|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
posted March 30, 2013 05:16 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 17:17, 30 Mar 2013.
|
Quote:
So I am not sure how a baby of Marylin Manson would look a like...
Like this!
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted March 30, 2013 05:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Why is it not ALL parents are allowed to adopt a baby?
The only reasons that a potential parent would be denied would be if they are negligent, abusive or unable to support a child. Stupidity is, unfortunately, not a factor in this deciding process, as a stupid parent can still raise a healthy, intelligent kid.
And generally, you can determine if something is good or bad by looking at it through the eyes of "Helpful or harmful." If it harms the child somehow (removes an eye or limb, gives a genetic defect like sickle cell or down syndrome, narcolepsy, predispositions to heart disease, etc) then it would be easily categorized as "Bad." If it is helpful, (Heightened brain functioning, heightened potential for physical fitness, better eyesight, a stronger immune system, etc. Note, most of these factors are not certain, they just increase the chance combined with good parenting, as you cannot force people to learn or work out. They will slack as much as they want!  ) then it can be classified as "Good." Thinks like eye and hair color, height, weight potential, etc are sort of unimportant except from a cultural standpoint. So those would be frivolous changes that really, only the wealthy would be willing/ able to make because they honestly don't do anything (And they would likely be the only ones who could afford to give their child healthier bodies and greater potential than the "Normal" people's children. [joke]Yay for consumerism and unbalanced societies! [/joke]).
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted March 30, 2013 05:25 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:27, 30 Mar 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not really. PP is saying if the baby survives the abortion there should be no requirement to render aid to the baby. They want to be free to let the baby die, and indeed they have done so in failed abortions before.
Even if we take you at your word here, letting someone die through witholding aid is a fair bit different than actively "bashing their skulls in". If you want people to respect your opinion, Elodin, it'd be best if you avoided shock hyperbole.
Oh come now, hyperbole is just as much of a valid literary device as a metaphor is. And I place no moral distinction between an abortionist (or the baby's mother) picking up something heavy and crushing the baby's skull and the abortionist refusing to at least call 911.
'Course I guess when the abortionist is intent on killing the baby in the womb and the baby manages to survive the abortionist really does not want to help the baby survive since the baby surviving is proof abortion is murder.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 30, 2013 05:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh come now, hyperbole is just as much of a valid literary device as a metaphor is.
We're not talking literature, Elodin. Here's the problem - pro-lifers paint pro-choicers as people who like to put babies in blenders and hit the puree button. Pro-choicers paint pro-lifers as ignorant Bible-thumpers who think women shouldn't have jobs, shouldn't have rights and should just live to squirt out their husbands' babies. In reality, the truth is somewhere in the middle. How are you supposed to reach any kind of meaningful compromise (and not just on this issue - the problem is general) when the two sides continue to use hyperbolic language to describe each other's positions? The answer is that you can't. This is why nothing gets done in Washington and this is why it's virtually impossible to have an intelligent conversation with anyone who holds an opposed viewpoint any longer.
Just chew on that for a moment and think whether there may not be a better way to share your viewpoints on an issue. Listening to what someone else has to say and framing their viewpoints honestly when arguing against them does not mean you are betraying your principles. But it IS the first step toward clear solutions that maybe everyone can feel comfortable with.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 30, 2013 11:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And who is the one who decides what is good or bad for the baby? The parents?
If, currently, parents aren't the ones who decide what child abuse is, I don't see why this should be any different. Would-be parents would not be permitted to give their children harmful traits, such as deafness, reduced intelligence, etc. Positive and neutral traits - better eyesight, increased bone strength, higher intelligence, eye color, sex - are all fine.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2013 05:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
why should morals have a bigger voice than common sense?
What does that mean?
What's good about the "natural cycle of life"? The natural cycle involves hunger, disease, and suffering. Eliminating all of those is good. Humans living longer is also good; what's different between extending lifespan from 40 to 70 and expanding it from 70 to 700? Death is not necessary, and would ideally be eliminated.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 31, 2013 07:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Humans living longer is also good.
What does that mean?
Good = beneficial? Good = moral? Either way, the statement is subjective.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2013 01:12 PM |
|
|
It's good because people prefer it, it makes them happier, and doesn’t hurt anyone. It is beneficial, and, properly understood, that means it's morally good.
As far as limited resources are concerned, technology can deal with that. Besides, if the amount of available resources decreases, their price goes up, which makes a new life more expensive. Also, it's arbitrary to say that people above a certain age are the ones who should stop using resources and die. Why them?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted March 31, 2013 01:17 PM |
|
|
It DOES hurt economy, and therefore it hurts everyone. Living longer is bad for economy, look at recent tendencies all around to push retirement later and later. I bet in 50 years you will be able to retire a few months before you die.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted March 31, 2013 01:22 PM |
|
|
As in the topic-abortion,research and contraception there are always clients,who make choices,also in economy if your clients live longer,than you have more profit.
If your clients die,every buisness is lost.
So living longer is DEFINITELY good for economy.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 31, 2013 01:24 PM |
|
|
What's bad about later retirement? How does it hurt "the economy" (whatever that means)? People are retiring later because they have longer lifespans and can do their work for longer (because fewer people are doing work that requires physical strength). I'd want to talk more about how hurting "the economy" isn't even a consistent concept, but that's off-topic.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted March 31, 2013 01:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
People are retiring later because they have longer lifespans and can do their work for longer
It has nothing to do with their physical strength, but with government inability to deal with salaries for those living longer. No one wants to retire later, those decisions are always unpopular.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted March 31, 2013 04:04 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:38, 31 Mar 2013.
|
Quote:
It's good because people prefer it, it makes them happier, and doesn’t hurt anyone. It is beneficial, and, properly understood, that means it's morally good.
Wrong. Benefits are subjective because it's not clear who (or what) is being benefited, and there's no metric to define it. It MIGHT be beneficial in the near term, to humans, but you can't say if it's beneficial in the long term. I could tick off a number of potential problems with longer lifespans in just a few seconds, global overpopulation chief among them - and blithely saying "well technology will figure out a way to cope" is useless as well as meaningless. Maybe it will eventually. Maybe it won't. And if it does, there could be many unbeneficial side effects until that happens. You can't judge an action beneficial under the assumption that some other action will eliminate the risks, especially when the action is completely unspecified. That'd be a terrible way to do risk analysis.
You say it's good because it will make people happy and what they prefer it? Gosh, there aren't many things more subjective or less generalizable than happiness, and trying to link longevity to general happiness is going to be a difficult sell - there are, I wager, plenty of depressed old people around. And your logic causes a problem in that you are implying what makes people happy is moral - there are people out there that get joy from raping women, and most of society doesn't really believe that is a moral thing to do. The downstream effects of longevity are properly understood? I don't know what that means, but judging by the context, perhaps it means you have some magic ability to see the future?
Beyond that, what's beneficial for humanity may not be beneficial for other parties. The rise of the human population certainly hasn't been beneficial to a number of animal species, which are now extinct or amost extinct because of humans; it's arguable that humanity has not been beneficial to the planet as a whole. Although, one must define "beneficial" for any of these applications, and there's not a real objective way to do that. Without a scientifically defined metric, it's subjective.
And what is moral is a whole other can of subjective worms.
In any case, the point is you've got to be careful the way you define things, and all you can really do is LIST carefully contexualized potential benefits and potential risks. Then you can make some informed action decision that is conscious of the potential downsides of the decision. Other than that, making subjective statements about the absolute beneficial character of a technology - particularly using vague terms like "it'll make you happy, it's moral, it won't hurt you (trust me), we understand what the future will be" - is just thinly veiled opinion and propaganda.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 31, 2013 08:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What is a botched abortion?
Its when you abort a fetus at a extremely late stage. Its the opposite of getting born to early.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 02, 2013 10:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
here's a discussion i can post my views on.
first off, if you're a big-picture guy like me, you can easily see that there is a system of life on this planet. each life uses X amount of resources. the resource amount takes a hit with every birth on this planet. every. single. birth.
if the info is correct on this link, then you can see what i'm getting at. standing against abortion is a moral thing, i get that. but, let me ask you, why should morals have a bigger voice than common sense?
Common sense = common experience. The consensus (common experience) among mankind is that living = good and dying = bad in most cases.
It is interesting that those worried about planetary resources and who use that as justification for murdering babies are not worried enough about resources to take themselves out of the picture. And they also don't go live in the wild and live off the land, thereby using fewer resources. Oh, and who uses more resources: a baby or the one saying babies should be murdered before they can be born?
As far as moral, baby murder is immoral any way you slice it and it is "common sense" for human beings not to murder their offspring, a "common sense" that goes even beyond common experience. MOST people have a built in natural desire to protect their children, not to murder their children. Of course there are freaks out there, no doubt about that.
Quote:
speaking of morality, what about the anti-abortionists killing abortion doctors? where is the morality in that?
You'll not find any mainstream pro-life group that advocates killing abortion doctors. Pro-life groups try to help save the lives of babies through education and through legal channels.
Quote:
ultimately, anti-abortionists are self-serving, and do not care at all about the state of life in the world. they want everyone in the world to be born, and consequences be damned. don't believe me?
LOL.
Pro-life folks care about the lives of the babies whereas abortion supporters give the baby the middle finger salute and think up devious ways to kill babies. The abortionists don't care about life. They care about, money (in the case of the abortion-doctors) or "b.bb.bbbbut a baby would affect my party life!!!!" Selfish, self-centered, uncaring, immoral baby murderers. Human monsters. Of course some mothers who were talking into killing their babies were deceived by people who don't value the lives of babies.
Quote:
if you could personify nature, she would tell you that she doesn't give a rat's ass what you think what is right. she just tries to uphold a delicate balance.
Actually, nature has voiced her opinion. Human instinct is to preserve one's offspring, not to kill one's babies.
And the baby has a natural instinct to live. Everything in nature fights to survive when threatened. A baby that initially survives the attempts of baby murderers to abort him fights for survival while the abortionist stands there wondering if he should bash in the baby's skull or just throw the baby in a linen closet until the baby dies. Because baby murderers are obviously not people who care about the lives of other people. At all.
Quote:
that delicate balance is disrupted by people who think that every life, no matter how small, is a sacred thing. to say that every life has the right to enter this world is incredibly foolish.
Yep, people have a sacred right to live unless they throw that right away by their actions.
Of course abortionists place no value on any life but their own and the lives that in some way serve their self-centered existence.
I think trying to find excuses to kill babies in the womb is foolish.
Quote:
mankind do not need anything helping them live longer. they need to stop trying to disrupt their natural cycle of life, and understand that death is a much-needed asset to the growth of this planet.
So you'd never take medicine, never go to the doctor, would refuse any medical aid offered to you, and you not try to fight back if someone were trying to kill you? People who think there are too many people always advocate somebody else being killed instead of them. Why is that?
Oh, the natural human life cycle is NOT conception--->fetus-->murder.
It is the abortionist who is interrupting the natural human life cycle.
____________
Revelation
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted April 02, 2013 01:04 PM |
|
|
I have watched Monty Python's "Meaning of life",where in one of the scenes they represent a chatolic family with really many children with their parents unable to provide their upbringing.
I admire the song they made and their way of putting on one side contraception and on the other the situation,when parents decide to sell their children for scientific experiments.
I also have always in my mind,that if my mother had decided to make abortion,I would not be alive and able to discuss this or any other subject.I think everyone of us is alive for the same reason.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 02, 2013 02:11 PM |
|
|
|
I think that one good example of where it leads uncontrolled natality is Africa, a whole continent falling into the worst misery because too many to feed and not enough resources. God is opposed to have them killed while they feel nothing conscious but will let them die a few years later from atrocious starvation, someone explain me that.
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted April 02, 2013 03:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I also have always in my mind,that if my mother had decided to make abortion,I would not be alive and able to discuss this or any other subject.I think everyone of us is alive for the same reason.
Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. - Psalm 139:16
So where to go to [hell]..
Now they are in heaven.
Ok Later on they must to go to the embryo again.
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 02, 2013 05:43 PM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted April 02, 2013 11:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Here is a good documentary about population growth
I advise any HC member to watch it. Its good.
+1.
There may come times where contraception of your fourth or fifth kid becomes mandatory by law.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
