Abort the normal child, keep the dwarf

Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Abort the normal child, keep the dwarf

So, for the record, I think women should have the right to get an abortion, whether it's for economic reasons, health reasons (either for the woman or because of a genetic defect or the like with the fetus), mental reasons, or simply because she doesn't want to have to deal with something growing inside of her for nine months that will completely disrupt her life and possibly poison her future.  Obviously many people disagree, but I'd like to set that disagreement aside for a moment.

I heard something today that seems...disturbing.  I do not know if it is true, I doubt the person who said it would lie intentionally, but it might simply be an urban legend or sorts.  Perhaps some others will know better.

Apparently, if it appears the offspring of two dwarfs will be a normal, non-dwarf child, the dwarfs will often abort it as they want a dwarf child.  I imagine there might be size issues in terms of carrying and delivering the baby, obviously, but I'm not sure how serious those are..

Apparently, if it appears the offspring of two deaf parents will be able to hear, the deaf parents will sometimes abort it.

Call me crazy, but that seems a bit backwards.  One argument people make for the right to have an abortion is not wanting to bear a child into horrible life circumstances, that if it cannot be properly cared for that is it crueler to have the child and make it suffer than aborting the fetus which cannot feel anything, particularly if the problem is a genetic disease or something similar with the child.

Under that logic, what is apparently often being done is completely backwards, and some people are deliberately trying to bring a child that is genetically deformed into being and aborting what appear to be normal, healty fetuses.  That seems an incredibly cruel thing to do to the dwarf fetus or deaf fetus.

Like I said, call me crazy.  Any thoughts on this matter?


lokipro
lokipro's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm...

How is it any different from any other abortion?

 

It seems to me that the woman has the right to abort the child, whatever her reason, PERIOD.  The woman's reasons are her own, and it is not for me to enforce my opinion upon her. For me, the question lies with when the abortion occurs... but I'm pretty liberal there too.


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Huh?Anyhow, this reminds me

Huh?

Anyhow, this reminds me of a birth control technique. The drunken dwarf. Thats right, drunken dwarf. If at any time you decide that you want children, go out and hire an alcoholic dwarf to live with you for a month. You get to pick up his trash, mop vomit out of the carpet, suffer sleep deprivation while you listen to him yell and shout at 2 AM, clean his bowel and bladder stained clothes, and trip over his tiny, passed out body for thirty days. And every day, remind yourself that you will be going through this process for years if you have a kid. The kid will quit soiling itself after a year or so, but the rest will happen for at least the next 18 years. And if when the month is up, you still want kids, I am sure that a psychiatrist will be able to help you with your severe masochism.  Heck, you might even let the dwarf stay in your house while you are committed to the nearest psych ward!

 

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
This seems like some kind of

This seems like some kind of selection process.  Maybe Artificial selection?  If it's being done by humans to humans is it still considered artificial?   Either way it’s interesting, and yes I find it kind of disturbing as well. 


 


peppermint
Superfan
peppermint's picture
Posts: 539
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
That is very odd. I have bad

That is very odd. I for instance, have bad feelings about parents choosing gender of the child for many reasons (firstly because it sets up psychological expectations of the child that could lead to dangerous circumstances, such as parents putting time and money into choosing a girl that turns out to be a transsexual...and you know the rest)

In a way, it can be cruel to the child if the parent picks them out a disability, so to speak, just so the parent doesn't feel isolated from their kid. I don't see why deaf parents can't teach their kids sign language...? Yes, it's a deaf culture thing, but it strikes me as a little over the top.

That being said, I think it should be legal.

*Our world is far more complex than the rigid structure we want to assign to it, and we will probably never fully understand it.*

"Those believers who are sophisticated enough to understand the paradox have found exciting ways to bend logic into pretzel shapes in order to defend the indefensible." - Hamby


Balkoth
Posts: 118
Joined: 2008-11-25
User is offlineOffline
Peppermint, I didn't say it

Peppermint, I didn't say it should be illegal, you'll notice.  I think a woman has a right to abort both a "normal" fetus and one that is genetically damaged.  But what they're doing...see more below.

lokipro wrote:
How is it any different from any other abortion?

It seems to me that the woman has the right to abort the child, whatever her reason, PERIOD.  The woman's reasons are her own, and it is not for me to enforce my opinion upon her. For me, the question lies with when the abortion occurs... but I'm pretty liberal there too.

You might want to reread when I said.  One, I never said she didn't have the right.  Two, and more importantly...

She has a normal, healthy fetus.  She chooses to abort it because she'd rather try to concieve a genetically damaged (dwarf or deaf) child instead.  She wants to bring an genetically impaired fetus into the world over a normal healthy fetus.  She is purposefully trying to have a child that she knows is extremely likely to have a worse life than a normal, healthy child.

Doctor: Good news, madam.  The baby is perfectly healthy.

Mother: It is?  I'd like an abortion then.

 

Doctor: Bad news, madam.  The baby is going to be born deaf/a dwarf.

Mother: Good, that's exactly what I want.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
If it weren't for the

If it weren't for the horrific and disgusting states of both sex education and social nets for unwanted children, as well as a seeming inability to create a flawless and safe form of protection, I'd be completely against any abortion that wasn't a medical necessity for the child, the mother, or both. You chose not to have protected sex, now a life has resulted. You don't have the right to end that life anymore than you have the right to kill someone on the street for looking at you funny.

Unfortunately we have pregnant 12 year olds and putrid caring for children who aren't wanted by their parent(s), which create such massive problems on their own that it renders abortion to a lesser category in my mind. We also have failures in every form of protection I know about. Regardless of how small the percentage is, there is a percentage. Even surgery isn't 100%. And it can kill you. So I have no moral standing with which to hold my moral standing. I won't until all of these are fixed, if they ever are.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Desdenova wrote:Huh?Anyhow,

Desdenova wrote:

Huh?

Anyhow, this reminds me of a birth control technique. The drunken dwarf. Thats right, drunken dwarf. If at any time you decide that you want children, go out and hire an alcoholic dwarf to live with you for a month. You get to pick up his trash, mop vomit out of the carpet, suffer sleep deprivation while you listen to him yell and shout at 2 AM, clean his bowel and bladder stained clothes, and trip over his tiny, passed out body for thirty days. And every day, remind yourself that you will be going through this process for years if you have a kid. The kid will quit soiling itself after a year or so, but the rest will happen for at least the next 18 years. And if when the month is up, you still want kids, I am sure that a psychiatrist will be able to help you with your severe masochism.  Heck, you might even let the dwarf stay in your house while you are committed to the nearest psych ward!

I like that. Though I'm a fan of anything that reduces human infestation, within reason of course. If I wanted kids and I found out I was a carrier for an undesirable genetic condition, I would do the gene pool a favor and not pass them on.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


One_week_ago (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth wrote:So, for the

Balkoth wrote:

So, for the record, I think women should have the right to get an abortion, whether it's for economic reasons, health reasons (either for the woman or because of a genetic defect or the like with the fetus), mental reasons, or simply because she doesn't want to have to deal with something growing inside of her for nine months that will completely disrupt her life and possibly poison her future.  Obviously many people disagree, but I'd like to set that disagreement aside for a moment.

For the record I think that any man who is willing to put the cost of an abortion and the procedure is declined by the woman should be absolved of all support payments. The playing field should be level. The disruption of both lives should be equally considered.

Balkoth wrote:
I heard something today that seems...disturbing.  I do not know if it is true, I doubt the person who said it would lie intentionally, but it might simply be an urban legend or sorts.  Perhaps some others will know better.

Apparently, if it appears the offspring of two dwarfs will be a normal, non-dwarf child, the dwarfs will often abort it as they want a dwarf child.  I imagine there might be size issues in terms of carrying and delivering the baby, obviously, but I'm not sure how serious those are..

Apparently, if it appears the offspring of two deaf parents will be able to hear, the deaf parents will sometimes abort it.

Call me crazy, but that seems a bit backwards.  One argument people make for the right to have an abortion is not wanting to bear a child into horrible life circumstances, that if it cannot be properly cared for that is it crueler to have the child and make it suffer than aborting the fetus which cannot feel anything, particularly if the problem is a genetic disease or something similar with the child.

Under that logic, what is apparently often being done is completely backwards, and some people are deliberately trying to bring a child that is genetically deformed into being and aborting what appear to be normal, healty fetuses.  That seems an incredibly cruel thing to do to the dwarf fetus or deaf fetus.

Like I said, call me crazy.  Any thoughts on this matter?

All of that said and agreed, please tell me why parents who have never known themselves to have been deprived in life should agree with you -- or me. What you have never experienced you cannot know. People may tell you about it but you cannot know. So why should parents want children who cannot share their lives?

Parents have an absolute right over their children. If the state becomes involved then it opens another can of worms. It took 50 years after Dr. Spock wrote against spanking for prosecutions for spanking to start in a few places. If the state can become involved in limiting abortion then there is no limit on the reasons for being involved.

If the state becomes involved there is no end to state involvement.

 


lokipro
lokipro's picture
Posts: 58
Joined: 2008-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Balkoth,First, I never

Balkoth,

First, I never implied that you said she didn't have the right. I did read your question, and the question at the end of your statement is requesting our thoughts on the subject. That is what I provided. My apologies if I was not clear enough for you or if I misunderstood your question... fact is, I do not care about the motives of the abortion, plain and simple.

My question for you is, does it matter what the motive for the abortion is? If so, why?

 

 

 


Nikolaj
Superfan
Nikolaj's picture
Posts: 503
Joined: 2008-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Abortions are legal, and I'm

Abortions are legal, and I'm fine with that. So, much like Lokibro, I think it's your right to choose to have an abortion as long as it is within the law.'

However, I find it somewhat repugnant the idea of willfully conseiving a child, because you want one, and then, when you find out that child isn't to your liking, you have an abortion.

I don't like the idea of "normal" parents choosing to abort a dwarf-child or a deaf child, because I think it is a spoiled attitude to think you can "choose" what your baby turns out to be.

And so, I find it equally reprehensible if a dwarf/or deaf parent couple chooses the reverse. Equally reprehensible, mind. Not more reprehensible. Any child unique, and I don't want to be the jugde of what is a "normal" child and what is not. Dwarves are normal people too. Deaf people are normal people too.

I don't have any inclination to want the matter legislated upon, but I do find it rather repugnant to want to "choose" your child.

If you conseive on purpose, because you actually want a child, I think you should leave it at that, and not define what kind of child you want.

Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
First, let me say that

First, let me say that abortion needs to remain safe and legal. Past that, it has always seemed creepy and weird to me but then lots of things are and I don't make a huge deal about the other stuff that falls into such categories.

 

That being said, let me amplify my position. There have always been abortions regardless of whether they were legal or not. In ancient times, unwanted babies would just be put outside to die of the elements. In the first half of the last century, people with some money and a sympathetic doctor could have a “therapeutic D&C” or if lacking that, a coat hangar in septic conditions.

 

Of course, we are now moving into the area of selective abortion for reasons beyond the usual (mother should stay in high school, mother's health in danger, etc...) and into deciding who gets born and why. To my thinking, this is really in the area of ethics and should be treated as such.

 

One obvious objection would be selective breeding. The case of two dwarfs wanting to have a dwarf child may seem weird but then is it in any way less weird than going to a specialty sperm bank to get designer jizz? Or if a couple has an infertile husband, selecting a close friend to do the wife?

 

To my mind, the question should not be if it creeps people out but rather if it should be allowed and if not then specifically why?

 

In the short term, the least intrusive way to approach this is to allow the individuals to decide for themselves what they want to do. Basically, allow reproductive freedom to the greatest possible extent. Left to the individuals to select what they want combined with genetic screening/counseling, it would have the effect of removing undesirable genes from the general population.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

One obvious objection would be selective breeding. The case of two dwarfs wanting to have a dwarf child may seem weird but then is it in any way less weird than going to a specialty sperm bank to get designer jizz? Or if a couple has an infertile husband, selecting a close friend to do the wife?

To my mind, the question should not be if it creeps people out but rather if it should be allowed and if not then specifically why?

I think it's wrong to intentionally pass on undesirable traits. In my mind intentionally aborting normal fetuses so that you can have dwarf kids would be the same as aborting normal fetuses so you can have children with muscular dystrophy. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying dwarfs don't have the right to breed or that they should be aborted.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


Jason24
Posts: 1
Joined: 2009-01-25
User is offlineOffline
If there were no genetic

If there were no genetic testing in the first place, no one would be able to selectively destroy foetuses. And as I understand it, sonograms are illegal in India, because people are tending to want to use it to weed out girls.


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
Jason24 wrote:If there were

Jason24 wrote:

If there were no genetic testing in the first place, no one would be able to selectively destroy foetuses. And as I understand it, sonograms are illegal in India, because people are tending to want to use it to weed out girls.

I never did understand that. If you abort all the females, who are all those men going to have sex with?

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:[I think

spike.barnett wrote:

[I think it's wrong to intentionally pass on undesirable traits. In my mind intentionally aborting normal fetuses so that you can have dwarf kids would be the same as aborting normal fetuses so you can have children with muscular dystrophy. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying dwarfs don't have the right to breed or that they should be aborted.

 

Fine then... i'll say it, Dwarfism is a detriment to the human races gene pool, and is an inferior mutation (ya, i get to judge that too ). So, we must weed it out      

 

 

 

Ahhhh.... that felt good, i havent said anything that despicable in a long time

What Would Kharn Do?


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
 I have often wondered

 I have often wondered about that. aren't we weakening the gene pool and helping bad mutations survive by all this take care off the handicaped etc. (im talking about genetic disabilities that get passed on) Im not saying we shouldn't do it infact I think we should, they desverve a normal life aswel but the point still stands aren't we helping these mutations survive?

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote: I have often

Tapey wrote:

 I have often wondered about that. aren't we weakening the gene pool and helping bad mutations survive by all this take care off the handicaped etc. (im talking about genetic disabilities that get passed on) Im not saying we shouldn't do it infact I think we should, they desverve a normal life aswel but the point still stands aren't we helping these mutations survive?

Yes


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
I wonder what the next stage

I wonder what the next stage in human evolution is.  Maybe some day we will all be completely reliant on taking medication in order to survive, or maybe some day we will live in a Gattaca type future were parents will choose which genes to pass on to their children.  Maybe someday dwarfism will be considered a race not a disease.  It would be interest to be able to see what human beings will be like in one million years.  Assuming we survive that is.  


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Maybe someday

RatDog wrote:

Maybe someday dwarfism will be considered a race not a disease. 

 

Unlikely... since most forms of dwarfism are what kill... dwarfs.

 

Aids kills people, people can reproduce with aids, and create aids babys that will eventually die from aids... it wont make them a species... ever. Its self defeating.

What Would Kharn Do?


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm kind of surprised noone

I'm kind of surprised noone lambasted me for my position. But keeping an eye on this topic has become a drag, so unless someone responds to my post within the next day or two, I won't guarantee there will be a response to the response. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


whatever (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:If it weren't

Vastet wrote:

If it weren't for the horrific and disgusting states of both sex education and social nets for unwanted children, as well as a seeming inability to create a flawless and safe form of protection, I'd be completely against any abortion that wasn't a medical necessity for the child, the mother, or both. You chose not to have protected sex, now a life has resulted. You don't have the right to end that life anymore than you have the right to kill someone on the street for looking at you funny.

Woman has a right to her own body.  She should be able to get an abortion if she wants to.

Vastet wrote:

Unfortunately we have pregnant 12 year olds and putrid caring for children who aren't wanted by their parent(s), which create such massive problems on their own that it renders abortion to a lesser category in my mind. We also have failures in every form of protection I know about. Regardless of how small the percentage is, there is a percentage. Even surgery isn't 100%. And it can kill you. So I have no moral standing with which to hold my moral standing. I won't until all of these are fixed, if they ever are.

 

Abortion isn't evil.


whatever (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote: I have often

Tapey wrote:

 I have often wondered about that. aren't we weakening the gene pool and helping bad mutations survive by all this take care off the handicaped etc. (im talking about genetic disabilities that get passed on) Im not saying we shouldn't do it infact I think we should, they desverve a normal life aswel but the point still stands aren't we helping these mutations survive?

This

can become this

Any questions


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
urgh... rodent...

urgh... rodent...


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
whatever wrote:Vastet

whatever wrote:

Vastet wrote:

If it weren't for the horrific and disgusting states of both sex education and social nets for unwanted children, as well as a seeming inability to create a flawless and safe form of protection, I'd be completely against any abortion that wasn't a medical necessity for the child, the mother, or both. You chose not to have protected sex, now a life has resulted. You don't have the right to end that life anymore than you have the right to kill someone on the street for looking at you funny.

Woman has a right to her own body.  She should be able to get an abortion if she wants to.

She gave up that right for the responsibility of raising a new life the moment she started having unprotected sex.

whatever wrote:
Vastet wrote:

Unfortunately we have pregnant 12 year olds and putrid caring for children who aren't wanted by their parent(s), which create such massive problems on their own that it renders abortion to a lesser category in my mind. We also have failures in every form of protection I know about. Regardless of how small the percentage is, there is a percentage. Even surgery isn't 100%. And it can kill you. So I have no moral standing with which to hold my moral standing. I won't until all of these are fixed, if they ever are.

 

Abortion isn't evil.

There's no such thing as evil. Abortion is wrong.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: She gave up

Vastet wrote:

 

She gave up that right for the responsibility of raising a new life the moment she started having unprotected sex.

No.  Never.  Absolutely not.  No one else has a right over my body.  You can try to justify taking away the rights to my body all you want, but it is mine.  No person or state has rights over another person's body.  A body belongs solely to the person using it. 

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:Vastet

anniet wrote:

Vastet wrote:

 

She gave up that right for the responsibility of raising a new life the moment she started having unprotected sex.

No.  Never.  Absolutely not.  No one else has a right over my body.  You can try to justify taking away the rights to my body all you want, but it is mine.  No person or state has rights over another person's body.  A body belongs solely to the person using it. 

 

Couldn't of said it better. That being said it's not somthing to take lightly

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:Vastet

anniet wrote:

Vastet wrote:

 

She gave up that right for the responsibility of raising a new life the moment she started having unprotected sex.

No.  Never.  Absolutely not.  No one else has a right over my body.  You can try to justify taking away the rights to my body all you want, but it is mine.  No person or state has rights over another person's body.  A body belongs solely to the person using it. 

Yes, always, completely so. You don't want the kid, then practice safe sex. Period.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:anniet

Vastet wrote:

anniet wrote:

Vastet wrote:

 

She gave up that right for the responsibility of raising a new life the moment she started having unprotected sex.

No.  Never.  Absolutely not.  No one else has a right over my body.  You can try to justify taking away the rights to my body all you want, but it is mine.  No person or state has rights over another person's body.  A body belongs solely to the person using it. 

Yes, always, completely so. You don't want the kid, then practice safe sex. Period.

That position does not take into account reality.  Accidents happen.  People make bad choices.  Neither of those situations give the state or another person the right to take over the body of a person. 

I generally like your comments, but this is an issue where we are absolutely not going to agree. 

 

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:That position

anniet wrote:

That position does not take into account reality.

Yes, it does.

anniet wrote:
  Accidents happen. 

Hence my first post.

anniet wrote:
 People make bad choices.

That's hardly an acceptable cause for denying someone life. If I make a bad choice and kill someone in my car, I'm going to go to jail for it. Stupidity is not a defense.

anniet wrote:

  Neither of those situations give the state or another person the right to take over the body of a person. 

Nor does it give the person the right to take over the life within. The child cannot issue permission to abort it. The child is a distinct life form. It must be protected. Being a mother doesn't give you carte blanche ownership over a life. If it did, slavery would still be commonplace.

anniet wrote:

I generally like your comments, but this is an issue where we are absolutely not going to agree. 

Indeed, and the reverse is true. I for the longest time refused to take a stance on abortion, seeing as I was a male, and it was such a controvercial topic. But now I have spent years considering it. From as many angles as I could, with logic and not emotion. My first post in this topic laid out my reasons for not being able to cover things under certain circumstances. But I do not for a moment believe that it is impossible to grow a fetus without a mother. It's just beyond us for now. When a child is concieved, yet is not fully dependant on having a mother to incubate it, will you be able to keep your views?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:When a child is

Vastet wrote:

When a child is concieved, yet is not fully dependant on having a mother to incubate it, will you be able to keep your views?

I'm not sure exactly what you are envisioning with this question.  If a fetus can be grown in an artificial womb then it is up to whoever created the artificial womb to take responsibility for the lifeform that results. 

As to the rest of what you wrote, you can see my posts here http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/16652.  I'm not really interested in getting into a fruitless debate on this subject again just yet.  Smiling

 

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote: People make

anniet wrote:
 People make bad choices.
Vastet wrote:

That's hardly an acceptable cause for denying someone life. If I make a bad choice and kill someone in my car, I'm going to go to jail for it. Stupidity is not a defense.

Maybe If I lived in a first world country I would agree with you but here the child is likely to starve to death, It happens quite often. The family could go for giving it to an adoption agency but the conditions of most of them are horrible. We have hundreds of thousands of aids orphans, there simpaly isn't enough space. We have to many. Hardly anyone is adopting. I am against wealthy people aborting but I wouldn't make it illegal.

 

EDIT: I just looked up the number of aids ophans in south africa apparently it was 1,4 million in 2007

 

 

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


GermanMike
Blogger
GermanMike's picture
Posts: 111
Joined: 2007-09-21
User is offlineOffline
A really good reason to reject abortion

This example shows a good reason to reject abortion

(Which means not this: the embryo is a full human being - or - God is against it nonsense)

 

And that abortion opens the gates wide for the selection of liveworthy and non-lifeworthy people. This is usually known as eugenics. Eugenics as such means that by using the knowledge acquired through genetics to strive to improve the human race. This would be seen as means to accelerate human evolution and to create a greater public good.

The reasons against this are:

  1. This kind of evolutionary engineering is dangerous. What is perceived beneficial by the generation that conducts the engineering might in the best case prove to have been just a fashion of this generation in the worst case prove to be detrimental to the human race.
    Lets look into the past to see what kind of humans were tried to be engineered: Tall, blue-eyed and blond haired people. Now imagine that with the hole in the ozone layer. It would clearly be that the artificial selection by creating an artificial selection pressure (against dark skin) would in the end be of negative effect.

    Natural Evolution on its own already constantly searches for the best adapted lifeforms - there is no great need to improve this.
     
  2. The second argument against it is an ethical one: Eugenic Selection infringes on Human Dignity whether you do it directly on human beings or just on their blueprints. It's what is called commodification of human life. If your child becomes like a good you order from a catalogue it will later also be that to you and ever more to society. If you lets say selected or believed to select for patience you would always expect your child to be patient in all its approaches. Later in this process children might be born to become athletes, scientists or engineers - in this case they wouldn't be expected to pursue their happiness anymore but to pursue the expectations that were laid into them before they were born.

    Eugenics is a great infringement on the central virtue of Human Dignity.
     

Selecting for drawfs and deafs now is clearly not eugenics. It's quite obviously the exact opposite: dysgenics. Nevertheless don't one need other arguments against dysgenics then he or she would need against eugenics.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

Who asks me inappropiate questions also has to live with the answers I may give.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
anniet wrote:Vastet

anniet wrote:

Vastet wrote:

When a child is concieved, yet is not fully dependant on having a mother to incubate it, will you be able to keep your views?

I'm not sure exactly what you are envisioning with this question.  If a fetus can be grown in an artificial womb then it is up to whoever created the artificial womb to take responsibility for the lifeform that results. 

That's not what I meant. If a child is conceived in a womb, and the mother doesn't want the child, but the child can still be given life through artificial means, would you still support abortion?

anniet wrote:

As to the rest of what you wrote, you can see my posts here http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/16652.  I'm not really interested in getting into a fruitless debate on this subject again just yet.  Smiling

 

I've pretty well said all I have to say in this topic. I stayed out of that one because it was already 2+ pages long when I first saw it. I've skimmed through it, but I know if I'd gotten into it there I'd have had a lot more typing to do. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:anniet

Tapey wrote:

anniet wrote:
 People make bad choices.
Vastet wrote:

That's hardly an acceptable cause for denying someone life. If I make a bad choice and kill someone in my car, I'm going to go to jail for it. Stupidity is not a defense.

Maybe If I lived in a first world country I would agree with you but here the child is likely to starve to death, It happens quite often. The family could go for giving it to an adoption agency but the conditions of most of them are horrible. We have hundreds of thousands of aids orphans, there simpaly isn't enough space. We have to many. Hardly anyone is adopting. I am against wealthy people aborting but I wouldn't make it illegal.

 

EDIT: I just looked up the number of aids ophans in south africa apparently it was 1,4 million in 2007

 

 

Hence my first post in this topic, which has turned into a disclaimer. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


anniet
Silver Member
Posts: 325
Joined: 2008-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:That's not what

Vastet wrote:

That's not what I meant. If a child is conceived in a womb, and the mother doesn't want the child, but the child can still be given life through artificial means, would you still support abortion?

I would still imagine the embryo or fetus would be removed from the woman carrying it since you're saying it would not be dependant on a person to grow.  So then you're not running into the problem of forcing a woman to use her body to grow a child.  As to abortion then, it depends on the probability of the child still still falling within normal range if grown through artificial means, the cost to the wider society of growing it into a full-fledged baby, the ability of it to be cared for after "birth", and whether there are overpopulation concerns to be taken seriously. 

Vastet wrote:

I've pretty well said all I have to say in this topic. I stayed out of that one because it was already 2+ pages long when I first saw it. I've skimmed through it, but I know if I'd gotten into it there I'd have had a lot more typing to do. Sticking out tongue

I got you.  I've been there before too.  And I do appreciate your disclaimer as I had forgotten about your previous post.  That's not the same position I hold, but it is based on enough rationality that I can at least understand it. 

"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible were beyond stoned.