A vision for the future

Harriet's contractions were getting more frequent by the time she and Jamie arrived at the hospital. It wasn't long before she was in a delivery suite. The birth was longer than average, but everything seemed okay. That was until the baby was born. It was clear the baby was a Down's baby.

"Didn't you have the screening?" asked the doctor.

"Yes, but the test came up negative." replied Harriet.

"Ah, yes - very rarely that can happen. Well, you're going to have to make a decision."

"What do you mean?"

"Well, Down's is a big drain on society. If you choose to keep this child, it will have a life of suffering - a much shorter life than average with that. They'll never be a proper member of society, and you'll have to devote your lives to giving extra care to the child, even after they reach adulthood. Besides, we've practically eliminated Down's, so the child wouldn't have any sub-human peers like it to relate to. And, let's face it, statistically your marriage to Jamie is much less likely to last. You'll probably end up divorced. Would you like to see some figures - I can show you in fiscal terms what the impact of keeping this infant would be?"

"But... We haven't even given her a name yet. We never settled on one, did we Jamie?"

"I wouldn't do that", said the doctor, "Giving it a name will only increase your attachment and therefore inhibit your ability to make a cool, detached decision."

"I... I don't know. She's our baby."

"Listen, I understand you're emotional - that's totally normal after a birth. But honestly, this is an easy thing to fix. We can dispose of the problem in no time at all with no impact on anything whatsoever. Then, you can get pregnant again and we'll see you in a year or so, with a nice, healthy, normal baby. You can have a normal family."

"Jamie?"

"It does make sense. I didn't sign up for this."

"Oh... Ok."

"Wonderful! Nurse, take it away and we'll dispose of it."



Congratulations, @Colin Smith. I've been on the Ship for 20 years and I've never called anyone to Hell. But this is what the world you think we should live in looks like. And stop hiding behind abortion when you defend your views. To be clear, I think abortion should be legal, free and without coercion. What you're endorsing has nothing to do with abortion.
«134

Comments

  • I'm going to refer the honourable member back to the Styx thread, and my post:
    It is unclear, you're right.

    For now, we'd appreciate that they didn't happen (and thank you, @Colin Smith for your understanding of this particular situation) until we've had discussions both here and backstage. We don't have a specific policy on every contentious issue that might come up, so this might take some time - how other shipmates might feel in discussing these matters in the general, in the specific, and whether there are legal lines we absolutely must not cross (UK law - both England and Wales, and Scottish).

    It might be that after some discussion backstage, we close this thread in order to give ourselves space to think, after which we can then re-open for Styx discussion. These are weighty matters and they deserve a considered response.

    So thanks for that.
  • I refer the honorable admin to his fellow admin's post that followed his, here:
    Ruth wrote: »
    Folks, if you're going to discuss what you see as someone's personal shortcomings, please do it in Hell. It is useful to the crew to know where you each would draw the line on what is and is not acceptable to say in Epiphanies. But things are getting Hellishly personal here, especially when a word like "sociopathic" is used.

    Ruth, Styx host

    I have been holding off starting a Hell thread about this for days now. The fact that I've managed to go 20 years without calling someone to Hell before shows that I don't have a trigger finger on Hell calls.

    But given the subject matter, @Colin Smith's comment about "amusing myself with subjects that have no relevance to my life" pushed that over the edge. I've managed to keep to the guidelines in both Epiphanies and the Styx, but given Ruth's post, this Hell thread is long overdue. We're repeatedly told Hell is for venting, and after engaging with @Colin Smith's bile as politely and calmly as I could for the last few days, I fucking need to vent, and it's clear that I'm not the only one.
  • Vent away. I was simply expressing my disappointment at the *checks watch* barely 12 hours between one and the other, because if you wanted a 'considered response' from the crew, it's not going to happen on that timescale.
  • Thanks. I'm happy to wait for whatever considered response you deem appropriate.

    If @Colin Smith hadn't responded in the Styx the way he did following your post, perhaps my saintly patience could have lasted a little longer. But with the 'amuse myself' comment, and again trying to pretend the issue was about abortion not infanticide, I've had enough.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    I am not sure why the Crew needs time for a considered response. If they are going to rule that pro-euthanasia arguments are allowed then it would naturally follow that pro-genocide arguments are allowed. Such a ruling would be truly Hellish.
  • Nothing like prejudging the issue, eh? If you have something substantive to say, do so on the Styx thread that is still open for such comments.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Obviously, you haven't read my Stygian posts. This ruling should be a no-brainer. What is being advocated is the killing of individuals without their consent because they are members of a defined group. Colin Smith's arguments were repugnant.
  • Vladimir: That passed the time.
    Estragon: It would have passed in any case.
    Vladimir: Yes, but not so rapidly.
  • amyboamybo Shipmate
    Wow, you really are awful.
  • amybo wrote: »
    Wow, you really are awful.

    I don't see the point in engaging with a thread that wants to portray me as evil but decided to acknowledge its existence. The other quote I had in mind was Wilde's remark that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

    You might also want to check out Swift's A Modest Proposal.
  • amybo wrote: »
    Wow, you really are awful.

    I don't see the point in engaging with a thread that wants to portray me as evil but decided to acknowledge its existence. The other quote I had in mind was Wilde's remark that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

    You might also want to check out Swift's A Modest Proposal.

    Swift's was a work of satirical genius. Are you now doing the "Schrodinger's Nazi" dance?
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Colin Smith’s ideas are dumb, and his fetishism for choice reads like a first year philosophy student who just read Sartre, but come on. He’s just some loser on the internet, acting like he’s the rebirth of Mengele is on the histrionic side, I think.
  • amybo wrote: »
    Wow, you really are awful.

    I don't see the point in engaging with a thread that wants to portray me as evil but decided to acknowledge its existence. The other quote I had in mind was Wilde's remark that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

    You might also want to check out Swift's A Modest Proposal.

    Swift's was a work of satirical genius. Are you now doing the "Schrodinger's Nazi" dance?

    I am suggesting that nothing should be taken too seriously. This is the internet after all. Getting angry because someone said something or believes something you disagree with is a mug's game. Especially when whoever said it has bugger all agency to actually make it happen.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Colin Smith’s ideas are dumb, and his fetishism for choice reads like a first year philosophy student who just read Sartre, but come on. He’s just some loser on the internet, acting like he’s the rebirth of Mengele is on the histrionic side, I think.

    Actually, I suspect 'his' fetishism for choice is based on a loathing of obligation and duty. I always want the choice of walking away from any situation I find disagreeable.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Colin Smith’s ideas are dumb, and his fetishism for choice reads like a first year philosophy student who just read Sartre, but come on. He’s just some loser on the internet, acting like he’s the rebirth of Mengele is on the histrionic side, I think.

    Actually, I suspect 'his' fetishism for choice is based on a loathing of obligation and duty. I always want the choice of walking away from any situation I find disagreeable.

    All very well, but suppose the situation you find disagreeable might be mitigated for others by your presence or intervention?

    If your attitude is still to say, in effect, blow this for a game of soldiers, and simply walk away, then you are a sad, sad man.
    :disappointed:

    The choice, of course, is yours - but you may have to live with the consequences...

  • It seems to me your position actually has little do with choice as such, except your own and no one else’s. It comes across as nothing but convenience and selfishness, described as choice to make it appear more palatable.

    It is certainly your choice to be selfish and avoid inconvenience, or to portray yourself as such if this is just amusement for you.

    The rest of us have the choice of what conclusions to draw from what you say.

  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Colin Smith’s ideas are dumb, and his fetishism for choice reads like a first year philosophy student who just read Sartre, but come on. He’s just some loser on the internet, acting like he’s the rebirth of Mengele is on the histrionic side, I think.

    Actually, I suspect 'his' fetishism for choice is based on a loathing of obligation and duty. I always want the choice of walking away from any situation I find disagreeable.

    All very well, but suppose the situation you find disagreeable might be mitigated for others by your presence or intervention?

    If your attitude is still to say, in effect, blow this for a game of soldiers, and simply walk away, then you are a sad, sad man.
    :disappointed:

    The choice, of course, is yours - but you may have to live with the consequences...

    I am a self-centred man, but rarely sad. And yes, whatever choices we make we live with the consequences. I have seen that happen to those who chose self-sacrifice.
  • amybo wrote: »
    Wow, you really are awful.

    I don't see the point in engaging with a thread that wants to portray me as evil but decided to acknowledge its existence. The other quote I had in mind was Wilde's remark that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

    You might also want to check out Swift's A Modest Proposal.

    Swift's was a work of satirical genius. Are you now doing the "Schrodinger's Nazi" dance?

    I am suggesting that nothing should be taken too seriously. This is the internet after all. Getting angry because someone said something or believes something you disagree with is a mug's game. Especially when whoever said it has bugger all agency to actually make it happen.

    Under this logic, there would be no reason for this (Hell) board to exist.

    Yours,
    a mug.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    It seems to me your position actually has little do with choice as such, except your own and no one else’s. It comes across as nothing but convenience and selfishness, described as choice to make it appear more palatable.

    It is certainly your choice to be selfish and avoid inconvenience, or to portray yourself as such if this is just amusement for you.

    The rest of us have the choice of what conclusions to draw from what you say.

    Yes. My point is that everyone should have the choice to put their convenience and selfishness first if that is what they wish.
  • You may not be sad in yourself, but you are a sad sight for others to behold.

    An example, if you like, of how NOT to live...
  • I don't see the point in engaging with a thread that wants to portray me as evil
    I don't think you're evil. I spent a long time engaging with you because I hoped that maybe you just hadn't thought through the ramifications of your has-to-be-internally-consistent worldview. My hope is that you're just ignorant about what the ideas you've put forward genuinely mean, but, like you say, we all have choices, and now the ball's in your court.
  • amybo wrote: »
    Wow, you really are awful.

    I don't see the point in engaging with a thread that wants to portray me as evil but decided to acknowledge its existence. The other quote I had in mind was Wilde's remark that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

    You might also want to check out Swift's A Modest Proposal.

    Swift's was a work of satirical genius. Are you now doing the "Schrodinger's Nazi" dance?

    I am suggesting that nothing should be taken too seriously. This is the internet after all. Getting angry because someone said something or believes something you disagree with is a mug's game. Especially when whoever said it has bugger all agency to actually make it happen.

    Under this logic, there would be no reason for this (Hell) board to exist.

    Yours,
    a mug.

    I do find the presence of a Hell board on a Christian website utterly bizarre. I suppose it's the equivalent of a safety valve stopping any of the other boards from blowing up but people really ought to have their own safety valves.
  • Some of us find the presence of an atheist on a Christian website utterly bizarre, but that's your choice.

    Your analogy of a safety valve might not be too far off the mark, though.
  • I don't see the point in engaging with a thread that wants to portray me as evil
    I don't think you're evil. I spent a long time engaging with you because I hoped that maybe you just hadn't thought through the ramifications of your has-to-be-internally-consistent worldview. My hope is that you're just ignorant about what the ideas you've put forward genuinely mean, but, like you say, we all have choices, and now the ball's in your court.

    My worldview certainly isn't internally consistent and I have taken pains to show that it isn't. Life is much too complicated to ever have a consistent worldview. If anything my worldview is ad hoc and jury rigged most of the time.

    At the same time, I think some of the slippery slope arguments thrown at me are nonsensical, such as the policy of Denmark and Iceland to eliminate Down Syndrome from the population being the first step on the road to genocide. It's no more the first step to genocide than the easing of divorce laws in the UK during the 1960s was the first step to the end of marriage. Moreover, presumably those policies have the support of the Danish and Icelandic people who are two of the friendliest and happiest nationalities on the planet.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    He sounds like the fuckin' reincarnation of Ayn Rand.
  • Yes, and what a sad, miserable, bleak, austere, dry, and generally unattractive outlook was hers...

    Ah well. Whatever lights your candle.
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Suspended
    edited August 2020
    Caissa wrote: »
    He sounds like the fuckin' reincarnation of Ayn Rand.

    She was right-libertarian whereas I am left-libertarian so I suppose there might be some resemblance.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    It seems to me your position actually has little do with choice as such, except your own and no one else’s. It comes across as nothing but convenience and selfishness, described as choice to make it appear more palatable.

    It is certainly your choice to be selfish and avoid inconvenience, or to portray yourself as such if this is just amusement for you.

    The rest of us have the choice of what conclusions to draw from what you say.
    Yes. My point is that everyone should have the choice to put their convenience and selfishness first if that is what they wish.
    You do have that choice, except when your choice infringes on the choices of others.

    I don’t buy that you really believe that everyone should have the choice you claim for yourself. Your posts say otherwise. When asked about the choices of the disabled or those with dementia, you said “their choice does not count.” So apparently, according your view, not everyone has the right to choose to put themselves first.

    You haven’t just said you have the right to choose to put your selfishness and convenience first, to choose right to walk away from duty or obligation. You’ve said that you have the right to choose that others who might get in the way of your choice must yield to your choice, even if it means death for them. Because in your view, that’s the better choice for them anyway.

  • amyboamybo Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    It seems to me your position actually has little do with choice as such, except your own and no one else’s. It comes across as nothing but convenience and selfishness, described as choice to make it appear more palatable.

    It is certainly your choice to be selfish and avoid inconvenience, or to portray yourself as such if this is just amusement for you.

    The rest of us have the choice of what conclusions to draw from what you say.

    Yes. My point is that everyone should have the choice to put their convenience and selfishness first if that is what they wish.

    oh! You're a libertarian. My bad.
  • I think Randian Objectivism is evil, and has ravaged public life. I think the ideas @Colin Smith was espousing are evil, I do not think he is evil.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    It seems to me your position actually has little do with choice as such, except your own and no one else’s. It comes across as nothing but convenience and selfishness, described as choice to make it appear more palatable.

    It is certainly your choice to be selfish and avoid inconvenience, or to portray yourself as such if this is just amusement for you.

    The rest of us have the choice of what conclusions to draw from what you say.
    Yes. My point is that everyone should have the choice to put their convenience and selfishness first if that is what they wish.
    You do have that choice, except when your choice infringes on the choices of others.

    I don’t buy that you really believe that everyone should have the choice you claim for yourself. Your posts say otherwise. When asked about the choices of the disabled or those with dementia, you said “their choice does not count.” So apparently, according your view, not everyone has the right to choose to put themselves first.

    You haven’t just said you have the right to choose to put your selfishness and convenience first, to choose right to walk away from duty or obligation. You’ve said that you have the right to choose that others who might get in the way of your choice must yield to your choice, even if it means death for them. Because in your view, that’s the better choice for them anyway.

    I think you've misunderstood my point. I don't regard the severely mentally disabled, which obviously includes those with severe dementia to have a choice in exactly the same way that I don't regard an embryo or foetus to have a choice.

    Were they able to articulate or convey in some way what their choice was then obviously they would be human.

    But I can't think of circumstances where my walking away from a situation means death for someone. When I chose to break contact with my Alzheimer suffering mother I knew she was going to a nursing home, not lying in a gutter.
  • Caissa wrote: »

    "Article 3
    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person." for clarification.

    Where we differ is on what constitutes 'everyone'. We don't include cats and dogs and other non-human animals within 'everyone'. Nor do most people, in the west at least, regard a foetus or embryo as part of 'everyone'. I go further and argue, based on experience, that those with severe dementia are no longer part of 'everyone'.

    In the case of Down Syndrome I am not looking to eliminate anyone who has Down Syndrome. That would, to clarify, be murder. But I do support attempts to eliminate the condition through screening and abortion because I regard abortion as a completely moral and ethical procedure which should be available on demand.

    I see from your avi that you are a priest, though I don't know of which faith. The chances that you and a convinced atheist with a somewhat nihilistic view of the world will agree are slim, but in a pluralistic world it might be useful if we can agree to differ.
  • Caissa wrote: »
    I am not sure why the Crew needs time for a considered response. If they are going to rule that pro-euthanasia arguments are allowed then it would naturally follow that pro-genocide arguments are allowed. Such a ruling would be truly Hellish.

    The leap from the euthanasia of specific individuals with very severe mental disability who are unable to express an opinion either because of age in the case of the pre-natal and new-born, or condition in the case of those with forms of dementia, to the mass-slaughter of whole ethnic and political groups is one I find hard to grasp. The example of Nazi Germany to support the 'slippery-slope' argument seems especially false because the removal of Jews from Germany by any means was pretty much the essence of Nazism. It's not like they started with the disabled and then thought "who shall we pick on next".
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    My avatar is a Halloween costume. I also carrying a baby with Down Syndrome in the photo.
  • Caissa wrote: »
    My avatar is a Halloween costume. I also carrying a baby with Down Syndrome in the photo.

    My mistake. It is an unlikely choice for Halloween. I read previously that the baby has Down Syndrome. As I said, we differ.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Silence does not mean people agree with abortion. Some do not have a strong opinion or go with it because it is the law. That does not indicate they agree or disagree. There are atheists who do subscribe to your picture of life. Morality goes beyond belief. It is influenced by it yes but not it is also a social structure.
    It is generally accepted on the ship (and in life as far as I can see) that anything of a triggery nature has a warning before it. The subject is very triggery. I would like to clarify that a Hell call automatically constitutes a trigger warning, by the nature of Hell.
  • In the case of Down Syndrome I am not looking to eliminate anyone who has Down Syndrome. That would, to clarify, be murder. But I do support attempts to eliminate the condition through screening and abortion because I regard abortion as a completely moral and ethical procedure which should be available on demand.

    That’s a welcome backtrack from what you said on the thread.
    Given that some disabilities of equal or greater effect that Down's are only detectable after birth (or occur during labour), does it follow that you would support euthanasia of disabled infants as you don't consider them people?

    I would support the right of the parents to make that decision. Supporting someone's right to make a decision is not the same as supporting the decision they make.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    Caissa wrote: »
    He sounds like the fuckin' reincarnation of Ayn Rand.

    That was my thought.
  • In the case of Down Syndrome I am not looking to eliminate anyone who has Down Syndrome. That would, to clarify, be murder. But I do support attempts to eliminate the condition through screening and abortion because I regard abortion as a completely moral and ethical procedure which should be available on demand.

    That’s a welcome backtrack from what you said on the thread.
    Given that some disabilities of equal or greater effect that Down's are only detectable after birth (or occur during labour), does it follow that you would support euthanasia of disabled infants as you don't consider them people?

    I would support the right of the parents to make that decision. Supporting someone's right to make a decision is not the same as supporting the decision they make.

    Not a backtrack. A clarification. Though I should have been clearer. I do not, as I have said before, regard the new-born as fully-human so there is no moral distinction, in my view, between a late-term abortion and euthanasia at or soon after birth. By "anyone who has Down Syndrome" I mean any adult or child with the condition.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Silence does not mean people agree with abortion. Some do not have a strong opinion or go with it because it is the law. That does not indicate they agree or disagree. There are atheists who do subscribe to your picture of life. Morality goes beyond belief. It is influenced by it yes but not it is also a social structure.
    It is generally accepted on the ship (and in life as far as I can see) that anything of a triggery nature has a warning before it. The subject is very triggery. I would like to clarify that a Hell call automatically constitutes a trigger warning, by the nature of Hell.

    In my view, it's not about "agreeing with" or "disagreeing with" abortion. The issue is choice and personal autonomy when it comes to one's body. Those who have issues with abortion should focus on making contraception freely available; ensuring those engaging in sexual activity are fully-informed; and making society more congenial so that women can keep the child without being disadvantaged by it. But they must never, ever, attempt to coerce the woman into a decision or restrict her access to abortion if that is her choice for that is the greatest of evils.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    It seems to me your position actually has little do with choice as such, except your own and no one else’s. It comes across as nothing but convenience and selfishness, described as choice to make it appear more palatable.

    It is certainly your choice to be selfish and avoid inconvenience, or to portray yourself as such if this is just amusement for you.

    The rest of us have the choice of what conclusions to draw from what you say.
    Yes. My point is that everyone should have the choice to put their convenience and selfishness first if that is what they wish.
    You do have that choice, except when your choice infringes on the choices of others.

    I don’t buy that you really believe that everyone should have the choice you claim for yourself. Your posts say otherwise. When asked about the choices of the disabled or those with dementia, you said “their choice does not count.” So apparently, according your view, not everyone has the right to choose to put themselves first.

    You haven’t just said you have the right to choose to put your selfishness and convenience first, to choose right to walk away from duty or obligation. You’ve said that you have the right to choose that others who might get in the way of your choice must yield to your choice, even if it means death for them. Because in your view, that’s the better choice for them anyway.

    I think you've misunderstood my point. I don't regard the severely mentally disabled, which obviously includes those with severe dementia to have a choice in exactly the same way that I don't regard an embryo or foetus to have a choice.
    And you base this conclusion on what exactly?
    Were they able to articulate or convey in some way what their choice was then obviously they would be human.
    So being human depends not on the ability to have a choice but the ability to communicate that choice to others.
    But I can't think of circumstances where my walking away from a situation means death for someone.
    In the other thread, you certainly seemed to suggest that choosing euthanasia for another person who has a mental disability or dementia could be appropriate, and that their choice doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »

    I think you've misunderstood my point. I don't regard the severely mentally disabled, which obviously includes those with severe dementia to have a choice in exactly the same way that I don't regard an embryo or foetus to have a choice.
    And you base this conclusion on what exactly?
    Were they able to articulate or convey in some way what their choice was then obviously they would be human.
    So being human depends not on the ability to have a choice but the ability to communicate that choice to others.
    But I can't think of circumstances where my walking away from a situation means death for someone.
    In the other thread, you certainly seemed to suggest that choosing euthanasia for another person who has a mental disability or dementia could be appropriate, and that their choice doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter.

    1. Cognitive ability. That can be determined with brain scans to detect mental activity.
    2. No it does not. See answer to 1.
    3. Given my lack of medical experience I would not be the person making that decision.
  • From the Styx thread:
    Nor am I in favour of euthanasing people with disabilities. I was discussing the new-born with very severe and long term health problems requiring life-long care.

    The specific question was about euthanasia of infants with disabilities “equal or greater effect that Down's”, and your answer was clear, that you would be in favour of allowing it if parents made that choice.

    But however you want to reframe it, no you’re not in favour of euthanising people with disabilities, just some people with disabilities. Or, you’re not, so long as you conveniently redefine them not as people.

    You didn’t give a time frame when asked, but knowing a baby that only managed six months on this earth (five and three quarters more than expected), sadly none of them ‘advanced’ enough for you to describe her as a human person, would termination/euthanasia at any point in her short life have been acceptable, if her parents so wished?
  • From the Styx thread:
    Nor am I in favour of euthanasing people with disabilities. I was discussing the new-born with very severe and long term health problems requiring life-long care.

    The specific question was about euthanasia of infants with disabilities “equal or greater effect that Down's”, and your answer was clear, that you would be in favour of allowing it if parents made that choice.

    But however you want to reframe it, no you’re not in favour of euthanising people with disabilities, just some people with disabilities. Or, you’re not, so long as you conveniently redefine them not as people.

    You didn’t give a time frame when asked, but knowing a baby that only managed six months on this earth (five and three quarters more than expected), sadly none of them ‘advanced’ enough for you to describe her as a human person, would termination/euthanasia at any point in her short life have been acceptable, if her parents so wished?

    It would have been acceptable to me if her parents so wished.
  • And if her parents were persuaded using techniques such as those in Denmark?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    Silence does not mean people agree with abortion. Some do not have a strong opinion or go with it because it is the law. That does not indicate they agree or disagree. There are atheists who do subscribe to your picture of life. Morality goes beyond belief. It is influenced by it yes but not it is also a social structure.
    It is generally accepted on the ship (and in life as far as I can see) that anything of a triggery nature has a warning before it. The subject is very triggery. I would like to clarify that a Hell call automatically constitutes a trigger warning, by the nature of Hell.

    In my view, it's not about "agreeing with" or "disagreeing with" abortion. The issue is choice and personal autonomy when it comes to one's body. Those who have issues with abortion should focus on making contraception freely available; ensuring those engaging in sexual activity are fully-informed; and making society more congenial so that women can keep the child without being disadvantaged by it. But they must never, ever, attempt to coerce the woman into a decision or restrict her access to abortion if that is her choice for that is the greatest of evils.

    You said quite clearly up thread that most western people do not see an embryo as human. Proof please. I disagree. Anything that is even prototypes human is human. My own view is that it should only happen when there are good medical reasons including both physical and mental, and not for contraception. Abortion is not going away I am not stupid, but we do need to change how it is viewed.
    Contraception is freely or cheaply available. There is a lot of info available for those engaging in sex. Including TV and Cinema adds. Ignorance is not an excuse. If you choose to have unprotected sex then pregnancy is always possible. Please define keeping the child without disadvantage to the woman. Keeping the child brings responsibility. Responsibility will always disadvantage those responsible.
  • MrsBeakyMrsBeaky Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    @Colin Smith you consistently bang on about one of your core beliefs being freedom of choice then you post this on the Styx thread:

    "Okay. Let's say during birth the baby is starved of oxygen and as a result is hopelessly brain damaged and paralysed but capable of breathing unaided. The previously happy parents looking forward to their healthy child are now faced with a lifetime of care without remission.

    What the hell should the parents do? What should they be permitted to do? What role should the state or society play? Why should the parents' lives be ruined? Why should society or the state pick up the expense caring for something that isn't even aware of its own existence"

    Two things. Firstly, the way you have phrased this series of questions comes across as very contradictory of your much vaunted championing of freedom of choice. Especially the final one about expense as if the parents are allowed to choose for their child to live you sound resentful of the fact on the grounds of money. You can't have your bloody cake and eat it either you support people in their choices or not!

    Secondly, your description of the infant's brain injury is in no way consistent with your conclusion that the child is "something that isn't even aware of its own existence".

    I know of what I speak but I am not going to go into detail.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Hugal wrote: »
    Silence does not mean people agree with abortion. Some do not have a strong opinion or go with it because it is the law. That does not indicate they agree or disagree. There are atheists who do subscribe to your picture of life. Morality goes beyond belief. It is influenced by it yes but not it is also a social structure.
    It is generally accepted on the ship (and in life as far as I can see) that anything of a triggery nature has a warning before it. The subject is very triggery. I would like to clarify that a Hell call automatically constitutes a trigger warning, by the nature of Hell.

    In my view, it's not about "agreeing with" or "disagreeing with" abortion. The issue is choice and personal autonomy when it comes to one's body. Those who have issues with abortion should focus on making contraception freely available; ensuring those engaging in sexual activity are fully-informed; and making society more congenial so that women can keep the child without being disadvantaged by it. But they must never, ever, attempt to coerce the woman into a decision or restrict her access to abortion if that is her choice for that is the greatest of evils.

    Someday you'll move on from early Sartre to later Sartre where he deals with the consequences of radical agency with far more detail and nuance, especially considered against the needs of society. Ah, and such a day that will be.
  • 1. Cognitive ability. That can be determined with brain scans to detect mental activity.
    This seems inconsistent with your examples of Downs Syndrome or Alzheimer’s/dementia.
    2. No it does not. See answer to 1.
    This seems inconsistent with your earlier comment to which I was responding.

    It seems clear to me that your opinion is based on ignorance and bias. It might be easier just to admit that.

Sign In or Register to comment.