ry0_kai said: more text How is that nitpicking? The finer details of the problem show it is universal throughout our lives that we depend on others. Avoiding small details is just glossing over things that can contradict the argument at hand, which I find irrational to not address all aspects of a problem and a misguided effort. It would be like saying lets launch an airplane but not worry about nitpicking about how the instruments are tuned since only the larger picture counts. But you see, now you're going off on this moral tangent about how people don't want to live sad lives knowing the limitations of their mortality [sounds silly in that sense], which I was led to believe you wholeheartedly rejected such notions when you stated, "It's easy to talk about how every person is special and possibility of life and all that idealistic (sorry for the word)crap". To go on to then say, "I'm saying this though: a human with memory and personality is special because that's what we humans value the most." is a big contradiction, since now you are introducing the morals and feelings you dismissed that was to refute the cons of the idea. Morals are not necessarily what is the most logical, the two are entirely different matters and you are trying to blend the two together. The problem with your argument is the issue we are discussing specifically concerns death, where memory and personality have absolutely no power thereafter. Since both the elder and the child can experience pain, that is the only factor that matters (the pain of death) since neither will live past it to have formed any memory of it, it is only a current situation that you will not exist afterwards to recount. Death equalizes the two in this sense, since it will not care what your personality or memory was and you'll both experience (relatively equal?) amounts of pain, and any personality or memory the deceased had will be gone upon the moment of death. Because we are talking in the sense of death rather than championing life, the importance you place on memory and personality is irrelevant, as they are equal in death for reasons mentioned above. Furthermore I don't see why you say memory and personality are important at all, since they are not permanent things. The dead body does not explain to me it's life story like an old alive person, nor is it embedded eternally in the body. You're going to die eventually, and when you die all of that will be lost. Just because I do not kill you today does not mean you will live past tomorrow. Shifting when that happens will not change the personality you had or the memories you formed while alive, so it has destroyed nothing of what you were. It's not as if you're killing an eternal being and losing the personality and memories that would've been there otherwise, it will not be there at some point and that is a law of life. Talking of mercy I hardly see how you can say elderly patients do not have some of the worst lives of all people, being in disease ridden bodies that are fragile and fairly painful. Perhaps you are too young to understand that your body could possibly fail and gradually decline as it all erodes away in a slow, ailing process. That or you're just ignoring it in some sense. I believe then I already discussed how by far, the elders impede society the most and in that sense, they are also upholding progress and new life all together, which I hardly think you can say is the most moral viewpoint. I didn't decide what is best for the mother, I believe I explicitly said it could be for the worse or it could be for the better depending on the mother, you are the one who made the distinction that it could be generalized for the better of all mothers, regardless of experience. I made no such claim. Also I believe you told someone, "and I thank you for listening to it, and being open for it!" Apparently the open mindedness did not go both ways when it comes to when people disagree with you. |
ry0_kai said: That last statement of yours is not true, I did say to your post too, that it had a lot of merit in it. Yes I probably shouldn't have said it was nitpicking, but I grew a custom to that word :P I like your posts, it's just a pity that I had to answer some rather idiotic postst before, so I couldn't react with enough respect. I'm sorry for that :/ So what you're saying about the elderlies, I agree with those things entierly, but I never said anything that contradicts with it. I posited a problem with people KNOWING that they're gonna be killed exactly when they reach a certain age. That's the problem with it and that's why it would be really hard to do this. But yeah, other than that, I don't have any problem with what you're saying there. For your 2. paragraph, I can only say that things become really hard when dealing with things like that, so if we're thinking about how nothing makes sense, then we shouldn't even argue about it. I'm just saying, if we value human emotions and feelings, then maybe what I suggest would be the most logical way of trying to make the world better in this topic. But I really didn't want to get so much into this, and I don't want to answer countless questions again, so I'm just saying, I agree with you, but I guess you should see too, that what I was saying had truth in it too, if we want practical solutions. I don't like ethics, I just wanted to show people that with science, we can avoid a lot of emotional dilemma's and that way we can make life better for people. Even if at first it seems immoral... My apologies for not reading closer then. The age can vary, so it does not have to be a dead set mark. Just as there is no dead set mark for when an infant has the "sense of self", the same is true for when your body will fail or when you will be unable to produce anything of value any longer. There are still many people well over 70 who do things like research or hold a job. Think more along the lines of 1984 or other such novels, there is nothing saying you have to tell them the truth, many governments are notorious for not doing exactly that. Keep the masses ignorant from the truth, and it is not an issue. This is just specification, since you didn't offer anything more that can really be argued. Since you seem to agree to that line of thinking and hold true to it, there is no way I can fault you for believing in that since you will not contradict yourself which I applaud you for. With that said, it seems we have gained all the merit to be had from our posts, until someone adds something further. Thank you for being a good sport and helping both of us keep insults out of the way. |
| Well, after reading this article I don't see how it would apply to majority of situations. It does not make sense to me that people considering abortion would wait until the baby was born. The only exception I see to this is when the baby is born with an obvious defect. In which case one may argue why not abort him/her... The problem I have with this, is obviously a moral one. I think this train of thought parallels with eugenics and being physically or mentally disabled in some way does not necessarily mean the child will not benefit society in some way. In fact numerous people have overcome disabilities to do some amazing things. The only way I can see any remote argument for this is if the child is born with some debilitating disease that would equate to a life of physical pain. I can not think of any of these off the top of my head, but I would imagine there are some. Outside of that, it doesn't make sense to me, if you go through childbirth why would you abort over adoption? On the otherside, this reasoning that by destroying a fetus you're destroying a person does not make sense to me. You're destroying the "potential" for a person, much like contraception destroys the "potential" for a person. With a newborn though, you are not destroying "potential", you are in fact destroying life, atleast this is my opinion. |
| |
Metty said: After-birth abortion I detect an oxymoron. |
  |
108s9001 said: Metty said: After-birth abortion I detect an oxymoron. Not if you d-mail |
ry0_kai said: you were right for saying I was ignorant, but You should make that quote your permanent signature. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos"    Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
ry0_kai said: Bloodcalibur said: ry0_kai said: you were right for saying I was ignorant, but You should make that quote your permanent signature. still can't let it go? :P at least I recognize when I made a mistake, and I can be reasonable... but really don't just spam your anger at me at random threads, come to my profile and do it there if you want so much... Huh? Are you still angry at me? Sounds like it. I merely thought it was amusing since it pretty much summarizes how often you're wrong. But you seem to be dwelling in our previous discussion, so you must still be hurt =X. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
ry0_kai said: Alright then, end of conversation. ry0_kai said: So you want to continue this? :P ry0_kai said: You continued the conversation after it ended, it was a two-sided conversation :P But now I'm gonna end with a catchphrase so it's gonna be cool: Kawasaki!!! Lol. |
"I will close my eyes and let the darkness be the light that guides me through the path of chaos" Call me the Jelly Factory. I'm the world's largest producer of jelly. |
| I don't support after-birth abortions. If you STILL don't want the baby, just give it up for adoption. But, i believe that women have the right to choose (If they haven't had birth yet). I don't get why the pro-lifers argue how they do. The pro-choice advocates aren't advocating abortion; they're letting the woman have the choice. |
Spenccr said: I don't support after-birth abortions. If you STILL don't want the baby, just give it up for adoption. But, i believe that women have the right to choose (If they haven't had birth yet). I don't get why the pro-lifers argue how they do. The pro-choice advocates aren't advocating abortion; they're letting the woman have the choice. Completely agree with this =P |
 "I like to expose what people hide. I'm an intellectual rapist." - Furudo Erika |
| @ProdiGene many impairments can't be detected early on. |
| I don't believe in any kind of abortion, but I guess that's because I'm part of the inferior male species. |
Mr. Wonsworth, you may NOT eat my scones! |
giglfoosm said: Spenccr said: I don't support after-birth abortions. If you STILL don't want the baby, just give it up for adoption. But, i believe that women have the right to choose (If they haven't had birth yet). I don't get why the pro-lifers argue how they do. The pro-choice advocates aren't advocating abortion; they're letting the woman have the choice. do you (or anyone) want to explain to me the difference between killing a fetus, or a baby when its born. It might be that I'm dumb but I literally see no difference. It is literally the same thing, can someone please tell me the difference? You have to draw the line somewhere. Just when does a thing turn into something can be considered a person and be protected by law? The line we draw is when the baby is born, it is considered a person, therefore, it is protected by laws. But before the baby is born, it is not a person, but rather a thing, and it is not protected by laws. On your reasoning, you are saying that killing a baby is equal to killing a fetus. So is killing a 10 year old child the same as killing a fetus because there was no line drawn in the first place? Some people argue that once someone gets pregnant, the fetus that is created as a result is a person and is protected by laws, you're basically saying the same thing. You could argue that it is, which is why we have the debate on abortion. Basically, a fetus is a thing and a baby is a person, that is the argument anyways. |
"I like to expose what people hide. I'm an intellectual rapist." - Furudo Erika |
| It depends, on the other side of the perspective, what if someone gets pregnant, but it was by mistake? Give this scenario, pretend a poor couple gets pregnant by mistake and wants to get an abortion. If the laws protect the baby before it is born it is impossible, and they will have to deal with the fact that the baby will have to be born. You may say, hey, why can't they just have the baby, then if they cannot afford to take care of it (keep in mind that keeping a baby is a very expensive endeavor), then why don't they put it up for adoption? It is also a problem where being pregnant isn't exactly easy. Going through many months of pregnancy can be damaging to the body and it could also be costly because it can be hard to work if one is pregnant. So you have to look at the opportunity cost here as well. But this isn't the topic here =P, the topic is about after birth abortion, which I feel at first seems wrong, but there should be exceptions. If you did not get a abortion before giving birth, then why would you decide to get an abortion afterwords? This is where exceptions kick in, there had to be a reason to come to the conclusion where you want to abort the baby afterwords. If the baby is deformed, handicapped, mentally challenged at birth, and it is known at birth, then there could be reasons why you would want to abort it. Though since the topic of normal abortion is already heavily debated, I doubt people will want to hear about the idea of aborting a baby after birth. But the idea of aborting a perfectly healthy baby confuses me. Why would you decide to abort the baby after birth when you had the chance to abort it before birth? Are they just trying to provoke people? I can't really find a reason why you would want to abort the baby after it was born(assuming it doesn't have any disabilities). Maybe because you didn't get the right gender? But even that is pretty skeptical. |
DarkShardsMar 4, 2012 2:22 PM
"I like to expose what people hide. I'm an intellectual rapist." - Furudo Erika |
| After birth abortion is murder unless you have already medically proven the infant has zero chance of survival even with intensive medical care. |
| Earth is over populated. I'm okay with this after-birth abortion deal. |
kiltroutgore said: Earth is over populated. I'm okay with this after-birth abortion deal. Even if it throws the male/female balance out of whack? |
kiltroutgore said: Earth is over populated. I'm okay with this after-birth abortion deal. Earth isn't overpopulated as the population growth has yet to slow down. You should look up an S-Curve graph. |
| Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/ Slyr3do0n said: MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires. |
bottle said: After birth abortion is murder unless you have already medically proven the infant has zero chance of survival even with intensive medical care. That...given the circumstances in most cases the ones to blame are parents of the newborn. |
| Lets just say that a law or precedent is passed where after-birth abortions are allowed. Hmm, are the parent's really at fault here? If there is a law that allows after birth abortion, then the government has decided that it's allowed. The parent's are just using that law to their own interests. If the law allows it, then it really isn't our business whether we think its right or not. It's been already decided that it's alright by the government. Just saying that all these kids should go to adoption agencies is very costly and unreasonable. What are the reasons people would consider after birth abortion? If they didn't want a baby in the first place, they would have done abortion before birth. If they wanted a baby, but the baby was born with major/permanent disabilities, then after birth abortion may seem like a sound idea (imo of course). In what common situation will a couple want after birth abortion when the child is healthy? Very few situations I can think of will yield this conclusion from the parents. This of course leads to the fact that if after birth abortion is disallowed and these parent's do not want the baby, then the child (who most likely has a disability of some kind) will go to a adoption home where he or she has a extremely low chance of being adopted since they probably do have disabilities. This follows that the life these kids will live will be at a much lower standard than how normal kids live and they will also have a hard time getting accepted into the community depending on what kind of disabilities they have. The life of these children is not very bright. This is a argument I thought of for after birth abortion of course, but I am still indifferent on whether it's right or wrong. =P. |
"I like to expose what people hide. I'm an intellectual rapist." - Furudo Erika |
DarkShards said: Lets just say that a law or precedent is passed where after-birth abortions are allowed. Hmm, are the parent's really at fault here? If there is a law that allows after birth abortion, then the government has decided that it's allowed. The parent's are just using that law to their own interests. If the law allows it, then it really isn't our business whether we think its right or not. It's been already decided that it's alright by the government. Don't combine moral and ethics. It can be argued that after-birth abortion is acceptable from an ethical standpoint, especially if the government were to hypothetically legalize it -- and the rest of your post does a good job of arguing in favor of after-birth abortion from that standpoint. However, that argument doesn't hold water from a moral standpoint. After-birth abortion is neonaticide, and the majority of individuals subscribe to a moral code that doesn't allow that. Morals are often black-and-white, but that's no reason to compromise them by using ethical arguments as strawmen. |
| I never intended to talk about this argument in the mindset of combining morality and ethics, but I will show my viewpoint on the matter. People will always be indifferent on what morality is. In my opinion, morality is impossible to define, everyone has different views on what morality is and when someone does a action that is commonly viewed as moral, it can always be viewed by another person as a immoral action. Because of this morality could mean anything, it is left up to the person to decide what they think is moral or immoral and this could be influenced by any number of things For one person, it may be impossible to see abortion as being acceptable because no matter what they do, they cannot see a justification for it. This is completely understandable, and I will use this analogy to address the next issue. Killing/mistreating Jews could have been acceptable from the moral viewpoint of some people in Germany at the time. I am willing to bet that at the time, some people of Germany just didn't see what was wrong with it rather than just being terrible people though it may be hard for us to understand. Of course, some people may have thought that it was wrong and did it anyway, but there were some people out there that didn't think it was wrong at all. Also, most people are supporting choice, not abortion =P. You probably meant this, but the wording makes it sound worse than it really is. |
"I like to expose what people hide. I'm an intellectual rapist." - Furudo Erika |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |