i do honestly feel sorry for you and your off spring.
Killing newborn babies no different from abortion, experts say
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
i do honestly feel sorry for you and your off spring.
lol i don't go!
Why? What have I said that wasn't true? Just because I recognise that at x number of weeks a fetus is nothing more than that doesn't mean that I don't love my born children any less or credit them any less.
Justify yourself.
You should look at what he actually said.
We are all essentially just pieces of meat and a picture of someone doesn't (really) demonstrate anything. It's science.
I agree with assisted suicide for one.
My point is that this person/unperson thing is not quantifiable and can be easily ripped apart which ever way you try and defend it. My point is that the whole notion is not necessary and is mere obfuscation, to appease our guilt, for what is actually happening: the ending of a life. Therefore, there is no need to add that whole rather subtractive component to the debate when the same conclusions can be reached from a simple balancing of "doing good" and "not doing harm". One should be able to qualify they made the right decision etc as per assisted suicide without hiding from how they achieved it or what they actually did. All people are doing with the whole unperson thing is hiding from what they are doing. And by saying that you are making the decision on what is best for the mother etc surely you are bringing utilitarianism into it as a notion of the greater good.
Last edited:
Surely that is what the article is trying to work out? With your line you are effectively saying "Tough luck, live with the pain". I see little in the way of compassion in allowing a short and miserable life filled with pain and suffering, for the child or the child's parents.
There should be choice and that choice should be one made by the parents and medical professionals with the best interests of all concerned taken in to account. It should not be a choice forced on to people regardless of which direction that forcing takes.
Wherein lies the difference between my position and the somewhat offensive comparison you have made with Hitler. Choice, rather than your position of no choice or Hitler's position of no choice.
I see. It's natural for people to want to justify their actions in a number of ways, and by removing the 'person' from the human I suppose it allows a sense of dis-attachment which makes for horrible decisions (such as ending life) to be made easier or at least with less guilt.
Why would you ever want to subject a child to a disabled life... I would even like stupid people to be slaughtered... but then we'd have no one to clean the toilets etc
That just shows what a very weak person you are. Go and have a word with gareth170 he will put you right
Yes, I agree and that's exactly why I think it is done but there is no need for that and one should keep a degree of attachment to such things to fully appreciate the mavity of what they are doing which the authors don't seem to fully appreciate with how far they move the line across. What you need to do it not apply that attachment at the time - easier said than done though.
You are doing a very big "wrong" in these cases you have to damn sure you are preventing an even bigger one. But they are obviously highly theoretical thinkers with little practical experience of implementing their thought patterns - their poor example choice gives this away.
That just shows what a very weak person you are. Go and have a word with gareth170 he will put you right
Disagree. Plus, all aborted babies go to heaven don't they? It's a fast track to paradise!
Absolute attention-whoring, sensationalist barstewards.
Anyone with any slight mote of common sense would immediately realise the massive difference between terminating a foetus, and terminating a new-born baby. This article cna only be designed to fish for an extreme reaction form the unwashed masses who don't know any better than to take what they say seriously.
Anyone with any slight mote of common sense would immediately realise the massive difference between terminating a foetus, and terminating a new-born baby. This article cna only be designed to fish for an extreme reaction form the unwashed masses who don't know any better than to take what they say seriously.
Yes. One is on the inside and the other is on the outside.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
Ba-dum tssccchh!!!
I hope this is testing the water to further ideas of literal test tube babies and stem cell research.
***Supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that such research should be pursued because the resultant treatments could have significant medical potential. It has been proposed that surplus embryos created for in vitro fertilization could be donated with consent and used for the research.
***Supporters of embryonic stem cell research argue that such research should be pursued because the resultant treatments could have significant medical potential. It has been proposed that surplus embryos created for in vitro fertilization could be donated with consent and used for the research.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 7,819
- Location
- Ireland/Northern Ireland Border
Some of the posters on here are just to clever for their own good.
What point?
I think you are if you are pro choice, but only to a point, your posts show you are clearly an educated intelligent person. Its a very sensitive topic to me so yea, I admit, it did get my back up a bit to see you posting in such a way.
Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
This. It's a paper on ethics, not on whether we should be killing babies.
Purely from an ethical perspective, and the generally agreed (although by no means universally agreed) definitions of personhood, an unborn foetus should have the same "rights" as a baby.
Clearly there is a big difference which is that a baby is in the world - it's a physical person even if it is not a philosophical person.
No, it is a paper that is quite clearly condoning a change in practice towards killing babies using that stated justification. From the abstract:
And the argument that they are not a person is poor because as I have stated numerous times no-one is defining this because when they do it gets torn to shreds by numerous caveats and just appears more and more like an apology for eugenics.