NationStates Jolt Archive

I forgot what country it is, but there exists one where you can euthanize a child up to thirty days after birth. Sounds humane to me. Your thoughts?

Edit: Apparently it's the Netherlands. This article's a bit dated so it's probably passed by now. http://www.lifenews.com/bio584.html Also, the last bit says Belgian officials want to expand on that and allow doctors to euthanize a child without parental consent, and that's just murder. I do not support that, and I can't even fathom how they can.

I forgot what country it is, but there exists one where you can euthanize a child up to thirty days after birth. Sounds humane to me. Your thoughts?



This is one of those mythical beasts the Ancients called a Troll, isn't it?

Sounds about the same as pre-birth abortions to me. What's the big deal? If you can do one, why not both?

http://www.carobinson.com/games/EXIDY%20-%20TROLL%201992.jpg

This is one of those mythical beasts the Ancients called a Troll, isn't it?

On the other forums I frequent, I've been called the worst user out of 8000, but I'm not trolling in this instance. It sounds humane because perhaps problems that weren't very apparent arise after being birthed, like not developing fully into a male.

Sounds about the same as pre-birth abortions to me. What's the big deal? If you can do one, why not both?
Maybe because a lump of undifferenciated stem cells can't think or feel emotions and a child can. That seems like a pretty big difference to me.

Sounds about the same as pre-birth abortions to me. What's the big deal? If you can do one, why not both?
Maybe the same as late-term abortions, which ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL, but not the same as early term abortions.

Maybe because a lump of undifferenciated stem cells can't think or feel emotions and a child can. That seems like a pretty big difference to me.

Children can't really do that until after the thirty day mark.

Maybe because a lump of undifferenciated stem cells can't think or feel emotions and a child can. That seems like a pretty big difference to me.

Can you explain, then, at what point that lump of cells becomes a child? Seems the ending of a life is the ending of a life, whether it's brain has fully developed or is in the process of developing. I seriously can't see the difference, please explain it to me.

Children can't really do that until after the thirty day mark.
Actually from some of the kids I've seen I'd say thought doesn't kick in until the 25 year mark.

Whilst I respect the fact that you have an opinion, this sounds like an unintentional troller.

Got Troll?

i think it's China that allows that. considering you're only allowed one (or two) child, and they believe abortions can prevent you from having another kid...

but i don't think this is a trolling topic. How can you say a baby just born thinks? just because it has a brain? i think in my dev. pyschology class they said that functions at that age are just reflexes.

Whilst I respect the fact that you have an opinion, this sounds like an unintentional troller.

I get that all the time. I'm a self-proclaimed nihilist so people insult me whenever possible instead of taking me seriously. I guess because they can't handle I'm fully logical and 100% right.

Sounds about the same as pre-birth abortions to me. What's the big deal? If you can do one, why not both?
:rolleyes:


Back on point.. Yeah. We should all do his hair, what with the tallness of it and all.

I get that all the time. I'm a self-proclaimed nihilist so people insult me whenever possible instead of taking me seriously. I guess because they can't handle I'm fully logical and 100% right.

Please tell me that sentence was a joke.

I'm pro-choice, but that is inhumane. After a child has been born, they have the right to life. We have to protect that.

Oh, I get it! This was satirical of the pro-choice movement! Bravo, way to capture barbarism in a pure sardonic form :D

Can you explain, then, at what point that lump of cells becomes a child? Seems the ending of a life is the ending of a life, whether it's brain has fully developed or is in the process of developing. I seriously can't see the difference, please explain it to me.
Ok, if you're going to understand my point of view you have to understand that not all life is equally valuable. An appendix is living human tissue, but nobody's trying to protect them. If an appendix was capable of thought and emotion, however, there would be a problem with killing it. You'd be killing a human being at that point.

The mass of stem cells has no brain. It's completely incapable of thinking. Some of the stem cells will one day be a brain, but not yet. It's fair game.

A fetus with a brain the size of a housefly probably can't think or feel on a level higher than a mouse. I have no problem with killing mice, so I have no problem with killing a mouse with human DNA (the fetus).

After that things get tricky. I'm not in favor of abortion when the brain has developed passed a certain point. It's up to medical science to find out when a fetus develops a decent level of thought and emotion.

all abortion's wrong, full-stop. It's playing god, same with stem cell research. The very fact that every religion prohibits it tells you all you need to know.

all abortion's wrong, full-stop. It's playing god, same with stem cell research. The very fact that every religion prohibits it tells you all you need to know.

Religion?!?

Pfft.

If that's the best excuse you can think of, don't even try.

Please tell me that sentence was a joke.

No. I'm also one arrogant son of a bitch.

I'm pro-choice, but that is inhumane. After a child has been born, they have the right to life. We have to protect that.

At what point is it no longer okay? Children have a good chance of survival being birthed at 5 months.

Life begins at conception, but I really don't care.

all abortion's wrong, full-stop. It's playing god, same with stem cell research. The very fact that every religion prohibits it tells you all you need to know.
I guess Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. don't count as religions now?

You may think it's wrong. You may think it goes against god's will. However, since the US has the establishment clause written into the constitution, your god can't make my laws.

Religion?!?

Pfft.

If that's the best excuse you can think of, don't even try.

Agreed.

I'm prochoice, but that idea actually kind of... scares me.
Once the baby is alive, couldn't it be just as easy and more human to just give the baby away to adoption?

You've already had all the trouble of giving birth and all. The kid's alive. Just let em go.

I guess Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. don't count as religions now?

You may think it's wrong. You may think it goes against god's will. However, since the US has the establishment clause written into the constitution, your god can't make my laws.




mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.


v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

Religion?!?

Pfft.

If that's the best excuse you can think of, don't even try.

agreed as well.

all abortion's wrong, full-stop. It's playing god, same with stem cell research. The very fact that every religion prohibits it tells you all you need to know.

Yes, because when the Koran, the Bible, and all the other original religious works were written; abortion and stem cell research were major political hot buttons.

Not everyone is religious.

Many religions allow slavery...so? Does that mean I can own the next person I see, and treat them however I want because theyare my "property"?

I'm prochoice, but that idea actually kind of... scares me.
Once the baby is alive, couldn't it be just as easy and more human to just give the baby away to adoption?

You've already had all the trouble of giving birth and all. The kid's alive. Just let em go.

One of the arguments for the pro-choice side is that aborting children with crippling disorders and the like saves them years of pain and misery. The same can hold true for an earlier instance I mentioned, not developing fully into a male and still being part female. I agree that it'd be better to give them up for adoption if they're healthy and normal, but once again, apathy prevents me from feeling too strongly about that.

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.


v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

So what's your point? As long as abortion is legal it can't be called murder because it's lawfull killing. Even if you make it illegal, to my mind it's not murder because I don't beleive a lump of flesh incapable of thought or emotion can be classified a human being. If so we should prosecute doctors who perform appendectomies.

mur·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrdr)
n.
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang. Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.


v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
Slang. To defeat decisively; trounce.

Assuming that you call killing (for want of a better term) a bunch of brainless cells "murder".

Not everyone does.

So what's your point? As long as abortion is legal it can't be called murder because it's lawfull killing. Even if you make it illegal, to my mind it's not murder because I don't beleive a lump of flesh incapable of thought or emotion can be classified a human being. If so we should prosecute doctors who perform appendectomies.



The slaughter of 6 million Jews couldn't be called murder either, because it was lawful in Germany when it took place. And can the appendix be considered as having a soul?

One of the arguments for the pro-choice side is that aborting children with crippling disorders and the like saves them years of pain and misery. The same can hold true for an earlier instance I mentioned, not developing fully into a male and still being part female. I agree that it'd be better to give them up for adoption if they're healthy and normal, but once again, apathy prevents me from feeling too strongly about that.

That's a different scenario - the severely crippled thing.
I can understand that, like if a child has severe defects that could cause a lot of pain and trauma... but then again, I always hear stories about miracle babies who overcome incredible odds, and then they're these awesome humans.
I still have a queesy stance on it, but I can understand where you're coming from. I guess.

Assuming that you call killing (for want of a better term) a bunch of brainless cells "murder".

Not everyone does.



The second a brain is observable in the fetus, abortion doctors and the people receiving the abortion should be prosecuted for 1st degree murder...and the brain is one of the first things to form.

The slaughter of 6 million Jews couldn't be called murder either, because it was lawful in Germany when it took place. And can the appendix be considered as having a soul?

please watch this. http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=15751&poppedFrom=_shows_the_daily_show_videos_most_recent_index.jhtml&

i swear it's relevant.

all abortion's wrong, full-stop. It's playing god, same with stem cell research. The very fact that every religion prohibits it tells you all you need to know.

So you better be against the death penalty.

Amerty, as NS General's Sarcazm Master, I offer you the Czardas Award for Sarcasm. I can't tell whether you're satiring the pro-life movement, satiring the pro-choice movement, or just making a stupid joke. :D

I'm prochoice, but that idea actually kind of... scares me.
Once the baby is alive, couldn't it be just as easy and more human to just give the baby away to adoption?

You've already had all the trouble of giving birth and all. The kid's alive. Just let em go.Yes. Killing a baby without a brain = abortion. Killing a baby with a brain = murder. That may not be the truth, but it's how the law works in the US today. ;)

The slaughter of 6 million Jews couldn't be called murder either, because it was lawful in Germany when it took place. And can the appendix be considered as having a soul?

You can't factually consider any one to have a soul.

That's a different scenario - the severely crippled thing.
I can understand that, like if a child has severe defects that could cause a lot of pain and trauma... but then again, I always hear stories about miracle babies who overcome incredible odds, and then they're these awesome humans.
I still have a queesy stance on it, but I can understand where you're coming from. I guess.

That's not my justification for it, that's just one that might help you people.

I still have a queesy stance on it, but I can understand where you're coming from. I guess.

Agreed.

Whilst the idea of killing out-of-uterus babies isn't great,I can understand where it would be the kinder option.

Amerty, as NS General's Sarcazm Master, I offer you the Czardas Award for Sarcasm. I can't tell whether you're satiring the pro-life movement, satiring the pro-choice movement, or just making a stupid joke. :D

I too do what you do. Award titles for trolls and all such, but I'm serious. There is no factual reason for human life, or all of existence to have importance or meaning. It's all relative and subjective.

The second a brain is observable in the fetus, abortion doctors and the people receiving the abortion should be prosecuted for 1st degree murder...and the brain is one of the first things to form.

Nah.

If the mother is in a bad way (rape, homelessness et cetera), is it murder to let a baby die before it can even breath for itself, when life will only bring all manner of pain?

The slaughter of 6 million Jews couldn't be called murder either, because it was lawful in Germany when it took place.
Jews =/= unborn babies.

They have self-consciousness, intelligence, and a capability for humor. (Have you ever seen a fetus who could tell a good joke or pass the SAT?)

Plus, they make good potato pancakes. :D
And can the appendix be considered as having a soul?I suppose then you shouldn't get rid of the cancerous tumor forming on your kidney, as it also has a soul? And so do all those viruses that cause influenza, tuberculosis, and HIV?

I too do what you do. Award titles for trolls and all such, but I'm serious. There is no factual reason for human life, or all of existence to have importance or meaning. It's all relative and subjective.Wait, you're serious?

I take back the award in that case.

Wait, you're serious?

I take back the award in that case.

Can I have it?

I'm not in favor of abortion when the brain has developed passed a certain point. It's up to medical science to find out when a fetus develops a decent level of thought and emotion.

That's a valid point of view, and I respect it even though I don't share it. I wonder, though, would you stick by it if medical science determined that the stage of development where brain activity becomes something more than instinct and conditioned response occurs, say, about 6 months after birth?

I forgot what country it is, but there exists one where you can euthanize a child up to thirty days after birth. Sounds humane to me. Your thoughts?

Sounds like Sparta to me.

If a baby was born with a mental or physical disability, they were thrown off a cliff.

Sounds like Sparta to me.

If a baby was born with a mental or physical disability, they were thrown off a cliff.

Present day, man, present day.

Present day, man, present day.

Then on a guess, China.

One-child policy et cetera.

Can I have it?
No. :p You're not nearly sarcastic enough.


Oh wait. That was sarcastic. In that case yes.

I mean, no.

I mean... oh screw it, I'm confusing myself! :mad:

I forgot what country it is, but there exists one where you can euthanize a child up to thirty days after birth. Sounds humane to me. Your thoughts?
Isn't that the netherlands? I think it is only for babies with incurable terminal illnesses. I think it is better to snuff out babies if they are just going to have a short pointless, painful life. Otherwise "aborting" babies after birth is a little brutal.

No. :p You're not nearly sarcastic enough.


Oh wait. That was sarcastic. In that case yes.

I mean, no.

I mean... oh screw it, I'm confusing myself! :mad:

And thus the circle of life is complete.

And just in time for tiffin, how handy.

Isn't that the netherlands? I think it is only for babies with incurable terminal illnesses. I think it is better to snuff out babies if they are just going to have a short pointless, painful life. Otherwise "aborting" babies after birth is a little brutal.

I think that might be it. And those Catholics fight tirelessly to force them into a life of misery.

I think that might be it. And those Catholics fight tirelessly to force them into a life of misery.
Yeah it is deffinitely netherlands.

http://www.lifenews.com/bio584.html

Yeah it is deffinitely netherlands.

http://www.lifenews.com/bio584.html

Interesting news item.

Don't you love that people say that abortions are playing God, and then can't see why saving lives is playing God. Many centuries ago, there was actually a gigantic religious rift over whether saving a life goes against God's will, so some cleric came up w/ the idiotic sanctity of life that religious-types throw around. Don't you love religious hypocracy?

Don't you love that people say that abortions are playing God, and then can't see why saving lives is playing God. Many centuries ago, there was actually a gigantic religious rift over whether saving a life goes against God's will, so some cleric came up w/ the idiotic sanctity of life that religious-types throw around. Don't you love religious hypocracy?

If they weren't hypocrites, what would they be?

Don't you love that people say that abortions are playing God, and then can't see why saving lives is playing God. Many centuries ago, there was actually a gigantic religious rift over whether saving a life goes against God's will, so some cleric came up w/ the idiotic sanctity of life that religious-types throw around. Don't you love religious hypocracy?

It's not really hypocrisy. The way they see it is that abortion is the intentional destruction of one human being, while letting another die is God's will. There is a genuine and discernable difference between causing something and letting the same thing happen.

This is one of those mythical beasts the Ancients called a Troll, isn't it?
http://www.bentsynapse.net/insults/images/feed_troll.jpg

The slaughter of 6 million Jews couldn't be called murder either, because it was lawful in Germany when it took place. And can the appendix be considered as having a soul?
1 There are international laws against Genocide. It's murder under those laws. Not under Nazi Germany's laws.

2 I don't think you get it. The law doesn't recognize a soul because it's a purely religious concept. Unless you can bring a soul into a court of law or a legislative chamber and show it to the judge or congressmen you don't have a legal leg to stand on. I don't beleive in a soul. You do because it's your religion. Your religion doesn't write US law.

The second a brain is observable in the fetus, abortion doctors and the people receiving the abortion should be prosecuted for 1st degree murder...and the brain is one of the first things to form.
Rats have brains. At one point a rat's brain is bigger than a fetus' brain. Shouldn't the rat be given the same protection as that fetus then?

That's a valid point of view, and I respect it even though I don't share it. I wonder, though, would you stick by it if medical science determined that the stage of development where brain activity becomes something more than instinct and conditioned response occurs, say, about 6 months after birth?
Yes. I don't define a person by the simple presence of human DNA. I define a person by the ability to think and feel at a certain level of proficiency. Hell, I don't think it's right to kill chimps and other apes. They're too smart. Just about human to me.

Um… this sounds a little like eugenics to me… if anyone here is able to kill a newborn, then I salute them for their sheer ruthlessness and coldness.

Um… this sounds a little like eugenics to me… if anyone here is able to kill a newborn, then I salute them for their sheer ruthlessness and coldness.
What's so bad about eugenics? I'm not talking about killing newborns. I think that the average newborn has enough intelligence to qualify for personhood. But what's wrong with improving the gene pool through such practices as aborting defective fetuses before they're concious or using gene therapy to modify the gene pool for smarter, healthier people?

What's so bad about eugenics? I'm not talking about killing newborns. I think that the average newborn has enough intelligence to qualify for personhood. But what's wrong with improving the gene pool through such practices as aborting defective fetuses before they're concious or using gene therapy to modify the gene pool for smarter, healthier people?

I'm for post-teen abortions for the same reasons. That's why I carry a pistol.

Um… this sounds a little like eugenics to me… if anyone here is able to kill a newborn, then I salute them for their sheer ruthlessness and coldness.

Give me ten dollars and legal immunity and you'd better start saluting.

What's so bad about eugenics? I'm not talking about killing newborns. I think that the average newborn has enough intelligence to qualify for personhood. But what's wrong with improving the gene pool through such practices as aborting defective fetuses before they're concious or using gene therapy to modify the gene pool for smarter, healthier people? 1. You'd end up with a narrower gene-pool, which is bad for the population.
2. Healthy does not equal useful. Look at Hawking.
3. What do you class as "defective"? Where do you draw the line and say that they don't have a right to live?

I forgot what country it is, but there exists one where you can euthanize a child up to thirty days after birth. Sounds humane to me. Your thoughts?
No country allows this. Nice try though :rolleyes:

No country allows this. Nice try though :rolleyes:

Then the Catholic church lied to me. And there was an article posted about it already. So that issue's already been cleared up.

I forgot what country it is, but there exists one where you can euthanize a child up to thirty days after birth. Sounds humane to me. Your thoughts?
My goodness! Abortion is bad enough - infanticide?????? :eek:

1. You'd end up with a narrower gene-pool, which is bad for the population.
2. Healthy does not equal useful. Look at Hawking.
3. What do you class as "defective"? Where do you draw the line and say that they don't have a right to live?
1 Not necessarily. You can eliminate hereditary diseases like cystic fibrosis and keep a pretty diverse gene pool.

2 I agree, but what if Hawking's body could have been as strong and functional as his mind? Wouldn't that be better? Perhaps genetic modification could create a world of people as smart as Hawking, as artistic as Michelangelo, as musical as Beethoven, and as physically fit as olympic atheletes.

3 I would classify those fetuses that were destined to be unable to use all of their limbs, be mentally retarded, or be sociopaths as defective. If we can't fix them through genetic manipulation then perhaps we can stop them from passing their defects on to the next generation. Doesn't have to be through abortion. Genetic testing of parents would probably work in most cases. Sterilization could take care of the rest.

The slaughter of 6 million Jews couldn't be called murder either, because it was lawful in Germany when it took place.

AFAIK it wasn't lawful - but ignoring that you are right, yes. Which is why we now have things like the universal declaration of human rights and the UN.

Regardless of that however, the important distinction between abortion, post birth abortion and euthanasia on one side, and the holocaust on the other side is harm. An embryo is not harmed by abortion, since for the embryo itself there is no difference between existing and not existing.
A baby that suffers intense pain 24/7 with no hope of recovery and an expected early death can hardly be argued to be harmed by the ending of his suffering either. Most people wouldn't hesitate to mercy kill their dog in similar circumstances after all - and why would their baby be less worthy of mercy ?
Someone who has a rational desire to die is not harmed if you allow him to fullfill that desire. Withholding him however *is* harming.
But putting someone in a gas chamber against their will is harming that person.

1 Not necessarily. You can eliminate hereditary diseases like cystic fibrosis and keep a pretty diverse gene pool.

2 I agree, but what if Hawking's body could have been as strong and functional as his mind? Wouldn't that be better? Perhaps genetic modification could create a world of people as smart as Hawking, as artistic as Michelangelo, as musical as Beethoven, and as physically fit as olympic atheletes.

3 I would classify those fetuses that were destined to be unable to use all of their limbs, be mentally retarded, or be sociopaths as defective. If we can't fix them through genetic manipulation then perhaps we can stop them from passing their defects on to the next generation. Doesn't have to be through abortion. Genetic testing of parents would probably work in most cases. Sterilization could take care of the rest.

1. Killing newborns with cystic fibrosis? Or have I grossly misunderstood?

2. That's modification, not eugenics per se.

3. Mandatory sterilisation?

The slaughter of 6 million Jews couldn't be called murder either, because it was lawful in Germany when it took place.

I’m going to bring this up again because I think most of you missed the point. She was not equating abortion to the holocaust by any means. She was simply responding to the “it isn’t murder because it’s legal killing argument.” She was saying that the holocaust was legal killing according to German law, but it was definitely wrong. She was trying to help ya’ll understand her point of view that just because something is law doesn’t make it right.

Anyway about the killing of babies. That is something actually equitable to Nazism. They killed children with birth defects, worried that they would spoil the Aryan gene pool.

1. Killing newborns with cystic fibrosis? Or have I grossly misunderstood?

2. That's modification, not eugenics per se.

3. Mandatory sterilisation?
1 How about testing the parents prior to conception and if they pose a high risk of bearing a CF child they have to adopt rather than give birth. Or perhaps testing the fetus in utero and aborting prior to the fetus becomming self-aware.

2 Eugenics is just a method of modifying the gene pool. It's one tool we can use. Gene therapy may soon be another.

3 For the good of the nation or the world. Sure. Bearing children is too great of a responsibility to allow just anybody to do it. That's my opinion. I'm sure most would disagree.

1 How about testing the parents prior to conception and if they pose a high risk of bearing a CF child they have to adopt rather than give birth. Or perhaps testing the fetus in utero and aborting prior to the fetus becomming self-aware.

2 Eugenics is just a method of modifying the gene pool. It's one tool we can use. Gene therapy may soon be another.

3 For the good of the nation or the world. Sure. Bearing children is too great of a responsibility to allow just anybody to do it. That's my opinion. I'm sure most would disagree. How far would this improving of the genepool go? Would it involve aborting kids with any kind of genetic defect?

Believe it or not, eugenics is sort of happening… there was a possiblity my brother would have haemophilia, and his mother was told that she would have a perfect right to abort him if he did. She got quite annoyed about being told that… :)

Then the Catholic church lied to me. And there was an article posted about it already. So that issue's already been cleared up.
Ah. Perhaps you should go back and put that link in the first post, so people just coming into the thread can get some information right away?

How far would this improving of the genepool go? Would it involve aborting kids with any kind of genetic defect?

Believe it or not, eugenics is sort of happening… there was a possiblity my brother would have haemophilia, and his mother was told that she would have a perfect right to abort him if he did. She got quite annoyed about being told that… :)
Eugenics has been happening since before humans walked the earth. Animals, humans included, try to breed with the healthiest member of the opposite sex that they can find. Sickly looking animals don't get to breed much.

As for how far my version of Eugenics would go, well, I'd strive to eliminate any kind of genetic defect while adding genes that might become usefull later. The added genes must not interfere with the new human's current functioning or that of his/her offspring though. For example, if you carry just one copy of the sickle cell anemia gene you are resistant to malaria, but you may pass sickle cell on to your child. That wouldn't cut it in my vision of Eugenics. We'd eliminate the sickle cell gene and replace it with a version that can't cause the disease, but still protects from malaria.

I guess because they can't handle I'm fully logical and 100% right.

you lost my support at this setence. Only an idiot thinks they're right 100% of the time. (o wait... would that mean GWB is an idiot?)

you lost my support at this setence. Only an idiot thinks they're right 100% of the time. (o wait... would that mean GWB is an idiot?)
When asked during the presidential debates what mistakes he'd made in his first term he couldn't come up with one. That means he's either too arrogant to admit his mistakes, or he honestly does think he's done everything right. I'm leaning toward arrogant. Let's face it, you have to think pretty highly of yourself to decide one day that you're the man to run the world's superpower.

So, to recap, "when is a baby not a baby?" Whatever. I'm not even old enough to have kids. I'll think about it then.

Believe it or not, eugenics is sort of happening
Believe it or not, all humans have engaged in selective breeding for as long as there's been humans. Humans select for traits that, in their opinion, would be desirable in their offspring.

I know that if I suddenly had a desire to reproduce, I wouldn't go for the smelly, filthy, grotesque drunk in the corner desperately trying to fondle passers-by while stewing in stale beer and his own sweat.

you lost my support at this setence. Only an idiot thinks they're right 100% of the time. (o wait... would that mean GWB is an idiot?)

H. L. Mencken: "Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on 'I am not too sure.' "

Luke 23:28 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

28Jesus turned and said to them, "Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children.

Alas i think that's what should be happening now.

a few arguments:

1. A baby can feel pain! We can register the brain waves on an ekg moniter at 18 weeks are you saying that that's not alive?

2. If it's just "reactions" What do you call the baby kicking in the womb?

3. If you don't believe a baby can feel pain look up the video "Silent Scream" Then tell me it doesn't.

4. Going by the "harmful gene pool logic" we should be dead.

5. I was born at 23 weeks 4 and a half months premature, the doctors gave me 1% of 1% chance to live. Are you saying i should be dead then?

6. Would you be regualting all abortions then?

1 There are international laws against Genocide. It's murder under those laws. Not under Nazi Germany's laws.

2 I don't think you get it. The law doesn't recognize a soul because it's a purely religious concept. Unless you can bring a soul into a court of law or a legislative chamber and show it to the judge or congressmen you don't have a legal leg to stand on. I don't beleive in a soul. You do because it's your religion. Your religion doesn't write US law.



The laws against genocide were imposed AFTER that, and since when have secular laws been retroactive? A "law" doesn't justify/condemn anything, it is either wrong or it isn't. Regardless, my religion can push for laws to protect lives and we will.

I agree with the OP in theory (but only in theory).

The animal rights nuts like to use the argument that animals have at least as much capacity to feel pain and fear death as human babies, severely retarded people, etc., but we assign rights to babies and not animals. My general answer to this has two parts.

1) We don't assign babies the same rights adults get. They're basically glorified property, with legal protections against abuse and killing, but that's about it.

2) Well, why not kill babies and severely retarded people? They really don't contribute to society, and can't consciously follow social and legal obligations and proscriptions.

The solution to number two is that laws, while often based on a certain degree of weak logic, are mostly arbitrary. We choose what we can and can't kill based on empathy, disgust, utility of living vs. dead creatures to humans, etc. And birth seems like a very nice, easy cutoff point to draw a line when it comes to killing. As for fetuses and non-humans, I could care less.

Oh, and as for the religious mumbo-jumbo. I have never read a convincing argument that the Bible, taken literally, prohibits abortion.

In fact, there's this:
"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."
- Hosea 13:16 (KJV)

Not that I care that much. As a previous poster said, when your religion becomes my laws, we have a problem.

Oh man, my country name is really appropriate in this thread. :eek:

Ah. Perhaps you should go back and put that link in the first post, so people just coming into the thread can get some information right away?

Capital idea. I'm not used to forums that allow you to edit your post. I'll get right on it.

AFAIK it wasn't lawful - but ignoring that you are right, yes. Which is why we now have things like the universal declaration of human rights and the UN.

Regardless of that however, the important distinction between abortion, post birth abortion and euthanasia on one side, and the holocaust on the other side is harm. An embryo is not harmed by abortion, since for the embryo itself there is no difference between existing and not existing.
A baby that suffers intense pain 24/7 with no hope of recovery and an expected early death can hardly be argued to be harmed by the ending of his suffering either. Most people wouldn't hesitate to mercy kill their dog in similar circumstances after all - and why would their baby be less worthy of mercy ?
Someone who has a rational desire to die is not harmed if you allow him to fullfill that desire. Withholding him however *is* harming.
But putting someone in a gas chamber against their will is harming that person.



Following that logic, I have the right to kill all the annoying goths :D

Following that logic, I have the right to kill all the annoying goths :D

Oh, please do. I'll start deleting all the angsty poetry from their LiveJournals, and it'll all be sorted.

The laws against genocide were imposed AFTER that, and since when have secular laws been retroactive? A "law" doesn't justify/condemn anything, it is either wrong or it isn't. Regardless, my religion can push for laws to protect lives and we will.
1 Ok, if there were no international laws against genocide then the holocaust wasn't technically murder according to the dictionary definition posted earlier in the thread. I've heard another definition of murder though. "The unjustified killing of another human being" That would make it murder. Still, that's not the point. We're arguing over the definition of a word. The holocaust was wrong because human beings were being killed. A fetus that is incapable of thought and emotion is no more a human being than an infected tonsil.

2 Not if the laws you're pushing for are based completely on religion. The establishment clause in the constitution says that government can't establish a religion. By enforcing your religious laws it would be establishing your religion as the official one for the USA. Therefore laws based on a "soul" or other religious concept are unconstitutional.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted]1 A fetus that is incapable of thought and emotion is no more a human being than an infected tonsil.

QUOTE]

I shall repost what i said before.

a few arguments:

1. A baby can feel pain! We can register the brain waves on an ekg moniter at 18 weeks are you saying that that's not alive?

2. If it's just "reactions" What do you call the baby kicking in the womb?

3. If you don't believe a baby can feel pain look up the video "Silent Scream" Then tell me it doesn't.

4. Going by the "harmful gene pool logic" we should be dead.

5. I was born at 23 weeks 4 and a half months premature, the doctors gave me 1% of 1% chance to live. Are you saying i should be dead then?

6. Would you be regualting all abortions then?

sounds like thoughts and emotions to me.

Following that logic, I have the right to kill all the annoying goths :D

As far as I am concerned, if they seriously ask you to kill them - you have that right, yes ;)

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted]1 A fetus that is incapable of thought and emotion is no more a human being than an infected tonsil.

QUOTE]

I shall repost what i said before.

a few arguments:

1. A baby can feel pain! We can register the brain waves on an ekg moniter at 18 weeks are you saying that that's not alive?

2. If it's just "reactions" What do you call the baby kicking in the womb?

3. If you don't believe a baby can feel pain look up the video "Silent Scream" Then tell me it doesn't.

4. Going by the "harmful gene pool logic" we should be dead.

5. I was born at 23 weeks 4 and a half months premature, the doctors gave me 1% of 1% chance to live. Are you saying i should be dead then?

6. Would you be regualting all abortions then?

sounds like thoughts and emotions to me.
1 I've already said earlier on this thread that I beleive a fetus develops enough brain power to qualify for personhood before birth. Also, cows feel pain. Are you vegan? I'm not considering it human until brain waves consistent with thought and emotion appear.

2 By the time it can kick in the womb it's brain is almost fully formed, right? When did I call for late-term abortions? I'm in favor of early abortions.

3 Irrelevant. See response number one.

4 No, we should all have our genes modified to eliminate useless and destructive ones and add usefull ones.

5 No, I'm saying that if your brain wasn't capable of thought at that point your parents should have had the right to abort/euthanize you. Since you've made it this far, congratulations.

6 The AMA should regulate abortions in the USA. Not me personally.

satisfied?

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted]1 A fetus that is incapable of thought and emotion is no more a human being than an infected tonsil.

QUOTE]
sounds like thoughts and emotions to me.

It doesn't matter if it can. By your logic (at least if it's carried to its logical conclusion), we have to assign rights to cockroaches too (some of the animal rights folks make very good, convincing arguments about insects' ability to feel pain, etc.). And certainly adult cows and pigs have more capacity for pain and emotion than a human fetus does.

A fetus cannot participate in society in any form, and thus deserves zero as part of the social contract. You can put the fetus in there, but it accomplishes nothing (well, except to weaken reproductive freedoms of some of those who unquestionably are members of society).

[QUOTE=God007]

It doesn't matter if it can. By your logic (at least if it's carried to its logical conclusion), we have to assign rights to cockroaches too (some of the animal rights folks make very good, convincing arguments about insects' ability to feel pain, etc.). And certainly adult cows and pigs have more capacity for pain and emotion than a human fetus does.

A fetus cannot participate in society in any form, and thus deserves zero as part of the social contract. You can put the fetus in there, but it accomplishes nothing (well, except to weaken reproductive freedoms of some of those who unquestionably are members of society).
Nope, perhaps you haven't read everything I posted on this thread. I beleive that a certain level of brain function is necessary for personhood, not the ability to feel pain. I don't think cows are intelligent enough to qualify.

[QUOTE=Poison Wombs]
Nope, perhaps you haven't read everything I posted on this thread. I beleive that a certain level of brain function is necessary for personhood, not the ability to feel pain. I don't think cows are intelligent enough to qualify.

Try discussing Kant with a fetus and a cow and compare the results of the two.

Or try this. Stick a baby in a field with a cow for several months and see which survives longer.

A fetus is not intelligent. And its brain function is crap as well. Even after it's born, it still spends a lot of time just learning to move its own arms and legs, use its visual system, etc. Forget about weighty thought.

I forgot what country it is, but there exists one where you can euthanize a child up to thirty days after birth. Sounds humane to me. Your thoughts?

Edit: Apparently it's the Netherlands. This article's a bit dated so it's probably passed by now. http://www.lifenews.com/bio584.html Also, the last bit says Belgian officials want to expand on that and allow doctors to euthanize a child without parental consent, and that's just murder. I do not support that, and I can't even fathom how they can.

Sounds human to you? Ok, why stop at thirty day, maybe soon it will 1 year. Than 5 years. Maybe soon in the Netherlands you will be able to kill your child unless (s)he's 18. Once a child is able to move by itself and feed itself and breath it seems like murder to me. And if the govt. supports the murder of babies they might as well be a Nazi or Communist nation.

[QUOTE=God007]
1 I've already said earlier on this thread that I beleive a fetus develops enough brain power to qualify for personhood before birth. Also, cows feel pain. Are you vegan? I'm not considering it human until brain waves consistent with thought and emotion appear.


satisfied?

Somewhat. But since sientitists have not fully mapped the sections of the brain and that it's still a reletively new science how do we know if the brain waves are consistent with thought and emotion?

Children can't really do that until after the thirty day mark.

So if you have a 29 day old child and you put a needle through its skin. It will continue to just lie there? Oh yeah and that explains why babies cry a lot. Last I checked that was an emotion.

And if the govt. supports the murder of babies they might as well be a Nazi or Communist nation.

Allo Godwin. Want to pop in for a cup of tea?

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted]

Somewhat. But since sientitists have not fully mapped the sections of the brain and that it's still a reletively new science how do we know if the brain waves are consistent with thought and emotion?
That's where doctors and scientists come in. They have to determine when the brain is sufficiently developed.

Asking me how to do it is pointless. It's not my area of expertise. I just know it needs to be done.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted]

Somewhat. But since sientitists have not fully mapped the sections of the brain and that it's still a reletively new science how do we know if the brain waves are consistent with thought and emotion?
That's where doctors and scientists come in. They have to determine when the brain is sufficiently developed.

Asking me how to do it is pointless. It's not my area of expertise. I just know it needs to be done.

[QUOTE=Drunk commies deleted]

Try discussing Kant with a fetus and a cow and compare the results of the two.

Or try this. Stick a baby in a field with a cow for several months and see which survives longer.

A fetus is not intelligent. And its brain function is crap as well. Even after it's born, it still spends a lot of time just learning to move its own arms and legs, use its visual system, etc. Forget about weighty thought.
It's not all about brain size, though that definately factors into it. The human brain is wired differently than a cow's brain. I'm advocating testing fetal brains to see if they are capable of thought and then deciding at what point they're too "human" to kill.

[QUOTE=Poison Wombs]
It's not all about brain size, though that definately factors into it. The human brain is wired differently than a cow's brain. I'm advocating testing fetal brains to see if they are capable of thought and then deciding at what point they're too "human" to kill.

When did I say anything about brain size?

And a lot of things are capable of thought. Based on what you define thought as, it's easy to jump from a chimpanzee being very human, to a chicken, to a cockroach. But can a fetus form social relationships? Does a fetus understand laws? If you respect a fetus' "rights," will it respect yours?

1. A baby can feel pain! We can register the brain waves on an ekg moniter at 18 weeks are you saying that that's not alive?

2. If it's just "reactions" What do you call the baby kicking in the womb?

3. If you don't believe a baby can feel pain look up the video "Silent Scream" Then tell me it doesn't.

4. Going by the "harmful gene pool logic" we should be dead.

5. I was born at 23 weeks 4 and a half months premature, the doctors gave me 1% of 1% chance to live. Are you saying i should be dead then?

6. Would you be regualting all abortions then?

sounds like thoughts and emotions to me.

You gotta love the un-sourced "evidence".

You gotta love the un-sourced "evidence".
that's all we get now and I love it!

I suppose if you want to define personhood in terms of high brain function, killing an infant is less wrong than killing a chimp. The same is true for severly mentally retarded individuals. I define personhood as an individual member of a species which generally displays the high brain functions found in humans. That means that I can define infants and severly retarded individuals as persons without necessarily including chimps and dolphins(though killing chimps and dolphins is reprehensible in its own way). Based on this definition I feel that one could agrue that humans become individual persons any time between conception (At that point they already have a complete and individual set of human DNA. I know a twin's DNA is a carbon copy of his/her twin. I am one. The still have two entirely separated sets of DNA. Anyway, I'm not making this argument myself. I'm just saying I could see the legitimate case for it.) and the point at which the fetus developes its own nervous system (At that point, not only can the child feel pain, although not emotional, but it can also feel pain that the mother cannot, since there is no connection between their nervous systems. Furthermore I am only saying that a fetus necessarily becomes a person at that point if one accepts my definition of personhood). That said, since I am an Anarchist, I do not feel that it is wise to violently force women into refraining from any type of abortion, even postnatal. If my standards of morality hold true for other individuals, then their consciences will cause them to freely enter into agreements limiting their ability to recieve abortions. This, I believe, holds true for all aspects of morality which one might wish to legislate.

Infantacide... that is so ridiculous, it's almost not worth commenting on.

Some of you have said that killing a born child is the same as abortion... ludicrous.

Those of you who are so anti abortion should then take in all the children that are born to those who would have had abortions. You're all concerned about them pre-birth, but after birth, you don't even think about them. THAT is where your focus should be. Take in the ones who are born and unwanted. You're a hypocrite if you are anti-abortion, but would not take in children after they are born. I doubt there are many of you out there who would do that.

Infantacide... that is so ridiculous, it's almost not worth commenting on.

Some of you have said that killing a born child is the same as abortion... ludicrous.

No, please comment on it. It's ludicrous because...

And I am against infanticide, but only because I think birth is a pretty momentous thing, and we use it as a gauge for a lot of other things, so what the hell, why not this one? If you use another standard, you're just asking for all kinds of trouble (see age of consent laws to see what I'm talking about).

So in other words, while I support anti-infanticide measures in a LEGAL sense, I fail to see a problem in a MORAL sense. Killing a newborn really does no more harm to society than killing a pig. (and yeah, some people think social contract theory is a bad way to derive morality, but they all suck :) - and those that base their arguments on cognitive development are hypocrites if they don't support animal rights at the same time).

I forgot what country it is, but there exists one where you can euthanize a child up to thirty days after birth. Sounds humane to me. Your thoughts?

Edit: Apparently it's the Netherlands. This article's a bit dated so it's probably passed by now. http://www.lifenews.com/bio584.html Also, the last bit says Belgian officials want to expand on that and allow doctors to euthanize a child without parental consent, and that's just murder. I do not support that, and I can't even fathom how they can.

Yeah, like you're serious....

I think that instead of euthanizing them, we should hand them over to scientists so that they can perform radiation experiments on them and try to create mutants.

I forgot what country it is, but there exists one where you can euthanize a child up to thirty days after birth. Sounds humane to me. Your thoughts?

Edit: Apparently it's the Netherlands. This article's a bit dated so it's probably passed by now. http://www.lifenews.com/bio584.html Also, the last bit says Belgian officials want to expand on that and allow doctors to euthanize a child without parental consent, and that's just murder. I do not support that, and I can't even fathom how they can.
My step-mother says abortions should be retro-active until the age of 21. :eek:

I'm reminded of Sparta. (Not bashing this subject really) Back in Sparta, when a baby was deemed 'unfit or defective.' They'd leave it on a cliff near town and leave it hoping it would fall off or get eaten. Sounds that at least putting them to sleep is a little better.