|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 6/18/2010 4:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 16916
Although I am pro-life (With exceptions such as if the pregnancy would harm the mother or under the circumstance of rape)..I won't get into a debate about it because everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don't think that the two are really comparable to be honest. Mass genocide of a population vs. an abortion...maybe it's just me but I find it difficult to compare the two.  |
Date: 6/18/2010 4:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 11097
I think both are two totally different things and you can't compare them to each other. I understand the argument but you can't compare the two. The Holocaust involves a lot more then what we have learned about it and a lot more then just murder. In fact, the Holocaust and the Nazi party and their intentions were about as evil as it gets... in this world.  |
Date: 6/18/2010 5:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 52489
Four subjects I never discuss among friends: religion, politics, abortion, and the legalization of drugs. They're red-letter subjects which can lead to inflaming the masses, destruction of friendships, and angry words tossed in all directions. Interestingly enough, these subjects are also banned from most schools and universities when it comes to Persuasive Writing exercises.  |
Date: 6/18/2010 5:05:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63846
That's a good rule to have, Arion.   |
Date: 6/18/2010 6:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 54444
what ARION said  |
Date: 6/18/2010 6:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Usually the first person in a discussion who has to resort to Nazi comparisons has lost the argument before it's begun.  |
Date: 6/18/2010 7:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 62993
I'm pro-choice, though I used to be pro-life. Comparing abortion to the Holocaust is an appeal to emotion with no support behind the statements.  |
Date: 6/18/2010 10:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 28848
This sounds like a pro-lifers lame and unsubstantiated attempt at declaring a stance for their cause.  |
Date: 6/19/2010 7:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 62849
I agree with all comments before mine. I can't make them any better (especially Dark Phoenix, Sweet Sofia, and ReleaseMe).  |
|
Date: 6/19/2010 12:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Mass genocide doesn't include 50 million ++ aborted babies? Seems to me that people are reconciling abortion based on individuality (as if those weren't individuals marched into gas chambers), emotionality (hey, where are the aborted babies pictures in our history books?), and choice (which, of course, ignores the aborted baby's choice). But, I understand. Being conditioned by political correctness surely doesn't correspond with being educated in logic. God Bless.  |
Date: 6/19/2010 10:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 47166
It's "pro-choice," not "pro-abortion." I find abortions to be abhorrent things, and feel that if you don't want a baby you don't get knocked up. Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to avoid. However, I am pro-choice for several reasons, chief of which is that people who want to have abortions will get abortions, legal or not; so let's at least make sure it's safe.  |
|
Date: 6/19/2010 11:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
"Mass genocide doesn't include 50 million ++ aborted babies?" Or every human taken off life support? "choice (which, of course, ignores the aborted baby's choice)" What choice? Some times I wonder if you do have the same mental capacity as a fetus.  |
|
Date: 6/20/2010 11:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
The comparison groups are aborted babies and slaughtered ethnic Jews, Rtrd. But if you want to bring life support into the equation, then by all means I can definitively state that I don't believe anyone should be put on life support in the first place, thereby not having any choice made in removing same. You know, the whole spiel re: God's Will. Anyway, you are substantiating my point re: "choice" , yet, distancing yourself from my intellect in the logical flow of the subject. See, as we are comparing aborted babies with slaughtered ethnic Jews, my point in showing that the two issues are related (i.e., the aborted babies have no choice as to whether their life is continued; the slaughtered ethnic Jews had no choice as to whether their life was continued). So, either you agree that there is no difference, or you (or anyone else who thinks they know what they are talking about) comes here with their statement of difference. Here, I will start it for you: "Aborting babies is different than slaughtering ethnic Jews because . . ." God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/20/2010 11:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Deb, since you love logical fallacies so much I included life support (abortion has more in common with removal of life support than the holocaust). However your opinion only reminds me how thankful I am I don't live in a theocracy. It appears the concept of 'choice' escapes you. A person being murdered has their choice denied, on the other hand a fetus has no choice whatsoever. Do you even understand what a brain is? |
Date: 6/20/2010 11:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 55533
They are both completely different things. They are just using Nazism to make themselves seem right. That's disgusting of them.  |
|
Date: 6/20/2010 3:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Do you understand what life is? Life removed is life removed. Once life is removed, what choice is there for the lifeless, pray tell? And, once again, I do not see any argument from you making any kind of statement that you disagree with my stance in that there is no difference between aborted babies and slaughtered ethnic Jews. God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 12:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Deb, where have I denied "Life removed is life removed"? You're blind if you see no argument against your assertion that abortions are equal to the Holocaust. Twice I've hinted at brain function, yet you continue this inane comparison while completely ignoring the obvious. Choice does not exist for a fetus. |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 10:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Oh, dear, I suppose I need you to help out my brain function then, Rtrd. Are you saying that the slaughtered ethnic Jews are different than aborted babies because they (the former) had a choice in whether or not they had their life removed? God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 1:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
The most obvious difference (at least, to me) is between persons whose capacity for choice has been removed (The Jews, in this case), and foetuses who do not possess such a capacity in the first place… |
Date: 6/21/2010 2:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
I think both cases are extreamly related as its getting rid of unwanted humans. Killing a baby in the womb is not any better then sending Jewish People to the gas chambers, either way, both parites are just as dead.  |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 2:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
I'm reading a book right now, aborted and lived to tell about it. I'm sorry but I just can't see abortions as anything good. There are toooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many ways to NOT get pregnant. Or pack the baby and give it up for adoption. Abortion is just a legal way to committ murder. |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 2:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Rod YOU are a male and there is no excuse to be rude to *deb* YOU have never packed a baby, YOU apparently no nothing of what an aborted baby goes through when its being ripped out of the womb of the mother. I DO understand that there are people that can die if they have a baby, but not 50 million of these mothers are going to die. Look online I'm sure you can find a video of JUST what happens to the baby that is aborted. Like I say, don't want a baby? Close your legs. |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 2:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Look it up they are putting aborted babies brains in to mice. Aborted babies brains are being sold for 1,000 a brain. http://www.sundriesshack.com/2009/09/27/a-thousand-dollars-for-an-aborted-brain/ Reporter Chris Wallace, on an episode of 20/20, reported: A 20/20 hidden camera investigation has found a thriving industry in which aborted fetuses women donate to help medical research are being marketed for hundreds, even thousands of dollars…Opening Lines put out this price list: $325 for a spinal cord, $550 for a reproductive organ, $999 for a brain…Dr. Jones said the average specimen costs him just $50 plus overhead, but that he charges an average of $250. They law only talks about recovering costs. But on a single fetus Jones said he can make $2,500. There is also plenty of this garbage on u tube. At first, the brain cells start to multiply quickly but the pace slows down during the second trimester. During the third week of gestation, the neural groove is formed which will later develop into the primary brain structure. http://www.brainhealthandpuzzles.com/prenatal_brain_development.html HOWEVER from the time of life in side the womb the baby is LIVING Organism, a HUMANBEING, a person. |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 2:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
I think that IF a court can charge a man for murder of not only the mother but the baby inside of her, that TWO count them TWO counts of murder then yes its murder for all babies inside the womb. |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 2:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Now I've said my say and have company plus my un aborted grandchildren over to visit, so those that think abortion is A OK then go look up online, watch the videos, do some research and if you still think its ok, then I'm sorry but there is something mentally wrong with you. |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 2:46:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63846
Firstborn, there is still no reason to be rude about it. People deserve to have their own choices and that's that. If they want to prevent their child from living a terrible life, then so be it. Also, have fun with your unaborted grandchildren. They weren't illegitimate and have lived healthy lives so far, I assume. |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 6:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
FB, why do you suppose most people (even those who view abortion as the death of an infant) don’t tend to have funerals for miscarriages? (Well, maybe they do in your neck of the woods. Here, not so much.) |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 7:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Soooo, those people who had the capacity for making a choice are different from aborted babies who did not have the capacity to make a choice because they could have chosen not to have their life removed? Is that the logic you are attempting here, DP? Krista, if choice to you includes those who, "want to prevent their child from living a terrible life," then would you extend that to the parents of a child born with severe brain damage? Or to the parents of a child who contracts an incurable disease? And if no, why not? God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 8:18:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63846
I don't think you understand, Deb. The fetus is not what I think of as part of the world yet (does the phrase "came into this world" meaning childbirth mean nothing?). When a child is BORN with severe brain damage, then he should be allowed to live because he is already in the world and can think and feel. However, you can prevent unnecessary yet severe emotional pain before the child is capable of independent thought and feeling. You're saying you'd rather make a child suffer through life as an orphan or in a broken home rather than being happy in God's hands before he knows pain? |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 9:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
"I think that IF a court can charge a man for murder of not only the mother but the baby inside of her, that TWO count them TWO counts of murder then yes its murder for all babies inside the womb." Depends how convincing the lawyer is. Legal abortion isn't murder. |
Date: 6/21/2010 9:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 63209
Deb, since you seem so confident in the correctness of your position, give me one legitimate reason that a pregnant woman shouldn't have the choice to abort her child, that doesn't have anything to do with religion. A fetus that has not developed a brain has no "choice" in the first place. It is one hundred percent up to the woman impregnated.  |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 10:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Deb, are you not getting something? Those who have the mental capacity to make choices and decisions are different from those who can't, the latter will always be affected by the former. Hence my life support comment. Holocaust and abortion are two entirely different scenarios. |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 10:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
"YOU apparently no nothing of what an aborted baby goes through when its being ripped out of the womb of the mother." Firstborn, what does it go through? The fetus is mentally oblivious to its own existence. The fact people like yourself are using the murder of sentient human beings to promote the pro-life stance is disturbing. |
|
Date: 6/21/2010 11:35:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63846
"YOU apparently no nothing of what an aborted baby goes through when its being ripped out of the womb of the mother." I'm sorry, I've got to speak up on this statement, too. Do YOU know for sure that the fetus can feel it? Have you experienced being an aborted fetus? Didn't think so. |
|
Date: 6/22/2010 7:42:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Deb, the distinction I was making is the one made above by RodTod. |
|
Date: 6/22/2010 8:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Not part of the world, Krista? As FB has been explaining in her comments, what portion of the aborted baby is not "part of this world" ? It was a part of the mother and the father who are a part of this world. It has volume and takes up space, thus being a part of this world. IT IS A LIFE REMOVED. Do not any of you see what you are doing? You are impersonalizing aborted babies in the same manner that Nazis did to the slaughtered ethnic Jews. Now, let's discuss "choice" again, sans religion, which I haven't brought up (I've been quite consistent in referring to Holocaust victims as "ethnic" Jews), shall we Crimson, DP, and RTrd. First off, Crimson, the point of this discussion is to compare aborted babies to slaughtered ethnic Jews. The subject of "choice" came about as one way people attempt to rationalized aborting babies. I mentioned that that ignores the choice of the aborted babies. These other two have come in and stated that aborted babies have no choice (their position is they have no choice because they do not have the mental/brain functioning to choose at the point their life is removed). So my question has been and remains: How do aborted babies who have no choice in having their life removed DIFFER from slaughtered ethnic Jews having no choice in having their life removed? And so the answer people are clinging to here is that the latter had the capacity for choice. Which then begs the question as to whether or not a person with a capacity for choice thereby HAD A CHOICE in the removing of their life such as the slaughtered ethnic Jews? No one has bothered to so answer. But that people want to defend aborting babies on the basis of the baby is not equipped with the mental capacity to choose life, also brings up these other situations re: incapacitated babies, and whether or not a parent can then choose to remove the life of those babies due to whatever hardships and suffering may befall that life. If it is 100% up to the mother, then why limit your stance to abortion? To which all of you responders are claiming that an aborted baby is just a fetus (impersonalizing human life again). And I ask everyone of you, isn't that how you started your LIFE? Your LIFE was not removed. You did not have any choice in that. I honestly think that some of you are actually just more than a bit perturbed by that . . . God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/22/2010 10:03:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Deb, you've answered your own question. Fetuses differ from the victims of the Nazis in that the fetus lack mental functionality. "Do not any of you see what you are doing? You are impersonalizing aborted babies in the same manner that Nazis did to the slaughtered ethnic Jews." You're making baseless accusations, just like the Nazis did to the Jews they slaughtered. I can play that game too. "Which then begs the question as to whether or not a person with a capacity for choice thereby HAD A CHOICE in the removing of their life such as the slaughtered ethnic Jews? No one has bothered to so answer." Don't you have that choice now Deb? |
|
Date: 6/22/2010 11:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Really, how can the glaring obvious differences between fetuses and sentient beings escape some people? If you can't tell the difference between an abortion and a murder victim, you've got more problems than just an issue with abortion. |
|
Date: 6/22/2010 11:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
“Which then begs the question as to whether or not a person with a capacity for choice thereby HAD A CHOICE in the removing of their life such as the slaughtered ethnic Jews? No one has bothered to so answer.” Because that’s not the question which follows from the claim that foetuses are different from slaughtered Jews in that they lack a capacity to choose. (presumably there are other differences too, but we can focus on this one for now.) The question which follows is whether or not there should be a moral distinction made between entities with a capacity for choice (like the Jews, in this case) and entities with no such capacity (like foetuses). I don't think choice is enoguh on its own in order to answer in the affirmative, but it's probably one fo the ingredients (along with things like capacity to feel pain, perhaps, or capacity for self-awareness) |
|
Date: 6/22/2010 1:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
That you were once a fetus without mental capacity thus gives you no affinity to fetuses is how you are distancing yourself from this. Since you were not worthy of having your life continued then, why now? DP, that again, is your intellectual dishonesty at work. The point of the discussion is what differences exist between aborted babies and slaughtered ethnic Jews, and what the two of you have come up with is that their mental capacity to choose is different. Here, I will ask you once again with other wording to see if you can answer the question: Are you saying that the mental capacity to choose to have their life removed was thereby exercised by those slaughtered ethnic Jews? To say that because there is a difference in the capacity to choose, connotes the meaning that that capacity was used, in order to make that difference relevant and/or meaningful. Otherwise the difference is not properly, nor intellectually, being distinguished. God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/22/2010 3:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
That you cannot understand the point I was making doesn’t somehow make me ‘intellectually dishonest’. Foetuses are not the sorts of entities which have the capacity to choose in the absence of external restraints. Choosing, being an intentional (mental) action requires as a precondition that one is self-aware of oneself as a choosing agent. Foetuses do not possess such a faculty. Whereas a Jewish person can be deprived of their ability to choose, no such deprivation is possible in cases where no such faculty ever existed in the first place. |
|
Date: 6/22/2010 3:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Therefore it makes no sense to say that something ignores the ‘choice’ of abortion babies, since aborted babies cannot make choices, and one cannot ‘ignore’ something that cannot exist. |
|
Date: 6/22/2010 5:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Oh, so being deprived of a choice is different than not possessing the choice at all? The former cannot be viewed as having no choice in the matter, and the latter cannot be viewed as having no choice in the matter? Regardless of how each life was given no choice to live? The DIFFERENCE you are therefore espousing is that the slaughtered ethnic Jews were deprived (we'll look at the meaning of that, too) of their choice as to whether their life should be removed, while the aborted babies had no choice as to whether their life should be removed. Deprived is defined as "prevented from possessing". Let's look at this supposed DIFFERENCE in the light of that definition, shall we: Slaughtered ethnic Jews were prevented from possessing a choice as to whether their life should be spared. Aborted babies are prevented from possessing a choice as to whether their life should be spared. What exactly is the difference you are attempting to illustrate, again? God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/22/2010 5:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Deprivation is also defined as “the disadvantage that results from losing something.” You cannot lose something you never possessed. |
|
Date: 6/22/2010 8:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
I hardly find any differentiation in the disadvantage (not having a choice) that both slaughtered ethnic Jews and aborted babies experience that results from both comparison groups losing the same thing, something called LIFE. God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/23/2010 12:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
"That you were once a fetus without mental capacity thus gives you no affinity to fetuses is how you are distancing yourself from this." I was also once a sperm and an egg. "Since you were not worthy of having your life continued then, why now?" Deb, I think you're being deliberately ignorant. Pro-choice isn't pro-death. |
|
Date: 6/23/2010 12:23:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
"I hardly find any differentiation in the disadvantage (not having a choice) that both slaughtered ethnic Jews and aborted babies experience that results from both comparison groups losing the same thing, something called LIFE." What does an aborted fetus experience? If losing life is the connection, everything from capital punishment to slaughterhouses are comparable to the Holocaust. |
|
Date: 6/23/2010 5:52:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Presumably you consume living matter all the time, Deb. The cow in your burger didn’t have a choice as to whether it was killed to provide you with dinner, and I’ll wager that most adult cows experience more than a foetus in a womb (at least in terms of a capacity for pain). So is Ronald McDonald basically Hitler? |
|
Date: 6/23/2010 11:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Well, there you have it, boys. The main theme of all the examples that have been brought up: Government sanctioned killing. Hey, if the government says it is all right, then who are you to argue? Certainly you wouldn’t argue with letting babies born who have a (70%) chance at living to just be left alone to die, right? (French system) Certainly you wouldn’t argue that DDT should be unbanned because using it would reduce malaria-related deaths exponentially? Certainly you wouldn’t argue that government-imposed sharia law is misplaced in condoning honor killings (for, among other things, a woman’s insubordination and homosexuality) , right? Sure, after the fact (i.e., the Holocaust) you can claim your abhorrence, but really, what would you have argued if you were living circa 1939 in Germany? It is human nature to want to feel protected, and most people believe that that is what the government does for them. Certainly that is the attitude of abortion right advocates. Women are protected from punishment for killing that life since they have the government’s sanction for so doing. But, are they, really? The women I know who have had abortions may have the government’s protection in removing that life, but the abject punishment they inflict on their hearts (soul) far surpasses any peace of mind they may have gained through the government’s okaying what they did. Further, comparing animals to humans reveals your sheepish personalities. If you want to elevate animal life to the status of human life, then by all means, either lift them up to your standard of living or take yourselves down to theirs. If you are unwilling to do either, then perhaps you’ve come to realize that human life is on another plane of being than that of animals. But if you feel that way, why wouldn’t that encompass ALL human life? Why would you be o.k. with the wholesale slaughter of “some” human life and not others? I can already “hear” the response to that: a fetus isn’t human (well, then, what is it, an orangutan?) and it can’t live on it’s own (isn’t that all the more reason to protect it?). Just as with the people in Nazi Germany who rationalized their neighbors beings sent to camps because the government sanctioned same, so, too, do people rationalize abortion, infanticide, not stopping transmittable diseases, honor killings: If the supreme authority of the land says it is o.k., then, by golly, it must be, right? No need for independent thinking on the matter since the government has done the thinking for you . . . God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/23/2010 5:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
...I made the point that foetuses lack particular cognitive and experiential capacities which adults do not. I can find little if anything in your most recent comment which actually deals with the points which I have made. There may be something in there, but it’s too difficult to sift through the rest in order to extract it. |
|
Date: 6/23/2010 10:00:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63846
Deb, I'm sorry, but you're beating a dead horse here. Your opinion is yours and you're not going to sway us out of our opinions. You're being way too aggressive and I think you're getting out of hand. |
|
Date: 6/23/2010 10:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
How does that attitude promote any kind of independent thinking, Krista? I am sure you have the fortitude to remove yourself from the conversation if you do not wish to discourse any further. DP, the point of my comment was to illustrate that government sanctioned killing is generally supported by those who support that government. You have previously defended the removal of life for brain incapacitated French-born preemies (you know, those that “lack particular cognitive and experiential capacities which adults do not”  with the logic that the decision that they die is due to quality of life. Such is an argument for abortion, also. Such was a justification for the Holocaust. If your moral compass is defined by what it legal -- not independently feeling that you should have any higher aspirations than those espoused by your government – then whatever the government sanctions becomes a base for the feeling that it must be all right. God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/24/2010 5:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Deb, do your straw men have any choice? |
|
Date: 6/24/2010 7:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Government sanctioned killing, like capital punishment? Like warfare? Not causes generally supported with any great enthusiasm by people on the left, who are generally the most permissive when it comes to abortion. And I would correct you on a few things. First, on your claim that I have ‘defended’ the decisions of the French physicians. I did not ‘defend’ their actions, I explained them. This was in response to your suggestion that financial considerations motivated the French policy, which I argued was incorrect. (And just to remove any room for confusion, do not take this correction to imply that I do not agree with the spirit of the French policy. I am simply not making a case for it one way or the other here.) Secondly, there is no single argument for abortion. Quality of life considerations are generally used when one wants to argue that abortion should be permitted in cases where the baby will be born with severe disabilities, and the strength of such arguments tends to match the severity of the disability. Anencephaly, for example is one such condition which was at the centre of a particularly tragic Irish case recently. Naturally such arguments do not work in cases of rape or incest where the infant is expected to live a reasonably healthy life, and arguments which are likely to be used in this case would not necessarily apply to women who wish to get abortions for other reasons. |
|
Date: 6/24/2010 7:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Ironically, abortion was actually punishable by the death penalty from 1943 onwards in Nazi Germany (with the obvious caveats). |
|
Date: 6/24/2010 11:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Yes, DP, just like warfare and capital punishment. Capital punishment is a state issue here in the U.S. In those states where it is pursued and used, yes, it has general approval. Warfare likewise. There has been a marked decrease in war protesting since this administration has embraced continuing the war efforts. Is it any surprise to you that the Nazi regime would outlaw abortions? They were all about promoting a particular make-up of the population, complete with politicizing birth outcomes. Have you ever read anything about Margaret Sanger's motives in politicizing abortion here in the U.S.? And, the parallels with the current French system really are astounding! Yes, I know you were attempting to defend the French as something other than a cost issue, but doesn’t it strike you just a little bit odd that you could come up with alternative figures for birth rates and life expectancy, yet nary a word on any adjustment of per capita costs based on those alternative statistics? Oh, and I know you are quite equivocal on that issue, just as you are with abortion. As I recall, your most recent post on the subject was to ask the rest of us USMr’s to help you make up your mind on whether or not you should be a supporter of abortion. That equivocation has nothing to do with your government’s position on the issue, right? And you are missing the point with regard to using “quality of life” as A justification for abortion. If you really understood the rationalization being used in this country, you would understand that it is the mother’s quality of life that is the basis of consideration, not the baby’s. God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/24/2010 3:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
“That equivocation has nothing to do with your government’s position on the issue, right?” I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, would you care to clarify? “If you really understood the rationalization being used in this country, you would understand that it is the mother’s quality of life that is the basis of consideration, not the baby’s.” As far as I can see, arguments for allowing abortion are manifold. They range from unsophisticated slogans like ‘my body, my choice’, to sophisticated philosophical approaches offered by, for example, Judith Jarvis Thompson or Peter Singer. (In the same way that arguments against abortion range from unsophisticated appeals to emotion by brandishing pictures of foetuses to sophisticated ((if, in my opinion, flawed)) arguments about personhood, potentiality and so on.) |
|
Date: 6/24/2010 3:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
What is Ireland's state of the law on abortion? What is your personal state of mind on the subject of abortion? Clear enough, I surmise. We'll see how clear your answers are . . . God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/24/2010 5:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Abortion is illegal in Ireland, except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. My position on abortion is (at the moment) that abortion should be legal until such time as a foetus can survive independently of the mother. |
|
Date: 6/25/2010 10:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
My personal opinion is that you don't incorporate reality into your opinions. Human infants do not survive independently. They are not like a foal who is able to get up and move around and eat on their own within mere hours of being born. They are dependent on some maternally-minded person to survive, even beyond abortion. God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/25/2010 11:44:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
My personal opinion is that you should read to the end of a sentence before forming your personal opinion. There is, for example, a great deal of difference between the suggestion that human infants make survive independently, and the suggestion that they may survive independently of the mother. (I’m still waiting to see what your original point was here, btw) |
|
Date: 6/25/2010 11:44:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
*may not make |
|
Date: 6/25/2010 12:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 101
This is a very good example of why Arion and MOA refuse to participate in these discussions. Most people feel strongly about both sides of this issue and nothing within this post is so compelling that it will sway anyone from one side to the other especially if both sides decide that insults are a necessary ingredient in the discussion. Usually, after that ingredient has been added the remarks are reduced to a value very near zero in quality. -Rad.  |
|
Date: 6/25/2010 12:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
The point is that you are ostensibly fine with a baby being aborted in order not to be a burden on the mother, yet are fine if that aborted baby survives, to be a burden on another. George, no one is trying to make anyone change their minds. My point in responding to this discussion post is for people to USE their minds. I understand that a lot of people would rather not use their minds to delve too deeply into subjects that are uncomfortable for them to personally confront. No one is insisting, or addressing, anyone who feels that way to join in this particular discussion. God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/25/2010 2:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Leaving aside the suggestion that I am ‘fine’ with an infant being aborted (there are plenty of things I don’t agree with, which I think should be legal nonetheless), I am fine with the state supporting the welfare of newborns in general, whether that takes the form of funding for orphanages, campaigns to find foster/adoptive parents, assistance with vaccinations and other medical needs, and so on. I should also point out that I said I would permit the abortion only in cases where the baby cannot survive outside of the womb. Infants who could survive abortion would therefore not qualify. (I would also probably add to this that mere survival alone isn’t enough, as infants with certain severe disabilities ((I have in mind the kind I mentioned above)) can on occasion survive for a short time outside the womb, before succumbing to their condition.) |
|
Date: 6/25/2010 10:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
"My point in responding to this discussion post is for people to USE their minds." So you get this point across by doing the opposite? If you had USED your mind, you wouldn't have needed to resort to logical fallacies. You are a liar. |
|
Date: 6/25/2010 11:26:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63846
Let's relax... "Liar" is pretty harsh, RT. |
|
Date: 6/26/2010 4:02:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Harldy harsher than implying that several people who have replied to this post are comparable to Nazis, though... |
|
Date: 6/26/2010 4:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Accurate nonetheless. |
|
Date: 6/26/2010 12:49:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63846
I'll grant you that, but would it be possible to be a little bit more understanding? |
|
Date: 6/26/2010 12:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Rtrd, prove in detailed specificity where I have lied. DP, cite, in detailed specificity, where I have called anyone a Nazi. Both of you are ignoring the obvious. The two comparison groups have in common government sanctioned killing. And, DP, just because you don't like it (abortion) doesn't comport with you not sanctioning it via advocating the legalization of it upon demand by a woman who is merely inconvenienced because she became pregnant. As your own words state, if the apparatus is in place to take care of all of the unwanted babies, then what argument do you have to support that those babies should not be born? And your sentence: "I should also point out that I said I would permit the abortion only in cases where the baby cannot survive outside of the womb. Infants who could survive abortion would therefore not qualify. (I would also probably add to this that mere survival alone isn’t enough, as infants with certain severe disabilities ((I have in mind the kind I mentioned above)) can on occasion survive for a short time outside the womb, before succumbing to their condition.)" is not at all clear to me. Clarify please. God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/26/2010 9:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Deb, your intention was never to get people to use their mind, you failed that on your own. I've lost the amount of times in this thread where the glaring obvious has escaped you. |
|
Date: 6/28/2010 11:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Deb, “"Aborting babies is different than slaughtering ethnic Jews because . . ."” Is quite clearly suggesting that people who abort are comparable to Nazis who murdered Jews (and, by extension that people who support abortion rights are comparable to people who supported the holocaust.) To your second question, there are still arguments which apply even if potential future children would be taken care of. Many of these would be libertarian in nature, stating that a woman’s rights over her body are absolute in such cases, and that no other person can have a right to use her body, even to save their own life. Other arguments might focus on the personhood question and suggest that infants which lack certain faculties are not morally equivalent to humans with, (for example) a capacity to feel pain or self-awareness. To your third question, I will attempt to clarify. My thinking is A: that if the option is between aborting an infant or removing it from the mother via c-section for example, and the infant has people who will care for it, then abortion in such cases should probably be prohibited in favour of simply ending the pregnancy and having someone else care for the child. B: That this alone is probably not a very good principle to base abortion laws on and might well be subject to abuse, so a stronger set of principles would be needed. C: That infants who lack faculties such as nervous systems or self-awareness may be morally distinguishable from those which do not. C: that in certain exceptional circumstances, babies who are so severely disabled that they have zero prospect of survival for very long after birth should be aborted if that is the wish of the mother, if in order to spare the child and mother from enduring intense physical and emotional trauma respectively. |
|
Date: 6/28/2010 3:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
DP, the line you have quoted is not in any way insinuating that. It was the opening for my suggestion that people actually think about what it is they find is DIFFERENT between the two, which BTW is the subject of the post! What response did I get? That "choice" was a difference because one of the comparison groups were denied a choice and the other comparison groups had no choice to begin with? Can't anyone come up with an answer that actually demonstrates A DIFFERENCE? As far as your attempt to answer the question, in which I specifically asked YOU for your arguments, nothing you have written gives ownership of your mindset as far as what you think the argument is. Also, this outlining of your position gives rise to the question I asked the author earlier: If a child is born or becomes (perhaps through a near drowning) so severely disabled as to affect their and their mothers' quality of life, do you support the choice of removing their life (in whatever manner so deemed, such as in the French system)? God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/28/2010 3:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Well, Rtrd, don't you have the mental capacity to count how many times I've done whatever it is you are asserting I've done, in this post? There are less than 100 comments. You can count to 100 (or less), can't you? God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/28/2010 6:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I took it to imply that you see no moral difference between the two (which is tantamount to comparing people who support legalised abortion to people who supported the holocaust.) By all means, correct me. What is the MORAL difference you see between the two? |
|
Date: 6/28/2010 6:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
My position with regard to quality of life is that human lives may on rare occasions be of such poor quality that the moral thing to do is to bring about death rather than allow the person to continue to live in agony for the rest of their usually short lives. We offer the same kind of mercy to animals, yet are often reluctant to offer it to fellow humans. |
|
Date: 6/29/2010 12:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
I've given you my reasons as to why there is no difference, DP: Government sanctioned removal of life. That doesn't connote any relationship to morality. Since you think there is a difference which lies in morality, then you need to answer your own question for yourself. As to your "put them out of their agony" stance, would that bear any resemblance to these sentiments: "Nature is cruel; therefore we are also entitled to be cruel." "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." You wouldn't recognize the speaker of such thoughts, would you? God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/29/2010 1:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
No I don’t. You asked where you had compared people to Nazis and I showed you. If you think there is no difference between aborting a baby and gassing a Jewish person(“I’ve given you my reasons as to why there is no difference” then you are implying that the two are alike. “As to your "put them out of their agony" stance, would that bear any resemblance to these sentiments: "Nature is cruel; therefore we are also entitled to be cruel."” No, since according to my view, cruelty sometimes means forcing people to remain in a state of agony, especially in cases where this goes against their expressed wishes. "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." No resemblance here, either. Those who want to live should be supported, as should those who want to die, in certain circumstances. “You wouldn't recognize the speaker of such thoughts, would you?” I don’t know who made those remarks, but given your knack for subtlety, I think I could make a decent guess. |
|
Date: 6/29/2010 8:38:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63846
Okay, okay. I understand the need to express your opinions and I'm happy that you're staying true to your thoughts but let's not go about implying that the opposing perspectives are stupid or have only limited mental capacity. It's rude and uncalled for and I'm asking you to stop insulting each other, though you're welcome to continue the debate if you feel that you are mature enough to do so. Thanks. |
|
Date: 6/30/2010 9:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
So from all of what you say, I am understanding that your moral position is that any human who is in "agony" should be afforded a government sanctioned removal of life? And "agony" is not to be defined by the person who is to have their life removed (since, some people in such "agony" are necessarily in "agony" because they have such mental incapacity to define "agony" ) , but by the government sanctioning same? God Bless. |
|
Date: 6/30/2010 11:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
What I have sketched out above is only a very rough account of a position which would need further distinctions and caveats. For example, a distinction would need to be made between adults who have made living wills, and those who have not, between adults who can be judged to be mentally competent and those who cannot, between adults and children and between children and newborns who cannot express themselves whatsoever, as well as between viable infants and those who have no prospect of survival once they have been born. In all cases, the power to make such decisions would be prioritised in such a way to ensure that individuals are given as much control over their own condition as possible. In cases where this is not possible, decision-making powers should ideally fall to next of kin, and only in cases where no suitable family member is in a position to make a decision would the decision fall directly to medical professionals (though there would need to be provisions to allow for medical professionals to override the wishes of family members in certain circumstances.) |
|
Date: 6/30/2010 11:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
(If, for example, I want to pull the plug because my uncle’s death will net me a rather large inheritance, but medical professionals are confident that my uncle has a reasonable chance of recovery or of living with a decent quality of life, then medical professionals should be able to override my decision) |
|
Date: 7/2/2010 10:38:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Hmmm. Hmmmm. Hmmmmm. You've inspired me to poetry. Here is "The Ode to Dark Phoenix's Ideas" : Kill them all Big and small. You think they mind? They have no mind! Do it today, They're just taking up space. Do it for them. Government sanctioning says its no sin. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/2/2010 2:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 63209
Deb, you are acting very childish. For your age, I would expect much better behavior. If you disagree, writing a sarcastic poem about someone else's views is ridiculously unnecessary. |
|
Date: 7/2/2010 3:40:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63846
I agree with CR, Deb. I think that you really need to grow up and be mature about this. Rude poems that flat-out bash the viewpoints of others are unnecessary and I've confronted you about being polite already. I highly recommend that you be a "big girl" about this. |
|
Date: 7/2/2010 4:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Oh, I get it. You two think it is perfectly all right to advocate killing those humans that can't speak for themselves, but believe that my speaking up for them is childish, rude, and downright unnecessary. How about you let DP speak for himself? That is unless you don't think he has the capacity, in which case he should just be eliminated, right? God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/2/2010 6:05:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63846
That's a hurtful assumption to make. Should I assume that you appreciate forcing children to grow up in poverty and bad conditions? I'm sick with your rude assumptions and bashful remarks. I know that there's clearly no point in telling you my viewpoint because all you seem to be capable of doing is arguing and being impolite and immature. All we told you to do was to grow up and be mature; we never said ANYTHING about you being wrong. Your "speaking up for the helpless" is very quickly becoming an annoying nuisance and I'm beginning to think that YOU don't have the mental capacity to handle such a conversation. I'm really getting fed up with your rudeness, Deb. For heaven's sake, GROW UP. |
|
Date: 7/2/2010 8:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 63209
Deb, at this point you're just being obnoxious. I don't think it's okay to kill people who have no say in the matter, no. But your "speaking up" on your opinion has gone from speaking up to just being rude and overly argumentative. It seems to me that you're trying to hurt others' feelings for no reason whatsoever. It's pathetic to think that you cannot fathom that people have differing opinions from yours. From the start, if you didn't like another person's opinion, you should have just realized that it's their opinion and you're not going to change it. If you have so much more experience, wisdom, age and knowledge than Krista, you're definitely not demonstrating it. In fact, I've been following this argument for a very long time, and it seems to be that she's being extremely mature while you're acting overly childish to people whose opinions differ from your own. I understand that you may feel like you're being ganged up on, Deb, but really, you're not. Just because more people disagree with you does not, by any means, mean that they're trying to offend you. It just seems that you're trying to compensate for being the only one who has your thoughts. On top of that, I'm not going to take kindly to you being so condescending to my sister. Thanks. |
|
Date: 7/3/2010 10:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
"Should I assume that you appreciate forcing children to grow up in poverty and bad conditions?" I appreciate my parents. I grew up in poverty and bad conditions. Should I have wished that I had been aborted to have been spared a childhood of poverty and bad conditions? Go ahead and answer that, either one of you, since you both have the "ability" to somehow believe that you know my demeanor, my tone of voice, my comport. As far as maturity goes, this is what I perceive you both are advocating as "mature" : - don't have a discussion on subject matter which upsets people - don't leave that discussion and let those having the discussion continue on, but rather try to stymie those having the discussion - do blame others for the feelings you experience; certainly don't own up to those feelings as an accurate reflection of HOW YOU FEEL - be awed by civility in the words of someone and don't delve deeper into the meaning of those words because they came across so "nice" - and certainly don't attempt to have anyone think beyond their preconceived notions I have been quite pointed in whom I am addressing my comments toward. That the two of you feel, in whatever way, compelled to address me, not with regard to the subject matter of the post, but with your assessment of my behavior, is your perogative. What I don't understand is why the author just can't come in here and state the truth, which, IMHO is: That she doesn't want to maintain this post any longer and she wishes it would just end. If that is the TRUTH, then I would suggest that the two of you just let it lie. If DP wishes to respond, and I choose to continue the discussion with him, you can be sure that I don't expect either of you to further comment since the subject matter appears to be so personal to the two of you. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/3/2010 12:06:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63846
Ahem, seeing as I'm the post author, I guess I'll say it: "That she doesn't want to maintain this post any longer and she wishes it would just end because Deb seems to be unable to maintain a friendly conversation." Deb, I find it interesting that, although I have repeatedly (and very politely) asked you to calm down, you seem to only be getting more aggressive and you seem unable to sympathize with my views although I've told you time and time again that I understand your views. All I'm asking you to do is feign understanding rather than continuing to be immature and childish. It's what adults do where I'm from. And Deb, what you perceive as "maturity" from us isn't quite right. All we're asking for you to do is get back in line - you're being too rude to handle and no, I can't hear your tone, but your words are coming across as rude to me and you may not be able to see it, but everyone else certainly can. Again, I'll ask you to grow up and calm down. If you can't act like a mature person even at your age, then I feel deeply sorry for you. I'm sorry that you apparently grew up in "poverty and bad conditions", but that doesn't give you a right to be rude about things. I understand that if your parents had gotten an abortion we wouldn't have you and that makes you especially sensitive to the subject, but it's called "pro-choice", not "pro-abortion". Being "pro-choice" means that we support women having a say in the matter, rather than being force to give birth to a child she might not be capable of taking care of. We don't support every child being aborted. We just support mothers having a say in the matter. Basically, what I'm hearing, is that you'd rather have an entity that can't even live on its own "have a say" than have an independently living, thinking human being make the right choice for a child. I see how your views are: you enjoy seeing children grow up literally on the street, in an abusive home, in an adoption center. If you suffered from your childhood of "growing up in poverty and bad conditions", would you really want to inflict that on other children, even knowing that there is a chance they might not be as lucky as you were in growing up as a "right" adult? It seems to me that you're more of a sadist than we "pro-choicers" are. It looks like you support children growing up in suffering, even if the mother knew good and well it could've been prevented before the child was capable of independent thinking. I'll assume that you hate children and everyone who's ever had an abortion because you seem to make nasty assumptions like this about people opposing you, so I'll just hop right on the bandwagon with you, Deb. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/3/2010 12:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 63209
Took the words right out of my mouth. On that, Deb, I would also like to address how you failed to take note of either of our points, and decided to make further assumptions about our motives. This isn't about your views, this is about the way that you decide to get them across - by being rude, harsh, aggressive, and unsympathetic to anyone's views other than your own. |
|
Date: 7/3/2010 12:14:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63846
Also, Deb, if you wish to continue your "discussion" (although it sounds much less like a discussion and more like a debate) with DP, you may not have noticed from OUR little chit-chat, but USM does have a private messaging system. That means that you don't have to make us privy to your little debate there. I simply fail to understand how that hasn't yet crossed your mind. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/4/2010 10:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Here's a friendly good-bye to you two. If DP wishes to address me in this post, then I will respond if it warrants a response. Happy INDEPENDENCE Day! God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/4/2010 11:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Yeesh, I take a few days off and look what happens! The only point I sought to make, (In cases where a life’s at stake), Is that we should apply a test, To figure out what’s for the best, The best way to work out what’s needed, Is to make sure the patient’s words are heeded, But if the patient cannot say, We need to find another way, First, (staying with the patient still) We look to see if there’s a will, If not, and things look really grim, Then we should find the next of kin, (But if these turn out to be suspicious, Then we should override their wishes) |
|
Date: 7/4/2010 3:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Well, one thing is for sure: you are quite proficient in prose. But, what is the substance of that prose? That the government should devise a test to determine the worthiness as to whether or not a person should be give the option to die? Here in the U.S. there are legal instruments which give directives as to whether a person should be resuscitated or kept alive with artificial means (heroic measures). If a person is kept alive, non-functioning except for presence of life due to medical wizardry, is it just to ask the next of kin if they want to choose to end that person's life? Why put anyone on life support in the first place? Is it an ego-driven act on the part of the medical profession? If that is not the scenario you are envisioning, then my other question for you is what method do you propose as to how to kill someone who doesn't want to live in the condition they find themselves in? Comfort medication (a euphemism, IMHO, of a lethal injection) such as the case of the babies in France? And who does the killing? Those who have made the choice or medical professionals? God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/4/2010 4:02:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 63846
I posted that prior to Independence Day. And also, just message him back. He'll get the picture. |
|
Date: 7/4/2010 5:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
The central idea behind my position is a rejection of the principle that life should always be preserved regardless of a patient’s wishes or quality of live. In the case of, for example, an elderly person suffering the early stages of a debilitating disease, I believe that if he reaches a point where he wants to end his own life, he should be assisted to ensure that he can do so as painlessly as possible (provided that he is of sound mind). Abortion presents a different set of questions, since it is not at all clear that what is being aborted is morally equivalent to a person, at every stage of pregnancy, or in some rare cases (as with anencephaly), after birth. |
|
Date: 7/6/2010 10:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
DP, guns, running cars (in enclosed spaces), pills, and using one's imagination, are not against the law here. That someone wants to end their life is their choice (that is the justification for abortion, isn't it) and there is no need for the government to sanction that unless it is to allow the government to sanction the deed, just as with abortion. So I've asked you how you envision the government to do the deed? If you are going to throw these ideas out there, shouldn't there be a completed thought on how to accomplish what it is you are advocating? Should there be government licensed "lethal injection dens" (helping to alleviate all the commercial real estate vacancies!) whereupon one can take and witness the death of a loved one for a price? The real deal costing $100, the diluted version $50, and the barely there -- but it eventually will kill you -- dose for $25? God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/6/2010 12:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
“That someone wants to end their life is their choice (that is the justification for abortion, isn't it)” I don’t know what you mean by this. Abortion doesn’t involve a person choosing to end their own life, and foetuses are not the sorts of entities which are capable of making choices. My comment above did not refer to people committing suicide on their own, but rather to assisted suicide ( which is necessary in cases where people are unable to end their own lives and desirable if the alternative is that someone would end their lives in a more painful manner without assistance). In terms of how such policies are actually carried out, I refer to the jurisdictions which already provide for the cases I mentioned above. |
|
Date: 7/6/2010 2:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
A cursory examination of the subject of assisted suicide in the world reveals that most countries take the most common sense approach (one which I agree with), and that is one where assisted suicide is neither punished nor expressly prohibited, but neither is it sanctioned (validated) by law. Co-incidentally to the subject of this post, one reason given why countries don’t want to really get involved in this particular issue is due to the resemblance it has to Nazi policies. As far as your mention of choice as regard to abortion, please don’t forget that that is the only reason that has been given on this post/comments as to what constitutes a difference between aborted babies and the termination of life of ethnic Jews. By pointing out that the aborted baby does not have a choice, once again, are you insinuating that the ethnic Jews of the Holocaust had a choice? I have never gotten an answer as to why “choice” is considered a differentiating factor, nor one other single reason as to why you or anyone else thinks aborting babies is different from terminating the lives of ethnic Jews . . . God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/6/2010 6:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Euthanasia_and_the_Law.png suggests that euthanasia is illegal in most jurisdictions. There is a difference between having one’s capacity to choose denied (as with the Jews in this case) and in not being the sort of thing which can exercise choice at all. “I have never gotten an answer as to why “choice” is considered a differentiating factor, nor one other single reason as to why you or anyone else thinks aborting babies is different from terminating the lives of ethnic Jews . . .” One possible response is to argue that Foetuses do not count as moral persons of equal worth with adults because they lack certain critical faculties such as a capacity to feel pain (up to a certain point in development) and self-awareness (ditto). |
|
Date: 7/8/2010 11:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
I stand by my original statement with regard to "assisted" suicide and suggest that the only incidences where anyone is charged with an assisted suicide is where they (the assisters) are wont to publicize their role in such a deed. As far as this argument that you believe that there is some sort of palatable difference between not having a choice and not being given a choice, I personally find such an attempt at differentiation quite vapid. Further, I would put forth the concept that there were many (indeed, most probably the first who went into the gas chambers after being told it was for delousing purposes and were rendered unconscious without any feeling of pain) who "lack(ed) certain critical faculties such as a capacity to feel pain (up to a certain point in development) and self-awareness (ditto)" of what was happening to them, i.e., that their life was being removed. God Bless. |
|
Date: 7/8/2010 1:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
It’s hardly vapid to distinguish between entities who are and who are not capable of making decisions. The extent to which people are able to make choices generally informs a heck of a lot in terms of laws – this is why we have, for example, ages of consent. Also, the self-awareness I mentioned above refers to awareness of oneself as a discrete ontological entity. |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
