don't give me that indignant attitude of yours because if you honestly don't believe children should be given every chance to develop with a healthy mind and body, you don't deserve children.

You know, it's bad enough that you just dodged the overriding question. It's worse that you make erroneous assertions based on not what I said, but what you think I said.

It's downright offensive that you, who will never know the true joy of fatherhood, to say whether or not I do or do not deserve children. It's downright offensive that you, who admits to not believe in complete self reliance and would rather the government pay your way with special treatment, should have anything to say about what I would or would not do for my kids.

Hmm. My penis seems to function. So do my testicles. Looks to me like my partner and I can have related kids through a surrogate. True joy of fatherhood. If and When we are ready to have kids, and this we have discussed, we will.

And please, as if fatherhood is only defined by the biological production of children. As if adoption could not provide the same "true joy of fatherhood."

You, Natmoa, are a laughing stock.

As are you, Joe FeDariu.

Frankly your son is lucky he was born healthy because if this negligent attitude of yours is anything to go by, you'd have let him come out deformed or psychologically retarded, even if you had a chance to correct the problems before birth.

Frankly, my son and daughter are damn lucky to have myself and my wife as his parents.

And obviously, you couldn't be more wrong. I suggest you don't any further into this Natoma.

You're the one that went into this line of argumentation and showed yourself to be completely heartless and cruel when it comes to children. I just hope you're not the type to toss your child out on the street if they say sometime in the future "Daddy, I'm gay."

Again, I *never* stated that a lower life span, or a life full of pain is not deserving of life at all. I said that the *parents* should take every possible precaution within their power to make sure their child is born healthy.

But you didn't answer the implied question. I'll repeat it in a sec.

See above, and practically every post I've made in the past 3-4 pages.

If even after everything the parents did, the child still was born with abnormalities, then so be it. The parents can do whatever they can to love that child and care for it for as long as the child lives and needs care.

You have not explored the fact that one thing the parents can do, is not bring such a child into the world at all.

See above and practically every post I've made in the past 3-4 pages.

For shits and giggles though, lets take this out to today's technology. Next time you have a child, don't let your wife go through pre-natal care. Don't do anything out of the ordinary. Don't do any tests whatsoever to check for any possible deformities or genetic defects that could hinder the life of the child. Let your child be born naturally, as it was decades ago before all of our technology allowed us to intervene inside the womb.

If your child needs to be born a trimester premature, don't put it in an incubation chamber. Just let it live in the crib. If it dies, it dies. Don't do anything within your power to help that child live a healthy life.

Well gee, Natoma, that's just stupid, and again avoiding the question. This time I just have to demand it....please quote for the the part where I said it doesn't matter what type of care we give our kids.

You're the one who stated that we should just let kids be born without any intervention.

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

Your words. Not mine.

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?

Uhm hello. Eventually we will have the technology to stop dwarfism. Duh.

Um, hello? You just dodged the question.

Nope. You just didn't respond to the whole section. You responded to one sentence. *This* was the whole section.

Uhm hello. Eventually we will have the technology to stop dwarfism. Duh.

And it's not about the height directly, in terms of just being 4 feet tall. That is society's defect to deal with, wrt stares and discrimination against Dwarfs.

No, dwarfs generally have more physical problems to deal with such as incorrectly sized internal organs, poorer health (in general), and other issues. There are some dwarfs that are healthy however and lead normal lives. But quite a few experience physical problems due to their organs being compressed in their shortened bodies.

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

The continuation of your fallacious assumption, which I addressed above.

Wrong. It's a continuation of a question you have never addressed.

Again, you didn't respond to the whole section. You responded to one sentence. I posted the *entire* section above.

The question is: at what (if any) probability of parents having having a problem child, does it become immoral for attempting to bring such a child into the world.

I've already addressed this. See above. But if you don't want to read above, here it is again.

Parents should take whatever steps they can to prevent a child from being born with mental and physical defects. If even after all their trying that child is *still* born with problems, then it is their duty as parents to care for that child, imo.

If they choose to have an abortion because they realize that even after all the steps they've taken to care for that child, it still is born deformed mentally and/or physically, then it is their right to choose termination, or an abortion. While I would not necessarily follow that route, I can certainly understand and empathize with the difficult decision it would entail.

Cystic Fibrosis is an abnormality. Congenital Heart Defects are an abnormality. Muscular Dystrophy is an abnormality.

There would be no reason to try and prevent black people from reproducing. It would be about changing *society*, which is what occurred.

So there IS a reason to try and prevent people "who can pass on abnormalities", like Congenital Heart Defects, and Muscular Dystrophy from reproducing?

Nope. Because we can address those problems through burgeoning fields such as gene therapy, intra-womb surgery, invitro fertilization, etc etc etc. But this, I have stated before.

HELLO? DO YOU SEE THE QUESTION I'M TRYING TO GET YOU TO DIRECTLY ANSWER NOW?

So...you again directly imply that there is a reason to try and prevent people from repropducing when an abnormality will be the result.

You have just stated the direct implication of your "moral code" that I am trying to get a direct response to. Instead, you continually try and deflect this to some nonsense about be not "caring" to provide the best care possible....

HELLO? DO YOU SEE THE ANSWER I'VE BEEN GIVING YOU ALL THIS TIME TO WHICH YOU HAVE NOT APPARENTLY COMPREHENDED AND NOW WE ARE FORCED TO TALK TO ONE ANOTHER WITH THE CAPSLOCK BUTTON ON AND IT'S MAKING MY EYES BLEED AND THIS IS A GODAWFUL RUN ON SENTENCE THAT WOULD KILL MY ENGLISH TEACHER WHERE SHE STOOD THOUGH I MIGHT NOT BE TOO OPPOSED TO THAT SINCE SHE WAS A REAL OLD BITCH????

WELL? HUH???

You're a parent.

And you're not.

Oooh someone's getting testy now.

<snip mindless drivel, and other drivel that has already been answered. this is getting too long as it is.>

Because homosexuals are physically capable of having children. Not with each other....

Which is exactly my point. Not with each other. That is the basis for my moral stance on a relationship, which is to one another.

And neither can any infertile couple that has to rely on invitro fertilization and surrogate mothers or surrogate fathers. So by your moral stance, they are immoral since that couple cannot have a child with one another.

Silly Joe.

...but certainly the physical tools are there. Being in a relationship to have a child is a *societal* qualifier Joe. That is *society's* problem.

Um, no Natoma. Society has NOTHING to do with the fact that your sperm cannot fertilize the sperm of your partner.

Actually, society has something to do with seeing a child being born, but not containing the genes of the two "parents," as immoral. Oh wait. Let me amend that. *Joe's* society has something to do with that. Gee.

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.

Give birth to the child. You didn't know the baby had Down's Syndrome. You couldn't do anything about it. But it's still your child. I would keep the baby. But that is my personal decision. I would not fault a family for deciding to abort the baby. But I would feel very saddened by it.

Holy hell, you actually answered a question!

Holy hell, you actually read the *entire* thought instead of breaking it up into tiny pieces and addressing each piece individually instead of the whole. Amazing what a little common sense debating style can do for your understanding of the concepts isn't it Joe?

Normally, you'd have done something like this:

-------------------
Speaking as Joe DeFuria:

Give birth to the child.

What? You can give birth? Now I've heard it all.

But it's still your child.

Obviously.

I would keep the baby.

How are you going to keep the baby? You can't even have a kid with your parter. Immoral I tell you. Immoral!!!

I would ... fault a family for deciding to abort the baby.

Oh really. That is so leftist-Chomsky-Communist-Pig of you. I expected as much.

But I would feel very saddened by it.

Lies. All lies!
-------------------

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Can't stop with the personal attacks on parenting, eh, Naomta? And exactly does repeating this same accusation that you levied against me in a past thread accomplish?

God save your kids if they're gay. That is, if you even believe in god. I'm sure they'll love to know that you think they're abnormal.

They will know that I, and my God for that matter, loves them, Natoma, despite whatever abnormailities they have in my eyes.

Of course your kids will be perfect, and will never do anything, or have any qualities that you disagree with, right Natoma? God save YOU if you're ever a parent. I'm sure your kids will be thrilled to have a parent that has no mechanisms for dealing with reality.

 

[Natoma]

They will know that I, and my God for that matter, loves them, Natoma, despite whatever abnormailities they have in my eyes.

Again. I'm sure that your kids will love the fact that you think they're abnormal. Man, you'd have been like one of those parents back in the 19th century who would look down upon their child for being too dark.

Or the practice in china whereby millions of girls were made into the "second sex" because the families wanted boys.



"Oh I and god still love you!..... Sort of....."

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It's called In Vitro Fertilization. You can't do anything to prevent Down Syndrome when having sex and sending a few hundred million sperm to fertilize an egg. You're playing russian roulette.

However, you test individual sperm for the defective gene, and choose that one. It has been done. Dude, keep up with the times.

That's a convenient response...without any sources of course. This has been done for downs syndrome? At what cost and with what risks?

Hell you just cured all genetic disorders Natoma!! "Just genetically screen!" Congratulations. Pick up your nobel prize at the door.

And here's an example of each of us defining something to fit our moral prejudice. I believe it IS an abnormality, and not just some "variation."

And you would be incorrect.

No, you would be incorrect. (so there.)

This just illustrates your absurdity. I am fully willing to accept your opinion as valid even though I disagree with it. You, on the other hand, can only tell me that I'm wrong.

Sigh.

Abnormality by definition is something is "not normal". And to me wanting to participate in sexual activity with a partner that cannot result in the bilogical process of reproduction, is "not normal."

So by your definition, interracial couples are abnormal. That is "not normal".

No, by my definition iterracial couples are normal. Where do you come up with this stuff?

And to me wanting to participate in sexual activity with a partner you do not wish to be with is "not normal."

Agreed.

In other words. you can't pretend to be normal. You are, in my opinion, abnormal. Glad we finally agree on this.

That's not a qualification on making sure a child is healthy mentally and physically.

Yes it is. Because it can be even healthier than whatever arbitrary line you are drawing for "acceptable health."

In Vitro testing before fertilization.

See above.

Is it immoral for a mother to be drunk 24 hrs a day and chain smoke during pregnancy? I'd probably agree.

Indeed it is.

Smoking and drinking during a pregnancy is imo immoral because you are potentially, and most likely knowingly, putting your baby at risk.

Since when has it been "established" that one drink during pregnancy put anything at risk?

What happens when you get conflicting advice from doctors about what you should and shouldn't do?

What you have not answered, is what if the ONLY way to not give birth to a "problem child", is to not conceive a child in the first place.

Why are you making this ridiculous assertion?

Because you keep failing to answer it.

Because you have stated that sterlization (eliminating chance of children) for Incest relationships makes the relationship OK.

So, if you're going to be consistent, you have two options:

1) Say that incestual relationships are OK, and sterilization is not needed. It's OK as long as they understand they take "some measures" to prevent them.

2) Say that other relationships with high degrees of risk for problems, must sterlize (or not have kids) to be OK.

Wrong. That's not my logic at all. My logic is that if a man and a woman have a high or even 100% probability of bringing a "problem child" into the world, they are not immoral for doing so.

And I've never said that!

Um, but I keep asking you that, and you keep failing to answer it.

You can prevent it by using InVitro.

See above.

I've stated that while I would keep the child, I could understand why a family could choose to abort the pregnancy. But I will not pass a moral judgement on that because that is a personal issue for the family.

Considering my family has first hand experience in this matter, I know from where I speak.

Considering your family has experience in the matter, doesn't mean they made a choice you morally agree with.

Hmm. My penis seems to function. So do my testicles. Looks to me like my partner and I can have related kids through a surrogate. True joy of fatherhood. If and When we are ready to have kids, and this we have discussed, we will.

Sorry. You'll never know the feeling of looking at one child, and realizing that single child is part of BOTH of you, and not anyone else.

You're the one that went into this line of argumentation and showed yourself to be completely heartless and cruel when it comes to children. I just hope you're not the type to toss your child out on the street if they say sometime in the future "Daddy, I'm gay."

See past post. But keep on laying down that accusation, Natoma. You obviously have no idea what it means to love your child, not that I'd expect you to. Since you're obviously the type that believes the only course of action when dealing with a child who has some quality you disapprove of is to "toss him out", you obviously have no business being a father.

You're the one who stated that we should just let kids be born without any intervention.

I ASK YOU AGAIN FOR THE POST WHERE I STATED THAT.

Can we agree that lying is immoral, Natoma?

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

Your words. Not mine.

Lol...no wonder you're confused. Taking things out of context, I see? Nah, YOU wouldn't do that, right? That statement is just the direct opposite moral compass to your own. It is an illustration of ANOTHER VALID guideline to hopefully get you to see there can be a balance between the two that is also as valid.

It's not mine though, nor did I ever claim it to be. Duh.

Nope. You just didn't respond to the whole section. You responded to one sentence. *This* was the whole section.

Oh, for the love of God...

Uhm hello. Eventually we will have the technology to stop dwarfism. Duh.

And it's not about the height directly, in terms of just being 4 feet tall. That is society's defect to deal with, wrt stares and discrimination against Dwarfs.

No, dwarfs generally have more physical problems to deal with such as incorrectly sized internal organs, poorer health (in general), and other issues. There are some dwarfs that are healthy however and lead normal lives. But quite a few experience physical problems due to their organs being compressed in their shortened bodies.

So, um, Dwarfs face both physical issues and societal discrimination. Um, thanks for the enlightenment.

So there IS a reason to try and prevent people "who can pass on abnormalities", like Congenital Heart Defects, and Muscular Dystrophy from reproducing?

Nope. Because we can address those problems through burgeoning fields such as gene therapy, intra-womb surgery, invitro fertilization, etc etc etc. But this, I have stated before.

Sure...you've stated it. It just isn't true in all or even a majority of cases. Nor have you addressed the question of "to what extent" is it reasonable to go to these lengths?

Is it a "judgement call" on a case by case basis? What happens when a doctor tells you one procedure has the risk of killing the mother? (As does ALL surgery, including intra-womb). The risk of aborting the baby? (Which even simple Amniocentesis can cause).

Is it moral to risk the life of the mother or baby for the chance of increasing it's "normalness?"

HELLO? DO YOU SEE THE ANSWER I'VE BEEN GIVING YOU ALL THIS TIME TO WHICH YOU HAVE NOT APPARENTLY COMPREHENDED AND NOW WE ARE FORCED TO TALK TO ONE ANOTHER WITH THE CAPSLOCK BUTTON ON AND IT'S MAKING MY EYES BLEED AND THIS IS A GODAWFUL RUN ON SENTENCE THAT WOULD KILL MY ENGLISH TEACHER WHERE SHE STOOD THOUGH I MIGHT NOT BE TOO OPPOSED TO THAT SINCE SHE WAS A REAL OLD BITCH????

WELL? HUH???

IT GOT YOU TO ACTUALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION, DIDN'T IT?!

And neither can any infertile couple that has to rely on invitro fertilization and surrogate mothers or surrogate fathers. So by your moral stance, they are immoral since that couple cannot have a child with one another.

Silly Joe.

Go back to page 16, bottom post. Thanks.

Um, no Natoma. Society has NOTHING to do with the fact that your sperm cannot fertilize the sperm of your partner.

Actually, society has something to do with seeing a child being born, but not containing the genes of the two "parents," as immoral. Oh wait. Let me amend that. *Joe's* society has something to do with that. Gee.

No, Natoma just likes to put words into other peoples mouths. Gee, thanks.

No one said that such a child is immoral, or the parents are immoral for persuing such things. The SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP is. Full stop.

[snip nonsense]

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Again. I'm sure that your kids will love the fact that you think they're abnormal.

They will know that I, and my God for that matter, loves them, Natoma, despite whatever abnormailities they have in my eyes.

Man, you'd have been like one of those parents back in the 19th century who would look down upon their child for being too dark.

Of course your kids will be perfect, and will never do anything, or have any qualities that you disagree with, right Natoma? God save YOU if you're ever a parent. I'm sure your kids will be thrilled to have a parent that has no mechanisms for dealing with reality.

Or the practice in china whereby millions of girls were made into the "second sex" because the families wanted boys.

Ironically, Natoma, if technology can do it...what's wrong with it? Isn't that the basis of the majority of your arguments?

"Oh I and god still love you!..... Sort of....."

And here's our fundamental difference.

Me: I and God still love you, even though you have qualities I don't like. FULL STOP.

You: You have qualities I don't like. I can't conceive of the notion that I could still love you, unless it's "sort of."

God save your kids, Natoma.

 

[Silent_One]

Kyleb wrote:

ahh, but do you know what incompatible means?

but seriously, sure the words mean things by themselves, and in the context of the discussion they mean even more. is this some sort of beating around the bush way for you to try and dismiss the fact that some couples are incapable of reproduction even though neither of them are inertial?

In all honesty, no. I took genetically incompatible, as it was written, to mean that each person could, with other people, have normal children, but togather, could not. Usually with genetic defects one parent or the other is the carrier of the defective gene. Thats why when antlers said "What about people who might have children with others, but are genetically incompatible with their partners?", excluding homosexuals, what genetic defect is he talking about?

 

[kyleb]

no defect, just part of nature; some peoples genes simply will not mix. i did a quick google seach for those words and came up with this, athough i am sure there is plenty of info on the subject if you want to dig for it.

still currious as to what Joe considers so immoral about such relationships though.

 

[Natoma]

You know Joe, I can see that this is going nowhere wrt you and me. You want me to accept your worldview as your particular opinion and respect that, which I simply can't. I cannot respect your worldview wrt homosexuality anymore than I can respect the worldview of a kkk member wrt race relations in this country, or respect the worldview of a male chauvanist wrt women, or respect the worldview of a militant feminist manhater wrt men, or respect the worldview of an anti-semite, or the worldview of an anti-islamist, or whatever.

I cannot abide bigotry, even intelligent bigotry, because frankly history is littered with instances of people doing just that, and disaster occurring. I don't think you're going to be the next coming of a human disaster. However, your beliefs most certainly are repeating the cycle of bigotry and hatred that has, in the past, been pointed at certain groups, and now just happen to fall on homosexuals. In 100 years it'll be something else.

You have these anti-gay beliefs, and you try to hide them behind a veneer of sophistication and logic and intelligence. But strip that all away and you're frankly no better than the idiot on the street who yells "Faggot" epithets and goes on gay bashing sprees. You simply have a better way of lacing your words and hiding your true intent behind "logical thought." And frankly it doesn't help that you're stubborn as a mule when it comes to this particular situation either. But I suppose there are people like that in the world.

Anyways, I'm getting off at this stop. I've said my peace. There are 20+ pages with my thoughts completely laid out, so at this point it will be nothing but a rehash anyways.

 

[Xmas]

Then what do you think is worse, the inability to have children or contraception?

Again, my answer is "it depends." It depends on how contraception is approached. Is it approached from the standpoint of "I never want to have kids, and I never want to pass my genes on, just because I don't want to, even though I could bring a child into this world and reasonably support him....but I still want to have sex", then that is in effect the inability to have children.

To me, that's selfish.

With exactly that thought, I'd consider it to sound selfish too, but not to be selfish. Because I don't believe having children is our foremost responsibility to society. And I do not believe sex in a good relationship is selfish (considering the couple, not society)

What I find a bit surprising is that from reading your words I get the impression that you consider the decision not to have children somewhat less objectionable than the physical inability to pass on ones genes that is outside of anyone's choice. I'd have expected you to say "radical" contraception is far more objectionable than the inability, since only the former is a matter of choice.

And again, I do separate sexual acts from sexual relationships. And we're really getting away from the core question, which is the morality of specific relationships. To be clear, I don't view homosexual sex as immoral. It's sexual realtionship between same-sex partners that I object to.

So do you think sexual acts can take place outside of a 'sexual relationship'? If not, I find this separation really strange.
If yes however, then do you think two same-sex partners having a non-sexual relationship (which I hope you don't find objectionable), but having homosexual sex outside of this relationship (which you don't think is immoral as stated above) are less objectionable than a same-sex couple having a strong loving relationship that is also sexual?

 

[kyleb]

lol, ya that does seem a funny argument; it sounds like something along the lines of "buggery is fine but if they cuddle afterwords, that is just plain wrong."

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You know Joe, I can see that this is going nowhere wrt you and me. You want me to accept your worldview as your particular opinion and respect that, which I simply can't.

Of course you can't, because you are the typical leftist. You demand "sensitivity" and "willingness and tolerance to accpet other points of view, cultures, etc." except when it clashes with your own point of view of course. Then all bets are off.

You have these anti-gay beliefs, and you try to hide them behind a veneer of sophistication and logic and intelligence.

Um, who's hiding?

I believe homosexual realtionships are immoral.

Can I say it any more plainly or directly than that?

The difference between you and me is, despite the fact that I feel it's immoral, that it is grotesque to me, is against nature IMO....I still respect your opinion to feel otherwise.

I still believe that you should have the right to same sex unions..DESPITE the fact I find it immoral. Because I know that morals, like religion, are a personal thing, and the government shouldn't be dictating them to people in the general case.

And I'm the "cold and heartless" conservative, right?

But strip that all away and you're frankly no better than the idiot on the street who yells "Faggot" epithets and goes on gay bashing sprees.

Right....because the idiots who yell Faggot and go on gay bashing sprees support your right to have a legal same sex union?

Quite frankly Natoma, YOU are no better than the idiot who yells Faggot and goes on gay bashing sprees. Because you display zero tolerance for opposing points of view. Your response to the opposing view is much the same as the idiot or the KKK member: throw personal and insults and hatred at your opponent in some attempt to victimize or demoralize him.

You simply have a better way of lacing your words and hiding your true intent behind "logical thought."

I would love to hear what my "true intent" is. My only intention is to state my opinion on homosexuality, and try and explain my rationale behind it, as much as one can explain the rationale behind a moral, anyway.

And frankly it doesn't help that you're stubborn as a mule when it comes to this particular situation either. But I suppose there are people like that in the world.

Pot...kettle...black. I'm the mule...and you're the one who can't accept an opposing viewpoint as valid. (Cue x-files music...)

Anyways, I'm getting off at this stop. I've said my peace. There are 20+ pages with my thoughts completely laid out, so at this point it will be nothing but a rehash anyways.

Yes, you've ceratinly laid out your utter intolerance for anything other than your personal view point. Gee, thanks.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

...Because I don't believe having children is our foremost responsibility to society. And I do not believe sex in a good relationship is selfish (considering the couple, not society)

I didn't say it was our foremost responsibility, but I do consider it a responsibility. (Taken to it's ultimate conclusion...if none of us had kids, we'd be gone in a generation.) So I can't see how anyone can think that society doesn't have some responsibility to have offspring. (I'm not saying you believe that, I'm just making myself clear.)

What I find a bit surprising is that from reading your words I get the impression that you consider the decision not to have children somewhat less objectionable than the physical inability to pass on ones genes that is outside of anyone's choice.

What makes homosexuality different, as I tried to explain before, is that there is no physical innate inability for the individual to pass on one's genes. It's the nature of the relationship that causes that inability.

I'd have expected you to say "radical" contraception is far more objectionable than the inability, since only the former is a matter of choice.

Again, "choice" is a guideline, but not a requirement for morality IMO. Someone who is "insane" and murders someone else not having a "choice" by virture of his insanity...is that person / act immoral? I can accept yes and no both to be valid opinions.

I could also argue that while homosexuals don't have a "choice" as to what sex they are attracted to, they do have a choice of whom to have a sexual relationship with.

If you think homosexual relationships are moral on the grounds that they don't have a "choice", then I disagree with that, though I respect that opinion. (Edit: To be clear, I don't disagree about them not having much of a choice in the matter, but I disagree that choice is a factor.)

And again, I do separate sexual acts from sexual relationships. And we're really getting away from the core question, which is the morality of specific relationships. To be clear, I don't view homosexual sex as immoral. It's sexual realtionship between same-sex partners that I object to.

So do you think sexual acts can take place outside of a 'sexual relationship'? If not, I find this separation really strange.

Well, I wouldn't say that I think sex acts can occur outside a "sexual relationship. " (Pretty much by definition, if there is a sex act involved, there is a sexual relationship.) Perhaps I should define the term "sexual relationship", more clearly though, to help illustrate my separation: How about this: "relationship that includes desire of, sex acts"

So, you can have a sexual realtionship without sex. That is how they are separate. If the "desire" for sex is there by at least one person, there is a in a tangible sexual component to the relationship. For example, I can be flirting with some woman in a bar because I find her sexually attractive: there's no physical sex going on, but my sexual attraction to her is defining in part my relationship with her...how I treat her, converse with her, etc. It may be the reason I bothered to say "hello" to her and have a relationship with her at all.

And it's the "desire" aspect (not the sex itself) that I essentially object to.

If yes however, then do you think two same-sex partners having a non-sexual relationship (which I hope you don't find objectionable), but having homosexual sex outside of this relationship (which you don't think is immoral as stated above) are less objectionable than a same-sex couple having a strong loving relationship that is also sexual?

My answer was no. Having homosexual sex is objectionable "immoral"...but on the grounds that it is desired to be had in the first place.

(If someone holds a gun to my head, and another male's head, and "forces us" to have sex, that sex act is not immoral.)

Having said that, I do think two same sex partners having a non sexual relationship can be objectionable. (As per my definition of "sexual relationship" above). If there is desire to have sex between the two same sex partners, that relationship, in terms of morality, it's not different in my eyes than if they actually have sex.

edit:

By the way THANK YOU for discussing this in a level headed and non-inflamatory fashion...