#31

Sean_K said:
The good news is that 100% of the population will die relatively soon.


I guess I should of defined how long I meant by relatively.

Relatively in this case means in the next ~100 years.

cautioner Banned
#32

Sarcasticfairy
Abortion, hmmm, I'm againist it, as a general rule. However there are cases where I understand it's necessity. When it comes to aborting a child on the basis that it could have disabilities? I'm not really sure where I stand on that, I feel that it sort of depends on the case, but that is possibly a little hypocritical in itself

Everyone knows someone with disabilities of some form. Where's the distinction? Who should be so badly disabled as to be put to death? (or terminated, if that's a less biased term?) What these people in my class were arguing was that it would be perfectly fair to declare that they won't enjoy life as much as they could and should therefore be killed. I'll be honest; I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. One claimed the same defence for blind/deaf baby. Mind-boggling.

JC 2K3
As an extension to my previously shared opinion, I kind of also think that the normalisation of abortion as a valid and moral choice in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, as opposed to a guilt ridden grey area, would be a good thing for society. Now the possible argument against this is that not granting rights to the unborn would lead to a general disregard for the value of human life, and that infanticide could be justified etc., but I think the majority of people make a subconscious distinction between humans in and ex utero which is strong enough that this would not arise as a result.

How exactly do you think it would improve society? I'm honestly curious, not trying to be snide or anything.

Fad Moderator
#33

I kinda share JC 2K3's sentiment on abortion.

I dont really care.

I dont think life really begins properly until a baby can survive without ridiculous measure, like being in a incubator for months or something. I dont mean if a baby is born prematurely its not alive, its just naturally it couldnt possibly survive without some unreal amount of mechanical assistance. (This is coming out kinda iffy, but hopefully you get what I mean)

cautioner Banned
#34

Fad said:
I kinda share JC 2K3's sentiment on abortion.

I dont really care.

I dont think life really begins properly until a baby can survive without ridiculous measure, like being in a incubator for months or something. I dont mean if a baby is born prematurely its not alive, its just naturally it couldnt possibly survive without some unreal amount of mechanical assistance. (This is coming out kinda iffy, but hopefully you get what I mean)


Again, this seems like a very iffy distinction; still leaves leeway for personal discretion. Even though I'm opposed to it almost entirely, I can't respect this method of thinking as much as I could, say, life beginning at 2 months of pregnancy, something definite and consistent.

Not that I don't respect your opinion, Fad

blinkey 101 Registered User
#35

yawn.

Fad Moderator
#36

cautioner said:
Again, this seems like a very iffy distinction; still leaves leeway for personal discretion. Even though I'm opposed to it almost entirely, I can't respect this method of thinking as much as I could, say, life beginning at 2 months of pregnancy, something definite and consistent.

Not that I don't respect your opinion, Fad



OMGWTFDUDETHATSSOTOTALLYNOTFAIRNOTAGREEINGWITHMEENTIRELY!RAWR

I'm sort of a Nihilist, and I dont really think life means anything, so my definition of life is obviously enough gonna be a bit different to others

JC 2K3 Registered User
#37

cautioner said:
Everyone knows someone with disabilities of some form. Where's the distinction? Who should be so badly disabled as to be put to death? (or terminated, if that's a less biased term?) What these people in my class were arguing was that it would be perfectly fair to declare that they won't enjoy life as much as they could and should therefore be killed. I'll be honest; I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. One claimed the same defence for blind/deaf baby. Mind-boggling.

Well you could argue that since people having children is essentially for the selfish purpose of fulfilling a natural urge and thus will bring them pleasure and gratification, that they would be entitled to not have to bring up a disabled child if they so wish.

cautioner said:
How exactly do you think it would improve society? I'm honestly curious, not trying to be snide or anything.

Guilt for things that there's no reason to feel guilty about is a bad thing. A girl who has an unplanned pregnancy and doesn't want a baby shouldn't have to go through that. It would also lessen the amount of kids growing up in less than ideal circumstances because they were unplanned and the mother felt obliged to have them. I mean in general, more control over when new people are brought into the world can only be good for society.

cautioner Banned
#38

Life.

Don't talk to me about life...

SarcasticFairy Registered User
#39

cautioner said:
Everyone knows someone with disabilities of some form. Where's the distinction? Who should be so badly disabled as to be put to death? (or terminated, if that's a less biased term?) What these people in my class were arguing was that it would be perfectly fair to declare that they won't enjoy life as much as they could and should therefore be killed. I'll be honest; I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. One claimed the same defence for blind/deaf baby. Mind-boggling.


I wasn't thinking they wouldn't enjoy life as much and therefore should be killed/terminated. Taking your example, that woman had several disabled kids. A child with disabilities needs more attention than your average child. With so many kids needing all her undivided attention, there's only so much she can take, as well as the fact that the new baby would need a lot of attention that it might not get, and so suffer further. Sort of, it's kind of hard to explain what I'm thinking (my mind is a bit frazzled at the mo ). It is neither fair on her nor on the new child.

Also, when you're talking about more than blindness/deafness (as awful as that would be, in all fairness), but as in Down's Syndrom, AIDS, etc., and you know that your future child will be afflicted with whatever for their lives, there is going to be, for me anyway, some kind of debate. You're stopping this 'childs' life before it has begun, but you're doing it for the right reasons, in a sense. That's kind of what I meant about it applying to each case seperately.

cautioner Banned
#40

JC 2K3 said:
Well you could argue that since people having children is essentially for the selfish purpose of fulfilling a natural urge and thus will bring them pleasure and gratification, that they would be entitled to not have to bring up a disabled child if they so wish.

Giving birth to someone does not necessarily entail bringing them up; I realise that carrying a baby for 9 months is a tremendous task even for planned mothers, but my thought on the matter has always been that if someone can make an effort and not take the easy option, and in the process save a life, then that's something special. That of course is where personal opinion comes into the matter. It is a huge ask of anyone but in my personal opinion if someone has it in their direct power to decide the fate of another it should be worth the toil. Others obviously don't feel the same way.

JC 2K3
Guilt for things that there's no reason to feel guilty about is a bad thing. A girl who has an unplanned pregnancy and doesn't want a baby shouldn't have to go through that. It would also lessen the amount of kids growing up in less than ideal circumstances because they were unplanned and the mother felt obliged to have them. I mean in general, more control over when new people are brought into the world can only be good for society.

I could whip out the tired old the-baby-could-be-the-next-Morgan-Freeman cliché and you could just as easily retort with old the-baby-could-be-the-next-Hitler, but I think that's a bit redundant in any case.
What you call guilt, I would call a conscience. Neither of us are in any position to speak authoratively, but I do recall reading that a large number of women who do abort are dramatically affected for the rest of their lives: they'll estimate the baby's would-be birthday, note it each year, wonder what might have been, etc. I don't think you can define it as something there's no reason to feel guilty for. It's yet another matter of personal opinion.
It's easy to imagine and pity children growing up in less than ideal circumstances, but children have been doing that for millenia and I daresay a couple of them turned out all right. A less-than-perfect childhood is not something I see as a grounds for humane termination. Children grow up.

Why, oh why, do I always start Abortion debates when I should be studying...

Piste Registered User
#41

My angle on abortion is a life only has value if it is valued- ie. it doesn't have an innate value. An unwanted foetus has no value as its parents don't want it and it isn't sentient so doesn't value its own life.

5 people have thanked this post
cautioner Banned
#42

Potential value doesn't figure?
Anyway, I'm sorry for hijacking this thread with my crazy theories and constant opposing, I shall now be leaving in order to watch the latest episode of Heroes.

It's supposed to be a good one.

Piste Registered User
#43

Nope I don't believe in "potential" value. Potential means nothing unless it becomes a reality.

Crumble Froo Registered User
#44

yep, would mostly agree with piste on the abortion thing... personally, for me, i dont think i could ever have an abortion, but i don't see why my own personalised belief in it should affect what other women can do to their bodies.

i suppose on other political opinions, i think it's complete bullshit that gay couples don't have marriage/partnership rights in ireland. i quite like new zealand's laws regarding common law partnership too, not to mention being able to get married anywehre you want (i think they recently passed something to that general effect in ireland, but that doesnt go quite as far). i think prostitution should be legal, and i'd like to see more open debate on legalising cannabis.

2 people have thanked this post
challengemaster Registered User
#45

Piste said:
Potential means nothing unless it becomes a reality.

Dare you to say that to a physicist!

3 people have thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!