A vision for the future

24

Comments

  • And if her parents were persuaded using techniques such as those in Denmark?

    I have not looked into what those techniques are.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    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.

    The evidence they do not see the embryo as human is the overwhelming support for abortion in the UK and throughout much of Europe. I accept that the States are divided on the issue.

    I agree that how we view abortion needs to change but disagree with how you would change it. For me it needs to be on demand and stigma free.

    By keeping the child without disadvantaging the woman I mean paid maternity leave, free childcare, workplace creches, and a change in attitudes from employers.
  • MrsBeaky wrote: »
    @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.

    I mentioned the state as a potential caretaker of the infant if the parents chose to abandon it. I did not intend suggesting the state should force a decision on the parents. My comment on expense was directed at the state and whether it should spend resources looking after the infant.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    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.

    Not read any Sartre, or any philosophy. I regard society as at best a tool and at worse as the enemy.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    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.

    Everyone's opinion is based on bias.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    ECraigR wrote: »
    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.

    Not read any Sartre, or any philosophy. I regard society as at best a tool and at worse as the enemy.

    Ah, so there's our problem.

    Reading philosophy is to see what people smarter than ourselves have thought and concluded. All of the errors in your argument being pointed out by others are typical objections, yet your responses are not. If you care about thinking and your ideas then I recommend studying the thought of those who came before.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    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.

    Not read any Sartre, or any philosophy. I regard society as at best a tool and at worse as the enemy.

    Ah, so there's our problem.

    Reading philosophy is to see what people smarter than ourselves have thought and concluded. All of the errors in your argument being pointed out by others are typical objections, yet your responses are not. If you care about thinking and your ideas then I recommend studying the thought of those who came before.

    A few hours ago I sat down (technically I was already sitting down) and wrote a 1400 word scene in a novel. I knew it would be a difficult scene as I was picking up a character after a considerable break and had to find his voice again. Everything I have done today, part from shopping for milk and eggs, had been leading up to that point. Everything I had written here on this forum and elsewhere on Facebook was a true statement but none of it was important to me. The only important part of the day, apart from ensuring I had milk for breakfast tomorrow, was writing that scene. So no, my lousy philosophy of who is and who isn't human isn't important to me as it has no bearing on my life or on any other person's life and I have been astonished at how seriously people have taken what I regard as a game.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Caissa wrote: »
    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.
    [Hostly winged helmet ON] @Caissa, as you should be well aware, the only permissible place for criticizing the decisions of the Hosts and Admins is the Styx. Take it there, or leave it at home. [Hostly winged helmet OFF]

  • ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    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.

    Not read any Sartre, or any philosophy. I regard society as at best a tool and at worse as the enemy.

    Ah, so there's our problem.

    Reading philosophy is to see what people smarter than ourselves have thought and concluded. All of the errors in your argument being pointed out by others are typical objections, yet your responses are not. If you care about thinking and your ideas then I recommend studying the thought of those who came before.

    A few hours ago I sat down (technically I was already sitting down) and wrote a 1400 word scene in a novel. I knew it would be a difficult scene as I was picking up a character after a considerable break and had to find his voice again. Everything I have done today, part from shopping for milk and eggs, had been leading up to that point. Everything I had written here on this forum and elsewhere on Facebook was a true statement but none of it was important to me. The only important part of the day, apart from ensuring I had milk for breakfast tomorrow, was writing that scene. So no, my lousy philosophy of who is and who isn't human isn't important to me as it has no bearing on my life or on any other person's life and I have been astonished at how seriously people have taken what I regard as a game.

    Maybe if you weren't claiming friends and relatives of ours were subhuman and that it should be legal to kill them it might be taken less seriously. You can't advocate crimes against humanity and then claim it's just a game. How about acknowledging the abhorrence of what you're suggesting or just shutting the fuck up?
  • And if her parents were persuaded using techniques such as those in Denmark?

    I have not looked into what those techniques are.

    Strange. You previously applauded them.

    But they can’t be anything bad, because Denmark is a happy place and Danish people are nice, like Iceland too.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Hugal wrote: »
    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.

    The evidence they do not see the embryo as human is the overwhelming support for abortion in the UK and throughout much of Europe. I accept that the States are divided on the issue.

    I agree that how we view abortion needs to change but disagree with how you would change it. For me it needs to be on demand and stigma free.

    By keeping the child without disadvantaging the woman I mean paid maternity leave, free childcare, workplace creches, and a change in attitudes from employers.

    OK on that article, given all the usual caveats I accept that many people are pro abortion under certain circumstances. I agree with the latter for all parents. Those should be for women or men who are the primary caregiver. In the UK some of those already take place.
    You failed to comment on the availability of protection.
    Actions have consequences. Abortion has both physical and mental affects.
    When I lived in London certain hospitals would not give out the gender of an unborn child because they believed the mother would be forced to abort if it wasn’t a boy.
    No abortion should not be on demand for all the reasons I said above. It should be carefully considered in the same way you consider any operation.
    The arguments tend to be around when in pregnancy life happens. Not if it is a child but if it is alive. This links back to the OP
  • Colin--

    You said upthread:
    So no, my lousy philosophy of who is and who isn't human isn't important to me as it has no bearing on my life or on any other person's life and I have been astonished at how seriously people have taken what I regard as a game.

    (Emphasis mine.)

    It's a mistake--sometimes, a big one--to assume that any discussion on the Ship is just a game. You might get away with that in the Circus, though some people take their games seriously, and sometimes there are serious side comments. Best not to assume anything in Heaven or All Saints is just a game, no matter how light and polite the discussion seems.

    If you assume discussions anywhere else on the Ship are games...well, we'll keep a paramedic on call.

    FWIW.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    @Colin Smith for someone who claims to be a writer, your lack of imagination and empathy is astounding. I don't know how you can get inside the head of your characters when you have clearly never made the slightest effort to work out what's going on in the heads of the actual other people you interact with.
  • This.

    I suspect that his novels are not all that widely-read...
    :wink:
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    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.

    Not read any Sartre, or any philosophy. I regard society as at best a tool and at worse as the enemy.

    Ah, so there's our problem.

    Reading philosophy is to see what people smarter than ourselves have thought and concluded. All of the errors in your argument being pointed out by others are typical objections, yet your responses are not. If you care about thinking and your ideas then I recommend studying the thought of those who came before.

    A few hours ago I sat down (technically I was already sitting down) and wrote a 1400 word scene in a novel. I knew it would be a difficult scene as I was picking up a character after a considerable break and had to find his voice again. Everything I have done today, part from shopping for milk and eggs, had been leading up to that point. Everything I had written here on this forum and elsewhere on Facebook was a true statement but none of it was important to me. The only important part of the day, apart from ensuring I had milk for breakfast tomorrow, was writing that scene. So no, my lousy philosophy of who is and who isn't human isn't important to me as it has no bearing on my life or on any other person's life and I have been astonished at how seriously people have taken what I regard as a game.


    Sorry dude, but you’re clearly a shitty writer if you can so easily and blase dismiss thought and the thinking of thinkers before you. cf Gass and the relationship between thinking and fiction, Coetzee, Murnane, etc etc etc

    You’re also a clearly shitty writer if you’re shocked by people’s responses to your stupidity.
  • Hardly another Charles Dickens, for example...
    :disappointed:

    A self-confessed self-centred person such as Mr Smith is unlikely to be able to understand that others may be brighter than he, nor is he likely to be able to understand or sympathise with others, who do not share his dystopian world view.

    Quite why he bothers with the Ship, I know not. Perhaps he should go and get a proper job (if that's possible in these difficult times), or take up something creative, like model railways? Or breeding prize rabbits?

  • Quite why he bothers with the Ship, I know not. Perhaps he should go and get a proper job (if that's possible in these difficult times), or take up something creative, like model railways? Or breeding prize rabbits?

    I fear for the life chances of any sub standard rabbits.
  • Hardly another Charles Dickens, for example...
    :disappointed:

    A self-confessed self-centred person such as Mr Smith is unlikely to be able to understand that others may be brighter than he, nor is he likely to be able to understand or sympathise with others, who do not share his dystopian world view.

    Quite why he bothers with the Ship, I know not. Perhaps he should go and get a proper job (if that's possible in these difficult times), or take up something creative, like model railways? Or breeding prize rabbits?

    Of course I know that many people are brighter than me, though that doesn't automatically mean I think their worldview is superior to mine. Nor do I think my world view is dystopian, though perhaps it seems so to others and especially to those who believe in a spiritual dimension to existence.

    The Ship is interesting in the way Facebook is interesting, albeit with more peculiar rules and a greater flair for personal attacks. I have something creative: it's called writing fiction.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    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.

    Not read any Sartre, or any philosophy. I regard society as at best a tool and at worse as the enemy.

    Ah, so there's our problem.

    Reading philosophy is to see what people smarter than ourselves have thought and concluded. All of the errors in your argument being pointed out by others are typical objections, yet your responses are not. If you care about thinking and your ideas then I recommend studying the thought of those who came before.

    A few hours ago I sat down (technically I was already sitting down) and wrote a 1400 word scene in a novel. I knew it would be a difficult scene as I was picking up a character after a considerable break and had to find his voice again. Everything I have done today, part from shopping for milk and eggs, had been leading up to that point. Everything I had written here on this forum and elsewhere on Facebook was a true statement but none of it was important to me. The only important part of the day, apart from ensuring I had milk for breakfast tomorrow, was writing that scene. So no, my lousy philosophy of who is and who isn't human isn't important to me as it has no bearing on my life or on any other person's life and I have been astonished at how seriously people have taken what I regard as a game.


    Sorry dude, but you’re clearly a shitty writer if you can so easily and blase dismiss thought and the thinking of thinkers before you. cf Gass and the relationship between thinking and fiction, Coetzee, Murnane, etc etc etc

    You’re also a clearly shitty writer if you’re shocked by people’s responses to your stupidity.

    I don't dismiss the thinking of thinkers before me. I'm just not interested in what they have to say because I'm not a thinker.

    I write fiction, that's all. You might not like the fiction I write (though some do) but so what? I write what I would enjoy reading and that doesn't include anything by Coetzee.
  • Colin--

    You said:
    The Ship is interesting in the way Facebook is interesting, albeit with more peculiar rules and a greater flair for personal attacks.

    You're saying that the Ship is more prone to personal attacks than Facebook is???
    :confused:

    The Ship has had all sorts of personal attacks--some especially vile and verbally violent. I'm not a FB user. But most of what I've heard over the years is that FB and other social media sites constantly have personal attacks. One of the main reasons I don't use any of it.
  • @Colin Smith for someone who claims to be a writer, your lack of imagination and empathy is astounding. I don't know how you can get inside the head of your characters when you have clearly never made the slightest effort to work out what's going on in the heads of the actual other people you interact with.

    Actually, based on feedback from people who have read my stuff, my characterisation is pretty good and there's nothing wrong with my imagination. I could even provide proof of that with my website but since the stance here is to attack everything I say perhaps that would be a bad idea.

    But the point is that with a character a writer is forensic, scraping away the layers to find out what makes them tick and then tickling them where it's nice or poking them where it hurts to serve the narrative. It's a wholly manipulative relationship and has no bearing (or shouldn't) on how someone conducts themselves in real life.

    What I think you are criticising me for, and it's a fair criticism, is a lack of sensitivity towards other people's feelings on an internet forum. I know abortion is a divisive issue but assumed the discussion here would be based solely on ethical grounds and emotional engagement would be avoided. What I didn't consider is that anyone in the discussion might have a personal connection to either abortion or the care for anyone who has some form of disability sometimes used as a reason for an abortion. I accept that was a projection of my own circumstances where I have avoided and would avoid being in that situation. I got that wrong.
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    I'm not a thinker.

    This, to put it mildly, is an understatement.
  • jbohn wrote: »
    I'm not a thinker.

    This, to put it mildly, is an understatement.

    Agreed. I haven't the slightest interest in philosophy* or figuring out the mysteries of life. With luck I have around 30 more years on the planet and then pfft. I'm back to where I was in 1959, which is to say no where.

    Meanwhile, my attitude to life is mostly utilitarian. Cheese is good. Coffee is great. Wine is divine. What's this sparkly thing? What does it do? What can I make out of it?

    Ideally I'd be a hedonist but I'm not very good at it.

    *Apart from Marx's Theory of Alienation which told me why I never want a boring job again.
  • What I didn't consider is that anyone in the discussion might have a personal connection to either abortion or the care for anyone who has some form of disability sometimes used as a reason for an abortion.

    One in four women in the US has an abortion. I don't know the numbers for the UK, but I'd be surprised if the scale was much different. One in 700 babies in the US is born with Down syndrome, and 1 in 1000 in the UK. I believe currently in the UK, about half of Down syndrome pregnancies are terminated (It's about 90% of those who ask for a test, and get a positive result).
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Suspended
    edited August 2020
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Colin--

    You said:
    The Ship is interesting in the way Facebook is interesting, albeit with more peculiar rules and a greater flair for personal attacks.

    You're saying that the Ship is more prone to personal attacks than Facebook is???
    :confused:

    The Ship has had all sorts of personal attacks--some especially vile and verbally violent. I'm not a FB user. But most of what I've heard over the years is that FB and other social media sites constantly have personal attacks. One of the main reasons I don't use any of it.

    Not more prone. People doing it show more flair. Also Facebook has a block button which is useful. There are idiots of course, but I think it's friendlier than you think, especially if you set your posts to friends only.
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Suspended
    edited August 2020
    What I didn't consider is that anyone in the discussion might have a personal connection to either abortion or the care for anyone who has some form of disability sometimes used as a reason for an abortion.

    One in four women in the US has an abortion. I don't know the numbers for the UK, but I'd be surprised if the scale was much different. One in 700 babies in the US is born with Down syndrome, and 1 in 1000 in the UK. I believe currently in the UK, about half of Down syndrome pregnancies are terminated (It's about 90% of those who ask for a test, and get a positive result).

    I agree I should have considered it. I assumed that anyone who had a personal regret resulting from their choice would not be participating in an internet discussion. had the thread been titled "Do you want to talk about your abortion?" or something along those lines I'd have stayed away. As it was I assumed it was to discuss abortion as a social rather than personal issue.

    This is the situation in the UK Article is 5 years old.
  • Killing newborns is not abortion.
  • Killing newborns is not abortion.

    Do you really want to do this again?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Not really, but a lot of this hell thread seems to imply the issue was primarily a dispute about abortion.

    There have been varying views on abortion on SoF since the dawn of time.

    The ideas you expressed that some of us consider evil, and have caused such a strong reaction from other posters - are that it is justifiable to label some members of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens who have been born, as not human beings - and to suggest that parents should have the freedom to euthanise an infant they do not wish to care for.
  • Killing newborns is not abortion.

    Do you really want to do this again?

    You views on abortion have never been the problem. Yes, we have disagreement on Down’s screening, and debating that is fine and healthy. For my part, you don’t need to justify yourself in the way you approached discussing abortion, other than being more careful about using ableist language, which you were willing to do.
  • From Styx:
    @goperryrevs
    Except that I never advocated that people can be killed just because they are disabled or even got close to that. Your twisting what I said to make it sound like I approve of murdering everyone in a wheelchair.

    I do not think that you approve of murdering everyone in a wheelchair.

    However, you have stated very clearly that you think that parents of (at least) a six month old severely disabled child should be legally allowed to have the choice to have him or her killed.

    Your justification is:
    Redefining what a person / human is, so that in your view it's not murder, because you don't define the thing being killed as a human.

    Your mitigation is:
    Although you wouldn't necessarily make that decision yourself, you support the right of parents to make that choice.

    Neither of these help. The former makes things worse, not better, because you're dehumanising in order to justify your views.

    The latter might make you feel better about yourself, but would you (for example) take the statement "I wouldn't rape anyone, but I support the right of people to choose to be rapists" as a sufficient condemnation of rape?

    Compare these statements:
    - I think parents should be given the choice to kill a six-month old baby because it's black.
    - I think parents should be given the choice to kill a six-month old baby because it's hermaphroditic.
    - I think parents should be given the choice to kill a six-month old baby because it's female.
    - I think parents should be given the choice to kill a six-month old baby because it's disabled.

    For me, those statements all fall into the same category: unacceptable. My frustration is that any of the other statements would have been immediately flagged up as clear Commandment 1 violations.

    The reason that you feel hard done by me is that in your mind you have dehumanised the disabled so much that you do not see those statements as similar, so you do not see the ramifications of your assertions.

    As I have said, I do not think you are evil. I don't think you realise the full impact of what you've stated. Although you (thankfully) only take your arguments so far, you don't appreciate that exactly the same method of argument* has been used throughout history to commit atrocities. By giving those arguments credence, you give tacit support to those much much much worse than yourself.

    * and the main flaw is right from the start - your definition of a 'person' or a 'human'.
  • Okay, @goperryrevs

    Society accepts the late abortion of a foetus with Down Syndrome. You, as I understand it, don't, but society does. And if you want to employ the slippery-slope argument, as you did in your last paragraph, that's where the slope starts. Or perhaps it started when many women chose to have a career and delay child-bearing making DS more likely.

    According to this recent BBC story there is a campaign to change the law, but as it currently stands abortion following a diagnosis of Down Syndrome is permitted "at any point up until birth". The reason being that DS is only detectable late in pregnancy and sometimes not until after the birth.

    All I have done is observe that in terms of its development there isn't much difference between a foetus in the week before it's born and and a newborn in the week after it's born and drawn an obvious conclusion.

    If you think there is a major difference in development terms between a foetus in the week before birth and an infant in the week after I'd like to hear it.

    Six months was mentioned earlier but I believe that is the length of time it can take for the symptoms of DS to appear. If all newborns were screened immediately after birth then DS can be detected much earlier.

    I accept that you find that abhorrent. I believe expecting a woman to carry a foetus she does not want is abhorrent. I believe expecting anyone to commit to a lifetime of care is abhorrent.
  • Okay, @goperryrevs

    Society accepts the late abortion of a foetus with Down Syndrome. You, as I understand it, don't, but society does. And if you want to employ the slippery-slope argument, as you did in your last paragraph, that's where the slope starts. Or perhaps it started when many women chose to have a career and delay child-bearing making DS more likely.

    According to this recent BBC story there is a campaign to change the law, but as it currently stands abortion following a diagnosis of Down Syndrome is permitted "at any point up until birth". The reason being that DS is only detectable late in pregnancy and sometimes not until after the birth.

    All I have done is observe that in terms of its development there isn't much difference between a foetus in the week before it's born and and a newborn in the week after it's born and drawn an obvious conclusion.

    If you think there is a major difference in development terms between a foetus in the week before birth and an infant in the week after I'd like to hear it.

    Six months was mentioned earlier but I believe that is the length of time it can take for the symptoms of DS to appear. If all newborns were screened immediately after birth then DS can be detected much earlier.

    I accept that you find that abhorrent. I believe expecting a woman to carry a foetus she does not want is abhorrent. I believe expecting anyone to commit to a lifetime of care is abhorrent.

    After a child is born adoption is always an option, one not available during pregnancy. To suggest that murder is a valid alternative to adoption is... well, I'm not actually sure whether it's closer to bizarre or vile. Even once a child with Down's reaches adulthood, there are options for supported accommodation or residential care. Now, there are certainly some horror stories about these, but surely the solution is to improve them rather than start killing people?!
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Okay, @goperryrevs

    Society accepts the late abortion of a foetus with Down Syndrome. You, as I understand it, don't, but society does. And if you want to employ the slippery-slope argument, as you did in your last paragraph, that's where the slope starts. Or perhaps it started when many women chose to have a career and delay child-bearing making DS more likely.

    According to this recent BBC story there is a campaign to change the law, but as it currently stands abortion following a diagnosis of Down Syndrome is permitted "at any point up until birth". The reason being that DS is only detectable late in pregnancy and sometimes not until after the birth.

    All I have done is observe that in terms of its development there isn't much difference between a foetus in the week before it's born and and a newborn in the week after it's born and drawn an obvious conclusion.

    If you think there is a major difference in development terms between a foetus in the week before birth and an infant in the week after I'd like to hear it.

    Six months was mentioned earlier but I believe that is the length of time it can take for the symptoms of DS to appear. If all newborns were screened immediately after birth then DS can be detected much earlier.

    I accept that you find that abhorrent. I believe expecting a woman to carry a foetus she does not want is abhorrent. I believe expecting anyone to commit to a lifetime of care is abhorrent.

    There is no real difference between the two states. Both function as human one inside the womb and one. Outside. They are both human beings. Just because a child is in the womb doesn’t mean it is not human. Your opinion not withstanding the child’s functions as a child.
    As I said and you still have not answered info is readily available and certainly in the UK you can get protection free or cheaply before and after sex. There is no moral excuse.
    Just because the law allows something to happen does not make it right. Downs kids can lead a life worth living.

  • After a child is born adoption is always an option, one not available during pregnancy. To suggest that murder is a valid alternative to adoption is... well, I'm not actually sure whether it's closer to bizarre or vile. Even once a child with Down's reaches adulthood, there are options for supported accommodation or residential care. Now, there are certainly some horror stories about these, but surely the solution is to improve them rather than start killing people?!

    I agree adoption is a possibility, though suspect the number of potential adopters would be vanishingly few.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Okay, @goperryrevs

    Society accepts the late abortion of a foetus with Down Syndrome. You, as I understand it, don't, but society does. And if you want to employ the slippery-slope argument, as you did in your last paragraph, that's where the slope starts. Or perhaps it started when many women chose to have a career and delay child-bearing making DS more likely.

    According to this recent BBC story there is a campaign to change the law, but as it currently stands abortion following a diagnosis of Down Syndrome is permitted "at any point up until birth". The reason being that DS is only detectable late in pregnancy and sometimes not until after the birth.

    All I have done is observe that in terms of its development there isn't much difference between a foetus in the week before it's born and and a newborn in the week after it's born and drawn an obvious conclusion.

    If you think there is a major difference in development terms between a foetus in the week before birth and an infant in the week after I'd like to hear it.

    Six months was mentioned earlier but I believe that is the length of time it can take for the symptoms of DS to appear. If all newborns were screened immediately after birth then DS can be detected much earlier.

    I accept that you find that abhorrent. I believe expecting a woman to carry a foetus she does not want is abhorrent. I believe expecting anyone to commit to a lifetime of care is abhorrent.

    There is no real difference between the two states. Both function as human on inside the womb and one outside the room. They are both human beings. Just because a child is in the womb doesn’t mean it is not human. Your opinion not withstanding the child’s functions as a child.
    As I said and you still have not answered info is readily available and certainly in the UK you van get protection free or cheaply before and after sex. There is no moral excuse.
    Just because the law allows something to happen does not make it right. Downs kids can lead a life worth living.

    Contraception is not 100% reliable and people make mistakes. I am reasonably careful with knives, but if I make a mistake while chopping an onion am I obliged to bleed everywhere or can I get an Elastoplast? I use that as an example because that is how I see abortion: it's a solution to a problem, not a moral dilemma.

    In any event, contraception is not relevant to Down Syndrome so I assume your objection is to abortion at any stage in pregnancy for anything other than medical reasons.

    It should be clear by now that your morals are not my morals and that we live in a morally pluralist society.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    In law, a fetus is not human. I support a woman's unrestricted right to an abortion regardless of her reasons. I do not support any ones right to commit infanticide.
  • goperryrevsgoperryrevs Shipmate
    edited August 2020
    Okay, @goperryrevs

    Society accepts the late abortion of a foetus with Down Syndrome. You, as I understand it, don't, but society does.

    Actually, I do. However, the later in term an abortion is, the more concerns I have that there are good checks, balances and reasons.

    I don't see early term and late term as exactly equivalent.

    An early term abortion I see as much more as an equivalent to birth control. That's not to say that they can't be traumatic and difficult, but I don't have any moral objections whatsoever.

    A late term abortion becomes muddier, because the closer we get to a fully-formed human which can survive on its own, the more of a moral maze it becomes. Such an operation morally is more like considering separating twins. Not straightforward at all as with early term, but with more to consider. Of course, when those considerations involve saving the life of the mother, which, as I understand it, the vast majority are, it's a no-brainer. But, it's an operation, and all decisions to operate are made with care and consideration, and a weighing of factors. Operations are not trivial.

    There is of course, a scale from early to late, and for me, the later, the more ethics plays a part. But once we've got past birth, we have a human on our hands. The risk to a mother, which again, is one of the main issues with late-term abortions, is also no longer a factor.

    Since we have a human on our hands, at that point, your distinctions become irrelevant. Killing a child that has been born is de facto murder. If you want to talk about what society accepts or doesn't accept, then there you go. Killing a newborn is murder. Full stop. No exceptions. Society also recognises that scale from early to late, in what is allowed or not, with regard to later abortions.

    That does not mean that I don't think that at times very difficult decisions, such as turning off life-support shouldn't be made. But that is a totally different moral field than consciously killing.

    In terms of Down's specifically, my hope is that late abortions should in general be avoided because, if parents do choose to have screening and choose to abort, that should be by nature early. However, I accept that there can be reasons why that might have to happen later.

    What I do not approve of, as I made clear in the Abortion thread, is the coercion of anyone into having an abortion, just because Down's has been detected. I also actually disprove of testing being mandatory, or even the default. Much more consultation and information should be given to prospective parents to make their choices (to test, and to abort) as free and as informed as possible. Hence my disapproval of the methods used in Iceland and Denmark.

    Finally, I say this as a man who will never get pregnant, and my opinions are therefore secondary. As a result, I rarely give my opinions on abortion. However, I do have opinions on disability, and on murder, and where those crossover, as they did in this case, I will give them.
  • Okay, @goperryrevs

    Society accepts the late abortion of a foetus with Down Syndrome. You, as I understand it, don't, but society does.

    Actually, I do. However, the later in term an abortion is, the more concerns I have that there are good checks, balances and reasons.

    I don't see early term and late term as exactly equivalent.

    An early term abortion I see as much more as an equivalent to birth control. That's not to say that they can't be traumatic and difficult, but I don't have any moral objections whatsoever.

    A late term abortion becomes muddier, because the closer we get to a fully-formed human which can survive on its own, the more of a moral maze it becomes. Such an operation morally is more like considering separating twins. Not straightforward at all as with early term, but with more to consider. Of course, when those considerations involve saving the life of the mother, which, as I understand it, the vast majority are, it's a no-brainer. But, it's an operation, and all decisions to operate are made with care and consideration, and a weighing of factors. Operations are not trivial.

    There is of course, a scale from early to late, and for me, the later, the more ethics plays a part. But once we've got past birth, we have a human on our hands. The risk to a mother, which again, is one of the main issues with late-term abortions, is also no longer a factor.

    Since we have a human on our hands, at that point, your distinctions become irrelevant. Killing a child that has been born is de facto murder. If you want to talk about what society accepts or doesn't accept, then there you go. Killing a newborn is murder. Full stop. No exceptions. Society also recognises that scale from early to late, in what is allowed or not, with regard to later abortions.

    That does not mean that I don't think that at times very difficult decisions, such as turning off life-support shouldn't be made. But that is a totally different moral field than consciously killing.

    In terms of Down's specifically, my hope is that late abortions should in general be avoided because, if parents do choose to have screening and choose to abort, that should be by nature early. However, I accept that there can be reasons why that might have to happen later.

    What I do not approve of, as I made clear in the Abortion thread, is the coercion of anyone into having an abortion, just because Down's has been detected. I also actually disprove of testing being mandatory, or even the default. Much more consultation and information should be given to prospective parents to make their choices (to test, and to abort) as free and as informed as possible. Hence my disapproval of the methods used in Iceland and Denmark.

    Finally, I say this as a man who will never get pregnant, and my opinions are therefore secondary. As a result, I rarely give my opinions on abortion. However, I do have opinions on disability, and on murder, and where those crossover, as they did in this case, I will give them.

    Apologies for misunderstanding your position on late-term abortion.

    I think we have some 'lines' in common, though disagree where they lie, and Hugal would disagree with both of us (though more with me than you). I would support default testing though perhaps not mandatory. I support freedom of choice but think choice can only be made when informed. There is a paradox that one is not free to make a choice without command of all the information but providing the information against someone's wishes violates their freedom of choice. I've no idea how to unpick that.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    FWIW late term abortions to save the life of the mother are very rare, especially given that most third semester pregnancies are wanted. Usually if a woman carrying a viable foetus develops a life-threatening complication (pre-eclampsia for example), the medics attempt to save both lives by delivering the baby prematurely. Many of the tiny people in the NICU are there for this reason.
  • ....
    It should be clear by now that your morals are not my morals and that we live in a morally pluralist society.

    Colin, the stuff you're spewing isn't "morals". It's a series of self-delusional justifications to avoid unpleasant situations. Unpleasant situations like being reminded of your obligations to other people or your own vulnerability and mortality or the generosity of others.

    Your mother literally kept you alive both before and after you were born. She cared for you when, by your own standards, you weren't even human and she could have tossed you in a dumpster if you weren't perfect. And now you can't even return the favour because you're so terrified of weakness and dependency. You're so scared you pretend she's now a completely different person, essentially a stranger. Most people would just be honest and say it's hard to watch your loved ones get old.

    Be a fucking grownup. Go see your mother and thank her for your very existence. And accept that just as your mother wiped your ass, others will be wiping your ass at some point in your future. That is the human condition. We're born weak and helpless, we die weak and helpless. If we're honest with ourselves, we acknowledge that we are all, in one way or another, weak and helpless throughout our lives, and we only survive because we care for each other.

  • After a child is born adoption is always an option, one not available during pregnancy. To suggest that murder is a valid alternative to adoption is... well, I'm not actually sure whether it's closer to bizarre or vile. Even once a child with Down's reaches adulthood, there are options for supported accommodation or residential care. Now, there are certainly some horror stories about these, but surely the solution is to improve them rather than start killing people?!

    I agree adoption is a possibility, though suspect the number of potential adopters would be vanishingly few.

    After the stillbirth of our son, we thought about adoption. We felt that we had spent 5 months working out how we could adapt out lives to welcome our son, and had convinced ourselves that we could be good parents. This thought didn't go very far because, in order to avoid knee jerk applications to adopt, couples have to (or had to then) wait two years after a loss before starting the process, and I had a subsequent miscarriage, which re-set the clock.

    However, we were given a heads-up by a social worker that there is (or was) a hierarchy of disabilities and that lots of people wanted to adopt Down's babies. The difficult-to-place babies were those with fetal alcohol syndrome, or those affected by their mother's drug use during pregnancy, because the prognosis is so uncertain, and cognitive and behavioural issues often take years to become apparent.

    The social worker said that Down's babies tend to be more wanted than the average child, because whereas the average child may be conceived without too much thought or forward planning, Down's babies usually involve the parents having been given a choice, and making a positive choice that they don't just want "a" baby, they want "this" baby.
  • ....
    It should be clear by now that your morals are not my morals and that we live in a morally pluralist society.

    Colin, the stuff you're spewing isn't "morals". It's a series of self-delusional justifications to avoid unpleasant situations. Unpleasant situations like being reminded of your obligations to other people or your own vulnerability and mortality or the generosity of others.

    Your mother literally kept you alive both before and after you were born. She cared for you when, by your own standards, you weren't even human and she could have tossed you in a dumpster if you weren't perfect. And now you can't even return the favour because you're so terrified of weakness and dependency. You're so scared you pretend she's now a completely different person, essentially a stranger. Most people would just be honest and say it's hard to watch your loved ones get old.

    Be a fucking grownup. Go see your mother and thank her for your very existence. And accept that just as your mother wiped your ass, others will be wiping your ass at some point in your future. That is the human condition. We're born weak and helpless, we die weak and helpless. If we're honest with ourselves, we acknowledge that we are all, in one way or another, weak and helpless throughout our lives, and we only survive because we care for each other.

    During the first year of Alzheimer's my mother became a stranger to me in front of my eyes. And to my brother as well who confided that "she isn't Mum anymore" and later that in the nursing home she had become a shell and he didn't even know if she was aware of his presence. My brother lived in the same town so visiting was, in material terms, easy for him. I lived four hours away. I could not see the point of a day's travelling to sit beside a stranger.

    She died in February, though I think she really died some time in 2013.

  • After a child is born adoption is always an option, one not available during pregnancy. To suggest that murder is a valid alternative to adoption is... well, I'm not actually sure whether it's closer to bizarre or vile. Even once a child with Down's reaches adulthood, there are options for supported accommodation or residential care. Now, there are certainly some horror stories about these, but surely the solution is to improve them rather than start killing people?!

    I agree adoption is a possibility, though suspect the number of potential adopters would be vanishingly few.

    After the stillbirth of our son, we thought about adoption. We felt that we had spent 5 months working out how we could adapt out lives to welcome our son, and had convinced ourselves that we could be good parents. This thought didn't go very far because, in order to avoid knee jerk applications to adopt, couples have to (or had to then) wait two years after a loss before starting the process, and I had a subsequent miscarriage, which re-set the clock.

    However, we were given a heads-up by a social worker that there is (or was) a hierarchy of disabilities and that lots of people wanted to adopt Down's babies. The difficult-to-place babies were those with fetal alcohol syndrome, or those affected by their mother's drug use during pregnancy, because the prognosis is so uncertain, and cognitive and behavioural issues often take years to become apparent.

    The social worker said that Down's babies tend to be more wanted than the average child, because whereas the average child may be conceived without too much thought or forward planning, Down's babies usually involve the parents having been given a choice, and making a positive choice that they don't just want "a" baby, they want "this" baby.

    Thank you. I can only say it wouldn't be my choice, albeit I don't want a child of any description.
  • amyboamybo Shipmate
    During the first year of Alzheimer's my mother became a stranger to me in front of my eyes. And to my brother as well who confided that "she isn't Mum anymore" and later that in the nursing home she had become a shell and he didn't even know if she was aware of his presence. My brother lived in the same town so visiting was, in material terms, easy for him. I lived four hours away. I could not see the point of a day's travelling to sit beside a stranger.

    She died in February, though I think she really died some time in 2013.

    I'm sorry for your loss. That does not make the idea of killing an infant any less awful.
  • ....
    It should be clear by now that your morals are not my morals and that we live in a morally pluralist society.

    Colin, the stuff you're spewing isn't "morals". It's a series of self-delusional justifications to avoid unpleasant situations. Unpleasant situations like being reminded of your obligations to other people or your own vulnerability and mortality or the generosity of others.

    Your mother literally kept you alive both before and after you were born. She cared for you when, by your own standards, you weren't even human and she could have tossed you in a dumpster if you weren't perfect. And now you can't even return the favour because you're so terrified of weakness and dependency. You're so scared you pretend she's now a completely different person, essentially a stranger. Most people would just be honest and say it's hard to watch your loved ones get old.

    Be a fucking grownup. Go see your mother and thank her for your very existence. And accept that just as your mother wiped your ass, others will be wiping your ass at some point in your future. That is the human condition. We're born weak and helpless, we die weak and helpless. If we're honest with ourselves, we acknowledge that we are all, in one way or another, weak and helpless throughout our lives, and we only survive because we care for each other.

    Hear hear. And seriously, get some therapy, because I'm sensing a whole lot of fear under that selfish facade. You may be a better human being than you think.
  • ....
    It should be clear by now that your morals are not my morals and that we live in a morally pluralist society.

    Colin, the stuff you're spewing isn't "morals". It's a series of self-delusional justifications to avoid unpleasant situations. Unpleasant situations like being reminded of your obligations to other people or your own vulnerability and mortality or the generosity of others.

    Your mother literally kept you alive both before and after you were born. She cared for you when, by your own standards, you weren't even human and she could have tossed you in a dumpster if you weren't perfect. And now you can't even return the favour because you're so terrified of weakness and dependency. You're so scared you pretend she's now a completely different person, essentially a stranger. Most people would just be honest and say it's hard to watch your loved ones get old.

    Be a fucking grownup. Go see your mother and thank her for your very existence. And accept that just as your mother wiped your ass, others will be wiping your ass at some point in your future. That is the human condition. We're born weak and helpless, we die weak and helpless. If we're honest with ourselves, we acknowledge that we are all, in one way or another, weak and helpless throughout our lives, and we only survive because we care for each other.

    Hear hear. And seriously, get some therapy, because I'm sensing a whole lot of fear under that selfish facade. You may be a better human being than you think.

    I disagree and my mother is dead.
  • The social worker said that Down's babies tend to be more wanted than the average child, because whereas the average child may be conceived without too much thought or forward planning, Down's babies usually involve the parents having been given a choice, and making a positive choice that they don't just want "a" baby, they want "this" baby.

    My understanding of the statistics (posted earlier) is that, of those mothers that have an amnio indicating Down syndrome, 90% choose to abort. The remaining 10% continue the pregnancy, and had the test because they want to know what to be prepared for. So those parents have made a positive choice for "this" baby.

    Something like half or so of babies with Down syndrome are born to women who chose not to undergo prenatal screening. Often, this is because the parents say that they wouldn't choose to terminate the pregnancy, so there's no point in running the test. I'm not sure it's quite right that those parents chose "this" baby.

    I'd have guessed that most unwanted births were to younger mothers, and they don't usually have kids with Down syndrome, but I'm just guessing at that.
  • ....
    It should be clear by now that your morals are not my morals and that we live in a morally pluralist society.

    Colin, the stuff you're spewing isn't "morals". It's a series of self-delusional justifications to avoid unpleasant situations. Unpleasant situations like being reminded of your obligations to other people or your own vulnerability and mortality or the generosity of others.

    Your mother literally kept you alive both before and after you were born. She cared for you when, by your own standards, you weren't even human and she could have tossed you in a dumpster if you weren't perfect. And now you can't even return the favour because you're so terrified of weakness and dependency. You're so scared you pretend she's now a completely different person, essentially a stranger. Most people would just be honest and say it's hard to watch your loved ones get old.

    Be a fucking grownup. Go see your mother and thank her for your very existence. And accept that just as your mother wiped your ass, others will be wiping your ass at some point in your future. That is the human condition. We're born weak and helpless, we die weak and helpless. If we're honest with ourselves, we acknowledge that we are all, in one way or another, weak and helpless throughout our lives, and we only survive because we care for each other.

    Hear hear. And seriously, get some therapy, because I'm sensing a whole lot of fear under that selfish facade. You may be a better human being than you think.

    Actually, I think I'm an okay human being. I could do with being less lazy but that's my only major fault.
  • Ye Gods
Sign In or Register to comment.