Cythraul
Active Member
- Dec 10, 2003
- 6,755
- 134
- 63
kill crips and tards?
- Thread starter genocide roach
- Start date
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
I'm making a distinction between a reality in our experience and the real world aside from that experience as it actually exists. The latter is irrelevant to science/God, the former is not.
Which is what AchrisK intended to say.
AchrisK
Weakling
I don't think it needs to be closed. I am not planning on really debating any more, and there may be more people who want to discuss the original question.
Maybe let ~gr~ decide if he is satisfied with the answers he received.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
Holy smokes, it's a WARNING!
How often do we get one of those before a thread gets closed around here? Quite a pleasant surprise, really.
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
I don't really understand why this needs to be closed. What harm is it doing? Eventually everyone will have had their say and the argument will have gone in circles a few times and everyone will get bored and the thread will die a happy and natural death. And looking at the current front page of the forum I'd say this thread has more substance than a good amount of other threads that are free to remain open.
Anyway for what's worth I apologize for my part in turning the last page sour. I guess AchrisK (if I may speak for him) and myself were reading more into each other's phrasing than was really implied. I enjoy arguing with you even if it is clear that we'll never agree on topics like these.
Anyway, unless someone brings something new to the table I am probably done too.
I thought it was kind of funny how the topic start called for intelligent debate yet the thread title was "kill crips and tards".
Anyway for what's worth I apologize for my part in turning the last page sour. I guess AchrisK (if I may speak for him) and myself were reading more into each other's phrasing than was really implied. I enjoy arguing with you even if it is clear that we'll never agree on topics like these.
Anyway, unless someone brings something new to the table I am probably done too.
I thought it was kind of funny how the topic start called for intelligent debate yet the thread title was "kill crips and tards".
ÎÏεβοÏ
Member
This thread has been an excellent and stimulating debate, why on earth would you even consider closing it?
Rabid Headbanger
New Metal Member
My closing argument: Retardation is a resource ripe for exploitation. Not only is it costly for people to care for these morons with equipments and such, but it's also damned funny.
It's our duty as capitalists to take full advantage of money making opportunities, whether it simply be caring for the retarded for profit or having them fight over scraps of bacon in a giant arena. (I fully condone the arena innovation and encourage it to be practiced in every major metropolitan area)
It's our duty as capitalists to take full advantage of money making opportunities, whether it simply be caring for the retarded for profit or having them fight over scraps of bacon in a giant arena. (I fully condone the arena innovation and encourage it to be practiced in every major metropolitan area)
MasterOLightning
Optimator
I see no need to close this thread. People are debating in a way that is largely ad hominem-free. This is a good thing.
To address the original question; should people kill defective humans? Let the parents decide. Laws already allow for abortions. If parents can detect the defects early, then let them decide. I tend to frown on late term abortions, especially if the fetus could survive without medical intervention, i.e. a premature baby that could still get by with her mother's care. A five month old that would be a medical miracle is not a human on the same line.
Regardless of how they feel about abortion, I have a hard time understanding those who wish for abortion to be legalized. Creating a black market for abortion is clearly worse than the current system in place. By and large, our legal system is based on what allows the most people to live happily, not religious morals. If killing people, or burglary or drunk driving were legal, people would eventually decide: this is not what we want. With abortion, I think we have reached a sensible conclusion that satisfies society at large.
To address other points: AchrisK continues to say that a zygote automatically results in a human life, and he ignores the people who have said that this is not the case. It's true that many zygotes are washed away by the reproductive system. More than can be measured. More people have natural miscarriages in the first trimester than is commonly thought. This is not something women bring up while in line at the grocery store. Nor are second or third trimester miscarriages. The point is that a zygote is far from a guarantee of human life. A zygote requires a series of conditions to be met in order to result in human life, just as an egg cell requires a series of conditions to be met in order to result in human life. (In case it wasn't clear before, I consider human life to be life that sustains without substantial medical attention at birth.)
It would be preferable that people never had abortions, nor had need to have abortions. Our laws are thankfully not based on religious morals. You can't impose one religion's morality on a populace that doesn't share that morality. Clearly enough of the US populace wants a choice. The bumper sticker holds true: those who disapprove of abortion can steer clear, and those who don't are free to do so. I personally do not endorse abortion, but I'm glad people have the right to have one, because not everyone shares my values, and mine aren't superior.
Societies generally will make laws that will better that society. The legalization of abortion was actually shown to decrease crime. A single abortion does not worsen society. A kid born in the ghetto who is an extra strain on public funds and who will likely be a felon and be on welfare does. Thus for many people the approval of abortion.
To address the original question; should people kill defective humans? Let the parents decide. Laws already allow for abortions. If parents can detect the defects early, then let them decide. I tend to frown on late term abortions, especially if the fetus could survive without medical intervention, i.e. a premature baby that could still get by with her mother's care. A five month old that would be a medical miracle is not a human on the same line.
Regardless of how they feel about abortion, I have a hard time understanding those who wish for abortion to be legalized. Creating a black market for abortion is clearly worse than the current system in place. By and large, our legal system is based on what allows the most people to live happily, not religious morals. If killing people, or burglary or drunk driving were legal, people would eventually decide: this is not what we want. With abortion, I think we have reached a sensible conclusion that satisfies society at large.
To address other points: AchrisK continues to say that a zygote automatically results in a human life, and he ignores the people who have said that this is not the case. It's true that many zygotes are washed away by the reproductive system. More than can be measured. More people have natural miscarriages in the first trimester than is commonly thought. This is not something women bring up while in line at the grocery store. Nor are second or third trimester miscarriages. The point is that a zygote is far from a guarantee of human life. A zygote requires a series of conditions to be met in order to result in human life, just as an egg cell requires a series of conditions to be met in order to result in human life. (In case it wasn't clear before, I consider human life to be life that sustains without substantial medical attention at birth.)
It would be preferable that people never had abortions, nor had need to have abortions. Our laws are thankfully not based on religious morals. You can't impose one religion's morality on a populace that doesn't share that morality. Clearly enough of the US populace wants a choice. The bumper sticker holds true: those who disapprove of abortion can steer clear, and those who don't are free to do so. I personally do not endorse abortion, but I'm glad people have the right to have one, because not everyone shares my values, and mine aren't superior.
Societies generally will make laws that will better that society. The legalization of abortion was actually shown to decrease crime. A single abortion does not worsen society. A kid born in the ghetto who is an extra strain on public funds and who will likely be a felon and be on welfare does. Thus for many people the approval of abortion.
AchrisK
Weakling
AchrisK
Weakling
zabu of nΩd
Free Insultation
- Feb 9, 2007
- 14,620
- 805
- 113
So, basically, the point that the 'pro-choice' people have been getting at with the viability statistics of zygotes is that there's no precedent in nature for considering zygotes on par with full-fledged humans. Hopefully that wraps up the question of whether the likelihood of a zygote's survival has any bearing on its status as a full human.
What I'd really like to see you address though, AchrisK, is why you think it's so important for us to respect these zygotes as if they're full humans.
First off, it's not like the world is a sanctuary for human life anyway - people are dying all the time through violence, starvation and disease. There's really no need to get upset over there not being another human being on the planet - there are enough of us as it is, and if there's ever room for more of us, you can bet your ass that we'll occupy it.
That said, I expect that your best defense for this is going to be the "right to life" argument, if you wish to take it. Obviously this concept is meaningless in the context of nature, what with all the massive losses of life that occur all the time.
Now, as to whether this 'right' has meaning in a human context: my belief is that it's just a convenient way of coping with our natural discomfort over death. We don't want to live in a world full of death, so as a result we seek to 'enforce' life. This is quite understandable when you consider how painful it is to be a friend or relative of someone who dies; but it's pretty hard to 'feel' for the death of a zygote. In that sense, there doesn't seem to be any real gain in investing zygotes with the same 'right' we give to full-grown people who are actually in the world and have an effect on others.
What I'd really like to see you address though, AchrisK, is why you think it's so important for us to respect these zygotes as if they're full humans.
First off, it's not like the world is a sanctuary for human life anyway - people are dying all the time through violence, starvation and disease. There's really no need to get upset over there not being another human being on the planet - there are enough of us as it is, and if there's ever room for more of us, you can bet your ass that we'll occupy it.
That said, I expect that your best defense for this is going to be the "right to life" argument, if you wish to take it. Obviously this concept is meaningless in the context of nature, what with all the massive losses of life that occur all the time.
Now, as to whether this 'right' has meaning in a human context: my belief is that it's just a convenient way of coping with our natural discomfort over death. We don't want to live in a world full of death, so as a result we seek to 'enforce' life. This is quite understandable when you consider how painful it is to be a friend or relative of someone who dies; but it's pretty hard to 'feel' for the death of a zygote. In that sense, there doesn't seem to be any real gain in investing zygotes with the same 'right' we give to full-grown people who are actually in the world and have an effect on others.
AchrisK
Weakling
- Aug 18, 2002
- 9,421
- 16
- 38
yeah, i was trying to add some humor through irony.
wow, this thread exploded! i would have never guessed...
~gR~
Ender Rises
Wass sappening?
My opening, closing, and general argument about the idea in question: no. Also, this is a stupid thread.
- Aug 18, 2002
- 9,421
- 16
- 38
abortion isnt exactly somthing you need to worry bout ender 
and i mean absolutely no disrespect!
~gR~
and i mean absolutely no disrespect!
~gR~
Ender Rises
Wass sappening?
I am undecided on abortion but when it comes to people who are disabled I say we treat them like a normal fucking human being.
- Aug 18, 2002
- 9,421
- 16
- 38
and while thats a good thing to try and do, we often cant treat them like normal people. and i dont mean that socially. lets face it, often times they cant take care of themselves. that ofcourse depends on how disabled they are.
if they can function in society with little or no problems, then we should ofcourse treat them as normal people. but when i started this thread i think i had seriously disabled people in mind.
~gR~
if they can function in society with little or no problems, then we should ofcourse treat them as normal people. but when i started this thread i think i had seriously disabled people in mind.
~gR~
Ender Rises
Wass sappening?
I don't think the parents of seriously disabled people would want them to die simply because the kid is disabled. I dunno, I don't feel like arguing anymore (for once), it's lunchtime and food is calling my name.
