Next "logical" step after abortion?
- Thread starter covermye
- Start date
covermye said:
Oh my god...... As "genetically" or "bioethically" correct it might be (which i have my doubts anyway), we're talking about killing little babies...
Although i do agree that sadly, sometimes, RARELY, a person is much better off being dead than with some horrible disease hurting and making them suffer for the rest of their short life. But i'm talking about those rare occasions where euthanesia is also "correct" and fair to the patient suffering of a terminal disease who just lives on a bed to suffer inhuman pain until he/she dies.
i can see their point. I do believe these unborn babies are alive. But since the law doesnt, then why not extend killing rights to very young children that have a slim chance of living(ie premies,...).
later,
epic
later,
epic
How far to raise that bar? Vegetative state? Severe Retardation/deformaties? Mild retardation? Wrong sex, bad teeth, wrong color eyes?
Okay, "killing" a baby after 40 weeks can't really be put under the banner of normal, average, proper abortions, so don't try and pull that one.
Secondly, this is fairly unpleasant - but, as someone else already said, some people WOULD be better off dead. Of course, as RussSchultz mentionned, there are issues with where this would stop. But as it stands, this really isn't that controversial.
And yes, i'm pro-choice before that's brought up.
Secondly, this is fairly unpleasant - but, as someone else already said, some people WOULD be better off dead. Of course, as RussSchultz mentionned, there are issues with where this would stop. But as it stands, this really isn't that controversial.
And yes, i'm pro-choice before that's brought up.
I know that if I had a child that was retarded/disabled to the point that it would never function independantly, I'd probably go insane from guilt because I know (at this point in my life, at least), I'm horribly selfish and would not want the permanent burden of raising the child.
Maybe I'd change because it was "my child", but I doubt it.
Sigh. I am evil.
Maybe I'd change because it was "my child", but I doubt it.
Sigh. I am evil.
PaulS said:
As an aside, this is one of the greatest travesties IMHO that a politic body has instilled on the general populace with pseudo-science. I'm waiting for the day I can arbitrarily redefine your clump of self replicating cells sitting in a chair reading this and safely kill you off since you're not "defined" as a human. But, be happy, your mom chose well.
Vince said:
Way to hyperbole. You know full well that there's a difference between the likes of us, and a few cells in a womb. We're not talking about a fully grown fetus here - for the most part, it is literally just a bunch of cells, and nothing more. It doesn't move, it doesn't excrete and it doesn't have any senses or level of consciousness - It is well and truly not alive. It is, as they say, a dead parrot.
Obviously there comes a point where you could say you're killing a human being, but early term abortions do not represent that point. You suggest that it's a travesty that a political body has given people like me that opinion with "pseudo science", yet the real travesty is to be found within the bible belts of America, which are chock full of anti-abortionists, holding their signs aloft whilst ignoring the issues. If you think "killing" a few cells is bad, then does that make bringing an unwanted child into the world - either onto parents who don't care for it, or pushing it onto an already overburdened and under-financed social services system - good?
PaulS said:
Uh, no. I don't see the difference. And your response is comical in that you play into the arbitrary division based on mere semantics which I posted about.
First of all, your biological knowledge is severely lacking and as with most pro-abortion supporters who argue based on pseudo-science, a lack of knowledge, and their political motivations - it's killing you. The current general convention holds that an entity is "alive" if it satisfies two conditions
- Replication - the ability to self-replicate and reproduce.
- Chemical Assimilation - the ability to aquire particular molecules and use them in controlled rxn's, a singular Carnot cycle is often used as the bound
Hmm... last time I checked a "fetus" can do both, does do both and nobody is arguing this. The distinction between "living" and "nonliving" only comes into play with entities like Virus's which are evolved chemical constructs, yet they can't self-replicate.
Evolutionary biology will further make the distinction between [early] self-replicators such as nucleotides and multicellular forms of "true" life - but the fetus passes both with flying colors. So, I have no idea where you heard that.. but wow.
The real travesty is that I'm a conservative whose beginning to realize that the American educational system must be really FUBAR. The issue has nothing to do with your partisan "Bible Belt" mentality, but rather science and the lack of understanding on both sides - although the bible belt happens to fall on the right side.
While I'd like to argue based on just the biology behind this, even the politics boggles me. The history of our civilization is filled with times when one group, community, nation or race has arbitrarily deemed another to be inferior and incapable of life for reasons which we laugh at today. Too many human lives, too much potential, has perished because they were considered "disposable" due to their genetic make-up, be it Jewish or Black or born a Woman, or a fetus -- when we will learn already.
In a 100 years, when our kids look back upon this practice... they'll be as ashamed as I am of what some in our society have done. And it's unfortunate.
Whoa! What do you think you are? Something special? Unique? Let me tell you, there is nothing fundamental that separates you from primates and reptiles, bacteria, and a bunch of cells. Your consciousness thinking up these big ideas is nothing special - it's just a bunch of cells firing in temporal/spatial (a)sync, you're a nobody. With todays use of RNA/Amino Acids as molecular clocks, I can trace your butt phylogenetically back a good 3 billions years back to nothing but a single replicator.
So, tell me again how you differ from that "few cells" which you have no problem "killing" - the same few cells you were. Sometimes I marvel at the grand irony that out there somewhere they may happened to be one of Everett's worlds where all the [future] abortion supporter's mothers had abortions.
Vince said:
I couldn't agree more. The history of the human race is the history of the rationalization of all manner of terrible things, most recently by the Communists and Nazis. Anyone who is pro-choice should read up on the materialist philosophies they adopted that allowed them to rationalize the extermination of groups of people (Jews, disabled, gays, "bourgeoisie", etc.), in the quest for either the perfect race (Nazis) or the perfect society (Communists). You'll find that though the particulars differ, the logic is damnably similar to that used by the pro-choice camp.
And yes, our schools are definitely FUBAR. I didn't learn anything important about the world until years after high-school. When I have kids, I'll be homeschooling them.
The sad (and scary) part to me is this: No matter where the "bar" currently lies on the abortion issue, and what's "morally accepted", there will always be someone trying to justify moving that bar just a little further.
Abortion is OK? Why not deliver the baby all the way out except the head, then suck its brains out and call that a "late term abortion"? Good idea, no?
Late term abortion is OK? Why not terminate the life of a mentally retarded infant shortly after birth. After all, he'll just be a hassle to his parents his whole life anyhow, won't he? Really, we're all better off without anyone in our families having mental defects of any kind, aren't we?
Terminating the early life of a just-delivered infant because he happens to be "mentally defective"? What if a test is developed that projects a person's future intelligence capacity after just a few days from birth? My baby's wasn't high enough for my liking. Doctor, can you terminate it for me? I was really wanting a "smarter" baby.
Terminating early life just because mental capacity doesn't meet my expectations? What if the doctor projects the height of my new, healthy baby boy to be 4' 3"? He's gonna be a midget. I can't deal with that! Doctor, please terminate the life of my newborn. I don't want to deal with the "mental anguish" of having to raise a "little person".
Terminating the early life of an infant just because he's not gonna be of "mainstream" size? Hell, why stop there? Our now 4-year old girl is the SPITTING IMAGE of me: dark hair, brown eyes, tall/thin... if you cut her hair you couldn't tell her apart from my baby pictures. Our now 9-month old boy is the polar opposite: blonde hair, blue eyes, fair skin. I really wanted a boy that looked more like me. Too bad this early-life termination isn't legal now... I would have just had him "put to sleep" and tried again to make one look more like me.
This bit of human nature, wanting to always "challenge the bar-height" has gone far enough already as sanctity-of-life is concerned. Why devalue human life any further than it's already been?
Abortion is OK? Why not deliver the baby all the way out except the head, then suck its brains out and call that a "late term abortion"? Good idea, no?
Late term abortion is OK? Why not terminate the life of a mentally retarded infant shortly after birth. After all, he'll just be a hassle to his parents his whole life anyhow, won't he? Really, we're all better off without anyone in our families having mental defects of any kind, aren't we?
Terminating the early life of a just-delivered infant because he happens to be "mentally defective"? What if a test is developed that projects a person's future intelligence capacity after just a few days from birth? My baby's wasn't high enough for my liking. Doctor, can you terminate it for me? I was really wanting a "smarter" baby.
Terminating early life just because mental capacity doesn't meet my expectations? What if the doctor projects the height of my new, healthy baby boy to be 4' 3"? He's gonna be a midget. I can't deal with that! Doctor, please terminate the life of my newborn. I don't want to deal with the "mental anguish" of having to raise a "little person".
Terminating the early life of an infant just because he's not gonna be of "mainstream" size? Hell, why stop there? Our now 4-year old girl is the SPITTING IMAGE of me: dark hair, brown eyes, tall/thin... if you cut her hair you couldn't tell her apart from my baby pictures. Our now 9-month old boy is the polar opposite: blonde hair, blue eyes, fair skin. I really wanted a boy that looked more like me. Too bad this early-life termination isn't legal now... I would have just had him "put to sleep" and tried again to make one look more like me.
This bit of human nature, wanting to always "challenge the bar-height" has gone far enough already as sanctity-of-life is concerned. Why devalue human life any further than it's already been?
PaulS said:
No it doesn't. Somehow, it didn't take too long for the old addage of "two wrongs don't make a right" to pop into my head here. The problem is that the bleeding hearts in our society are SO GOOD at comming up with SOLUTIONS to problems, without really addressing the problems themselves.
The PROBLEM, in this case, is that we have created this stuipd idea that one is free to participate in sexual activity with whomever or whatever one feels the need to, and not suffer the consequences that follow: STD's, or even worse in today's world... dun-dun-dunnnnnnnnn: unwanted pregnancy. Holy crap! You mean I shouldn't be having sex if I want to be absolutely sure I don't want a baby? No. I can't handle that. I want to have sex whenever the "urge" arises. It's so "prudish" to control unwanted pregnancy by actually SUPRESSING MY URGES. I don't want to be a prude!
Sexual education in our society (at least in the U.S.) is an absolute JOKE. Abstinence is frowned upon, literally, because NO teenager in his/her right mind is going to take that idea seriously: that you're actually in control of your own body, and if you DON'T WANT to get mixed up with an unwanted pregnancy or disease, maybe you should just wait to enjoy sex after you're married. What an old-fashioned idea. No... our society PROMOTES FREE SEXUAL EXPRESSION, then attempts to hide the consequences with ugly bandaids like abortion. It's funny, if 40 million potentially healthy human lives hadn't been "aborted" since the legalization of such.
Interesting quote I heard the other day: 58,000 American lives were lost in the Vietnam War... in the eyes of many, an "unworthy cause" for so many American lives to be lost. Since Roe v. Wade, over 40 million abortions have been performed... The majority based on sheer convenience for the mother. She is, after all, in control of her own body, isn't she? (Perhaps she should have exercised this control when she was fucking the father of the baby in the first place and knew she didn't want to have a baby, huh?) Who knows how the lives of those 40 million abortion victims would have turned out? It's possible that one of them would have been the athlete that made us forget about Michael Jordan... One of them could have been the doctor that found a cure for AIDS... Maybe one would have discovered a cure for some type of cancer or another... Or a scientist that helped perfect cold fusion... etc... etc...
We'll never know at this point, I guess. *sigh*
Again, my point is that we have devalued human life already, by making sex such a "recreational activity" to be performed with whomever and whenever we get a tickling, then accepting abortion as a means of birth control. Perhaps society is wrong, and we chose the path of least resistance here...
Before I'm laughed off the board, yes, I was a virgin when I was married to my wife Because I was a mouth-breathing geek? Hardly. Not tooting my own horn here, but I was (still am?) an above-average looking, athletic, and intelligent guy. I dated many young women before I met my wife, and actually exercised the decision to NOT HAVE SEX because pregnancy didn't fit into my plan at that time. Novel concept, no? A couple of my relationships, as shallow as it seems, were broken off because I refused to have sex with my girlfriend. One couldn't understand why I didn't want to "show her how much I loved her" by having sex with her. It made no sense to her that I told her I was showing her how much I loved her by not having sex with her. I had goals, and graduating from college and starting my engineering career was one of them. I found it shallow that one would take a chance at ruining this opportunity of getting a professional degree just for a few moments of bliss. I guess I could have just screwed the brains out of every girlfriend I ever had, then paid for her abortion if she did happen to get pregnant. But then I'd have to answer to myself how I could do that in the face of the first sentence I wrote in this reply: Two wrongs don't make a right.
**Edited twice because I'm tired and can't type tonight!
the sad (and scary part) is actually the huge slippery slope fallacy you and others in this thread use.covermye said:The sad (and scary) part to me is this: No matter where the "bar" currently lies on the abortion issue, and what's "morally accepted", there will always be someone trying to justify moving that bar just a little further.
Abortion is OK? Why not deliver the baby all the way out except the head, then suck its brains out and call that a "late term abortion"? Good idea, no?
Late term abortion is OK? Why not terminate the life of a mentally retarded infant shortly after birth. After all, he'll just be a hassle to his parents his whole life anyhow, won't he? Really, we're all better off without anyone in our families having mental defects of any kind, aren't we?
Terminating the early life of a just-delivered infant because he happens to be "mentally defective"? What if a test is developed that projects a person's future intelligence capacity after just a few days from birth? My baby's wasn't high enough for my liking. Doctor, can you terminate it for me? I was really wanting a "smarter" baby.
Terminating early life just because mental capacity doesn't meet my expectations? What if the doctor projects the height of my new, healthy baby boy to be 4' 3"? He's gonna be a midget. I can't deal with that! Doctor, please terminate the life of my newborn. I don't want to deal with the "mental anguish" of having to raise a "little person".
Terminating the early life of an infant just because he's not gonna be of "mainstream" size? Hell, why stop there? Our now 4-year old girl is the SPITTING IMAGE of me: dark hair, brown eyes, tall/thin... if you cut her hair you couldn't tell her apart from my baby pictures. Our now 9-month old boy is the polar opposite: blonde hair, blue eyes, fair skin. I really wanted a boy that looked more like me. Too bad this early-life termination isn't legal now... I would have just had him "put to sleep" and tried again to make one look more like me.
This bit of human nature, wanting to always "challenge the bar-height" has gone far enough already as sanctity-of-life is concerned. Why devalue human life any further than it's already been?
It is not sufficient to say "look, this is a slope we slide down into oblivion" - you must prove that we do in fact continue moving down the slope. Just because its slippery doesnt mean we must slip.
I also find most of your statements absurd and stated in a way designed for maximum emotional impact, not for actual discussion or thought.
have a nice day.
and with this gymnastic leap of logic, pro choice is equated to nazi's and commies!fbg1 said:
Yeah, thats rational, logical thinking.
Its this kind of discusiion that is useless. If i accept any of your precepts, then the only counter argument becomes "the nazis and commies werent so bad" which is a dead end - nice flawed comparison.
"damnably similar" lol.
Your logic is "damnably similar" to a steaming pile of BS. Try again.
Althornin said:
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=93982004
How much proof do you want? We've gone from abortion, to late-term abortion, now I've seen this argument pop up more than once (re: infants with disabilities may be better off dead). It's all about convenience, isn't it?
Sorry. I missed the part on this particular message board bylaws that stated that every post had to be comprised of only "content designed only for actual discussion or thought, no emotion allowed."
Have a nice day too, Al!
and the point passes you by quite handily.covermye said:
each step is not proof that the next will occur. thats why its a freaking logical fallacy.
it doesnt ahve to be, but one would assume you started this thread for more than self congradulatory backslapping agreement on your ideas....
However, if thats what you want, keep it up! Some of us assume that if you make a post on a topic, you actually want to discuss it, and therefor expect that it is not phrased in a super emotionally charged way that poisons the well for anyone trying to disagree.
have a nice day.