The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Infanticide again > Comments

Infanticide again : Comments

By Bill Muehlenberg, published 1/3/2012

Some ethicists argue that human rights don't extend to all humans.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All
Well, at least you didn't advocate saving every sperm and egg.

If you were a raped woman, would you wish to carry "his" violently conceived child ?

Walk in other people's shoes.
Posted by Ralph Bennett, Thursday, 1 March 2012 8:22:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ignoring the 'academic' bashing, baby killing/nazi references etc. I'll summarize what you are attempting to ask in one sentence:

Is it wrong to kill people and if so, what is a person?

Specifically to the abortion debate:

Is a human cell a person? Is a fertilized egg a person? An embryo? A fetus? A newborn?

There is no single point at which we acquire "person-hood". This is a myth derived from the religious invention of a soul.

If you can define what a "person" is, then we can continue this debate. Otherwise were are all arguing about different things.
Posted by Stezza, Thursday, 1 March 2012 8:43:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Bill for bringing this article to my attention.

I feel like vomiting.

To me, it essentially says 'if your baby is a disappointment or inconvinience to you, it is ok to 'do away' with it'.

I can understand abortion in some situations (rape is one), but to do away with your own child because they are going to be a burden on you - I can not fathom that those words are even uttered.

Letting nature take its path (i.e. turning off life support) is different to actually making a decision to kill your baby. The two are chalk and cheese.

EVERY life is precious.
Posted by Pete in Brisbane, Thursday, 1 March 2012 8:48:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The average mother in the developed word gives live birth to less than three children in her lifetime.
With the depletion of our resources that is more than enough.
There will not be a second green revolution and our present population is probably well above a long term sustainable level.
In effect about 300 eggs in the menstrual cycles of each woman's potential childbearing years are destroyed along with millions of her partner’s sperm.
It is strange that many of those who oppose abortion are the philosophical descendants of the people who murdered so called witches (many of whom were only affected by rye flour poisoning) because their ancient god told them to, or so they claimed.
The same fools condemned Galileo for supporting the thesis that the earth went around the sun.
The sensible limit to abortion is that no one has the right to inflict pain or disadvantage on a conscious personality. The foetus in the first few months is not a conscious personality. Even any newborn with no or little prospect of a competently lived and enjoyable life is not a conscious personality.
The human race needs to get its priorities right or our civilization will eventually go over cliff.
All pro-lifers should ask themselves what is their personal priority between an unborn foetus and any one of the 20,000 children who die each day because we do not feed or house them adequately or did not provide adequate birth control measures to their parents.
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 1 March 2012 9:21:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I too felt ill, Pete, when I read an article about this issue earlier today.

In that article Lord Alton, co-chairman of Britain's All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, said that infanticide was the "chilling and unassailable" logical step for a society that permits killing a baby one day before birth. He said, "That the Journal of Medical Ethics should give space to such a proposition illustrates not a slippery slope, but the quagmire into which medical ethics and our wider society have been sucked.

"Personal choice has eclipsed the sacredness, or otherness, of life itself. It is profoundly disturbing, indeed shocking, to see the way in which opinion-formers within the medical profession have ditched the traditional belief of the healer to uphold the sanctity of human life for this impoverished and inhumane defence of child destruction."

You summed it up very well, Stezza, in saying, 'There is no single point at which we acquire "person-hood."' That is why human life in all its forms is sacred from the time of conception.
Posted by Ian D, Thursday, 1 March 2012 9:21:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Australian has the right to argue this case. It's easy to take the moral high ground and dictate that the most profoundly disabled child must live while condemning unfortunate families to a lifetime of unsupported caring and social exclusion. Until this society has worked out that we have a collective responsibility for such children, you should keep your fine arguments to yourself. A member of a society that requires parents in their seventies and eighties to continue caring for a disabled son or daughter they gave birth to five or six decades ago should not be telling us what's right and wrong.
Posted by estelles, Thursday, 1 March 2012 9:50:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Since nobody is advocating 'baby killing', your article is misguided from the start and your irrational prejudices are clearly on display. As Stezza points out, you cannot murder something which is not a person, and you cannot kill something which is not alive; so before you make emotive arguments about 'killing babies' you need to establish criteria for life, and criteria for determining what is or is not 'a baby'. And the rational place to go for that is to the biological sciences.

It would be interesting, then, to see just how many biologists share in your hysteria. I suspect the proportion would be very low.
Posted by Jon J, Thursday, 1 March 2012 10:17:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Jon J
You have it right. I am 'hysterical' AND 'emotive' when it comes to what-ever term you want to give to killing an unwanted baby.

You certainly nailed it on the head - I am unscientific in my assumptions on when life begins - my beleifs are based on terribly un-provable things!

To the contrary, however, the article does clearly discuss 'baby-killing' in the most eloquent language. I assume that a baby is something that is born. And to cease it from living is killing. And the good academics quite clearly justify this on many different grounds.

As I said in my post, letting nature take its path is one thing. Taking pro-active steps to cease anothers life is another.

So excuse me (and Mr Muehlenberg) for being hysterical and unscientific on this topic.
Posted by Pete in Brisbane, Thursday, 1 March 2012 10:39:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
estelles,

Standing ovation!

'This is a myth derived from the religious invention of a soul.'

Seems to be a lot of the problem. I think an easy line to draw (Since this seems to be the bone of contention) would be before the baby is born. Pure and simple. It's a parasite, and then when the cord is cut, it is a person. A potential baby is just that. Miscarriage happens even in late term, nature would have taken the heavily disabled anyway and man is interfering with 'gods will' anyway for the religious when they keep what would previously have been an unviable human alive. So I don't see any difference between a sperm being interrupted on it's journey, or an egg being interfered with by chemicals, or an embryo or a foetus being aborted.

With 7 Billion people or 'souls', we wont miss the odd unwanted one. How do you know they would've even been good people. What about The Omen!
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 1 March 2012 12:21:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*EVERY life is precious*

Let's get real here, Pete. That is great pontification etc, easy
to role out. But I've learned to judge people by what they do and
not by what they say.

Fact is the Pete's of this world are not selling their computers to
save another starving baby in Africa. So I can only assume that
the personal computer is more precious to some, then that baby
which they pontificate about.

Fact is that a person has a human brain, no human brain equals no
person, no matter which way you want to twist things. So you'd be
at about week 23 to make any claims, not holy zygotes.

The holy zygote is purely a religious conception. Fact is that women
have around 300 chances to have another baby, one cuter then the next,
but they can't keep them all. If people had children that were wanted
and loved, there would be alot less suffering and misery in this world.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 1 March 2012 12:23:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Houellebecq

"I think an easy line to draw (Since this seems to be the bone of contention) would be before the baby is born. Pure and simple. It's a parasite, and then when the cord is cut, it is a person"

-and-

"With 7 Billion people or 'souls', we wont miss the odd unwanted one."

My son died when he was one day old. We chose to turn off his life support, because he just did not have enough lung to keep him going. We could have 'interuppted the pregnancy' nice and early and not had to go through the rollercoaster of weekly ultrasounds, painful operations for him (and my wife) in - utero and living with the idea that he may not make it. We had him for one day, and it was all worth it. He was a person WAY before he was born.

Am I coloured by my experience? Of course.

Is a plant just a 'parasite' just because it has not flowered or has not grown fruit? Is a chicken not a chicken until it has hatched? Is an un-born baby just a 'parasite' just because it has not been born?

With 7 billion people or 'souls', you DO miss the odd one, especially if that odd one was your child.
Posted by Pete in Brisbane, Thursday, 1 March 2012 12:31:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pete in Brisbane,

'especially if that odd one was your child.'

Indeed. Sad story but ridiculous example. We're talking about children that are unwanted. People don't abort their children when they're wanted.

A parasite is something that lives off a host. It's an accurate definition and not derogatory at all. The point is it's impossible for it to survive without the host. Birth is the start, not the 12323234234th cell.

'We had him for one day, and it was all worth it.'

You can never know whether it was worth it to him though. In hindsight of course.

'We chose to turn off his life support', I don't think would be acceptable to the religious lot.

There's a bit of inconsistency there because man is 'playing god' with abortions but somehow not playing god when keeping unviable humans alive with technology.

Hey Yabby I wonder how many un-aborted unwanted children turned into homocidal axe weilding maniacs and killed wanted children. I know a guy in his 40s who still struggles with the fact he was adopted out. I keep an eye on him but I don't think he has an axe.

I still think the only sensible way to draw a line is the birth. Even healthy fetus' don't survive birth sometimes. So really you only have a potential human until a successful birth. It's better than drawing a line on some rubbery development milestone based on a fuzzy ultrasound .

The only consistent line I can get with is no medical intervention ever, no wasted sperm ever and no contraception at all and no euthenasia, and the bit about rape I put in earlier just for fun. Not that I agree with it but at least that would be consistent. There should be no barriers to more 'souls', even consent. Denying natural urges to procreate with total strangers is the first point when a potential human is aborted.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 1 March 2012 1:45:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pete in Brisbane,

To most such problems there is a simplistic answer. Like most people, I am saddened by your personal story and find the idea of killing a newborn baby pretty horrible, although Estelle is right about the hypocrisy of pontificating on the right to life of a badly disabled infant and then leaving the unfortunate parents to get on with it without support for the next 50 or 60 years.

Here is a case for you to consider. There is a congenital defect called anencephaly, in which a baby is born with most of its brain missing. It may have a brain stem so that it can breathe, but all the parts of the brain that are associated with higher functions or consciousness just don't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

Such babies inevitably die within a few days no matter what is done. Some parents of such children in the US have wanted to donate their perfectly good organs (including lungs?) to save the lives of several other babies, so that some good could come out of their family's tragedy. If the surgeons wait for nature to take its course, then the organs will have deteriorated to the point where they are useless. So far, however, courts have refused to declare such a baby legally dead so that the organs can be used. No doubt the Bill Muhlenbergs of this world would be glad that the sanctity of life has been upheld, even if it results in more dead bodies.
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 1 March 2012 1:52:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Bill for standing up for the weakest and most vulnerable of the human family. You've shown the two ways before us but I fear admitting our guilt now will be too much to bear for us now, unless we can also believe in some supernatural agency for redemption.

@Pete. A knockdown argument. Thank you.

Human capacities lacking in the young because they've yet to be actualised, or lacking because in abeyance in the sick and infirm, or attenuating in the elderly, is no criteria for determining humanity and our natural right to life. Here lies the arbitrary boundaries of the eugenicist, euthaniser, and feticidal maniac. They are the arbitrary metaphysical boundaries created by Power, a caste system of the 'truly human' that the elite intellectuals just happen to find puts them with the Brahmins.

Our 'elite' can imagine spending trillions of working class taxpayer dollars chasing atmospheric geo-engineering projects, and re-ordering industrial society, but create conditions in which their babies are welcomed into life? Overpopulation! (lie), reproductive choice! (evil Orwellianism), sexual freedom! (keep them out of marriage and we can be rid of them and their spawn).

The elite can never admit their guilt, presiding over the greatest mass murder in human history. They would turn over the country to foreign conquerers , legalise cannibalism, anything, before admitting what abortion really means.

Mark Shea:
"How in hell do you argue in such a way as to supply fundamental moral intuitions to blithering moral idiots? If a person can’t see that slitting an infant’s throat is a Bad Thing, what possible method of moral suasion can be used to make a moral imbecile–and particularly a highly educated moral imbecile–capable of the sense God gave a goose? I sometimes begin to suspect that the violence of the Old Testament was sometimes the only language fallen man could understand and that treatises on ethics for cretins who hurled babies into the flames were not as educational as the siege, famine, slaughter and exile God in fact permitted in his providence.

We are a civilization facing an awful reckoning."
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 1 March 2012 2:07:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ Divergence & Houellebecq,

Thank you for your condolences (and sorry about my spelling!)

Divergence, we actually did look to see if the Dr's could use our boy's organs for other babies, but the timing etc was not right. We thought exactly what you thought - if it was not ment to be for our boy, perhaps he could give another a better chance. And certainly like you said, there certainly are situations where any type of long-term living is just non-compatible. For me, we knew that we gave our boy the best shot at life and we are comfortable with that decision.

@Houellebecq:
"'We chose to turn off his life support', I don't think would be acceptable to the religious lot.

There's a bit of inconsistency there because man is 'playing god' with abortions but somehow not playing god when keeping unviable humans alive with technology."

I think you are right, there is an inconsistency. We knew we gave our boy the best shot at life. We had to wait until he was born until we found out if he was 'unviable' (in your words) or not. When it was very clear that he was not going to make it, then we turned off the machines. So yes, there is an inconsistency. The difference for us, however, was not that we tried to prolong something that was not ment to be OR to 'kill off any chances early'; it was us knowing we gave him the best shot.

I like to think we can agree that is is such a shame that a choice would have to be made that a baby / unborn baby (whatever term you want to give it) would be unwanted, weather it be because of rape, terminal illness etc and then be 'gotten rid of'. We can all dream though!

In the 'real world', everything is grey.

I just think it is incredibly sad that such a hard decision can be so coldly written about by these academics.

Yabby, Divergence & Houellebecq,I have enjoyed hearing your point of veiw. It certainly has challenged me!
Posted by Pete in Brisbane, Thursday, 1 March 2012 2:13:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The comments made under the article are just scary. The Australian people are malignant narcissists and pompous, arrogantly self-serving. It just scares me this kind of attitude, and their willingness to collaborate with killing children overseas. Yikes!
Posted by jcgirl1979, Thursday, 1 March 2012 2:21:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for this article Bill.

A couple of responses to the comments (Part 1 of 2):

@Foyle - you were a foetus once, do you feel like a person? You have the same DNA today as you did the day you were conceived, why do you think you would have been less of a person then than you are now? Same question could be posed to anyone in here

@Pete in Brisbane - why would you oppose abortion but not in cases of rape? Abortion in cases of rape attribute to less than 1% of all abortions. A baby conceived in rape is no less a person, with no less of a right to life than anyone else. You may like to read up on a facebook page called Conceived in Rape Awareness. Did you know that Layne Beachley was conceived in rape? It's almost like telling her, or others who were, that they have a right to not be here simply because of how they came to be....
Posted by kirst-f, Thursday, 1 March 2012 2:41:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*You have the same DNA today as you did the day you were conceived*

Interestingly every cell in the body contains the same dna. Losing
a bit of skin, does not create a person. The zygote is a not a
person, but cells. An acorn is not an oak tree either.

What fascinates me is this so called "right to life". Catholics
go on about "the natural law". Well in nature the offspring need
parents willing to look after them, or they die a cruel death.
As Darwin pointed out, far more potential beings will be created,
then can ever survive. He was right. The church seems to apply the
natural law as it suits their dogma.

Houllie, when Bush saw to it that abortion clinics were shut down
in the third world, by cutting off funding, I followed the stories
at the time. In Ethiopia, where they pop em out far faster they
can ever feed them, they had to make some tough decisions. Some
simply left them out for the hyenas to take care of. Those are
the sorts of unintended consequences of the actions of the religious
lobby, all very sad really.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 1 March 2012 2:55:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ralph Bennett, lookup Rebecca Kiessling.
"Walk in other people's shoes."
Just what I would say to you.

Stezza, great! I have decided that until you can define what an 'argument' is, we can't have a debate.
Actually, forget that, I have just decided that you are not a person.
Why?
Does it matter?

Foyle, of course, there is excellent and abundantly relevant logic in bringing up Galileo.
You know what? I think I will decide you do not have a "conscious personality".
You might protest this, which I might find a tad hypocritical.

estelles, yeah, I agree, why should 50 or 60 year old people be continued to allowed to live when they're obviously just a burden and useless eaters. Just kill 'em now and call it post-birth abortion, eh?

Jon J, I believe you are being hysterical as I decide that you are a non-person. Tough.

Houellebecq, yeah why should fusion of the chromosomes of the mother and father at conception be considered a scientific moment, eh? I mean, that's certainly a 'religious' definition isn't it?

Yabby, oh well, I guess we can just ignore that brainwaves are measurable at about 7 weeks, can't we? I'm so glad you have endorsed killing the innocent to save them "misery in this world". And as for that BRILLIANT connect with Africa and laptop computers, I am forever now for abortion due to the scything logic there. Yabby, why O why did I ever go pro-life when you cast such a massive shadow with the impenetrability of THAT argument? :-D

Houellebecq, yes, because abortions are EXACTLY like turning off life-support on a child that cannot live. I mean, who wouldn't think that cutting the unborn into pieces might be the same as being unable to save a child? Makes perfect sense to me.

Etc. etc.
_____________

I really don't need to add anything. All of you who defend this condemn yourselves as you demonstrate in a public forum having a twisted conscience similar to the sickest mass murderers that ever walked the earth. You walk in utter darkness.
Posted by Stephan, Thursday, 1 March 2012 3:08:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmm where did part 2 of 2 go?

@Jon J - you're right, and medical science has proven that we each all came to be at the moment of conception. Pretty conclusive as to when life begins huh... The article Bill's referring to clearly states that the ethicists in question are uncomfortable with the term baby-killing or murder, they prefer after-birth abortion. Why would that be uncomfortable? Why change the language if there's 'nothing wrong with it'?

@Houellebecq - how do you know we won't miss them? Perhaps we already do? Perhaps the person who was to cure cancer has been aborted? How about your family....if one of your parents had been aborted, then you wouldn't be here. Perhaps one of their parents? Then a whole branch of your family tree wouldn't be here. People seem to forget that abortion does not simply affect that one baby, and that one mother. It affects the father, the current and future siblings, the future children and grandchildren. It affects generations, and can have a significant effect on how the world 'could' have been. And again, how is the 'wantedness' of a baby the deciding factor of whether or not they are a person permissible to be aborted? THAT is what's ridiculous, not Pete in Brisbane's situation. Switching someone's life support off, when they are not going to survive is completely different than abortion, and not even close to what would be considered unacceptable to 'that religious lot'.

@Yabby - the human brain is the first organ to appear in foetal development, and it happens at 2 weeks 4 days post conception, not 23 weeks. I'll be happy to refer you to my source. How about when a heart is present? Well, that starts beating at 21 days post conception. Both dates at which an abortion clinic will tell you is too 'early' to terminate in case the 'pregnancy' is missed. Believe me, we're all very well developed at the age from which abortions occur. Not to mention it is legal in Victoria to have an abortion up until the day of birth...
Posted by kirst-f, Thursday, 1 March 2012 3:12:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello darkness...
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 1 March 2012 3:14:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jcgirl1979, Thurs 1 March, 2:21pm - a few comments on a blog-thread, so you say -

" .. the Australian people are malignant narcissists and pompous, arrogantly self-serving... [willing] to collaborate with killing children overseas."??

Puhlease! Besides, note how Bill Muehlenberg argues for capital punishment -

" .. No one argues that those warranting the death penalty have somehow become non-persons. It is exactly because they are persons, and have committed heinous crimes against other persons (such as murder), that the state takes these issues so seriously."
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 1 March 2012 3:18:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It occurred to me the author did not give links to the articles he referred to, but simply his interpretation of what was stated, and I wonder why?

It would be good to get access to the mentioned articles to see exactly what these academics are advocating.

Iran has shown the world that population can be reduced by state and religous sponsored education in birth control. Just google birth control Iran and you will see theey lowered the birth rate from about 6.5 per woman to about 1.8 by education and providing the means.
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 1 March 2012 3:24:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meanwhile of course Bill is a fully paid up promoter of the never ending so called war on terror. Pure Orwellian double-speak. He was most probably an enthusiastic supporter of the illegal invasion of Iraq.

This reference describes and pictures the toxic legacy of the invasion via the use of depleted uranium.
A legacy which will last for generations both in the Middle East, in the children of USA soldiers, and maybe even the entire world as the toxic dust spreads all over the planet.

http://thewe.cc/weplanet/news/depleted_uranium_iraq_afghanistan_balkans.html
Posted by Daffy Duck, Thursday, 1 March 2012 3:37:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further to Bill Muehlenberg's comments taking capital punishment seriously -

" .. No one argues that those warranting the death penalty have somehow become non-persons. It is exactly because they are persons, and have committed heinous crimes against other persons (such as murder), that the state takes these issues so seriously."

Which 'state' are you referring to, Bill?

Sounds like An "Authorization of the Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life" (Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens).
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 1 March 2012 3:42:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The fact that embryos are now being destroyed does not mean it is morally licit."

Doesn't mean their use to produce children is morally licit, either. Or, that the destruction of surplus embryos, or their use for medical research, is morally illicit.

The discussion, outlined by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minervais, is Not "a great abuse of medical ethics and the academic community", nor is it "a sign of barbarism and regress".
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 1 March 2012 3:49:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' Perhaps the person who was to cure cancer has been aborted? How about your family....if one of your parents had been aborted, then you wouldn't be here. Perhaps one of their parents? Then a whole branch of your family tree wouldn't be here. People seem to forget that abortion does not simply affect that one baby, and that one mother. It affects the father, the current and future siblings, the future children and grandchildren. It affects generations, and can have a significant effect on how the world 'could' have been.'

LMFAO!

The exact same thing can be said for the use of contraception. If your Aunty had balls she'd be your Uncle. That's about the level of relevance of that little spiel.

The exact same thing can be said for the reformed rapist. If he decided to continue on his merry way, he may have raped a woman who decided out of some misguided religious belief (Or a love of surfing) that she wanted to have the baby. We have been robbed by that reformed rapist of the cure for cancer!

Hell, even the woman who had a headache in Iran last night has robbed us of the next Ali Javan!

And that woman in America who remmebered to take her pill last night has saved the world from the next Bette Midler!

As I said before, there should be no barriers to more 'souls', even consent! Denying natural urges to procreate with unconsenting strangers is the first point when a potential human is aborted. If you see a man or woman you fancy, it is your ethical duty to rape them as if you don't you are robbing the world of a soul who could be the next Roy Slaven.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 1 March 2012 3:49:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*How about when a heart is present?*

So Krist-f, if we give you a heart transplant from a chimp, a pig
or an artificial one, will you no longer be a person without your
heart? That should answer your question.

*I guess we can just ignore that brainwaves are measurable at about 7 weeks, can't we*

Err yes Stephan, we have the developing brain stem. So do crocodiles.
But no neortex, which happens at around week 23. No neocortex equals
no person, its the only bit of the brain that is different to other
species and is what makes us human.

As to you going pro life, do what you like. But we all here can see
that you clearly value your computer more then you value another
starving baby in Africa, so its reasonable to point out that you
are simply pontificating, which is a human foible, I know.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 1 March 2012 4:00:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leaving foetuses to one side for one side for the moment: is it ethical to kill Vulcans? You know, the guys off Star Trek with the pointy ears and the excellent poker faces. T'Pol from Star Trek: Enterprise and Tuvok from Star Trek: Voyager are both Vulcan; Spock from the original series is half Vulcan/half human.

Yes, I realise they don't actually exist: this is what is called a 'thought experiment'. So just pretend that there really is a race of wise, peaceful and scholarly aliens called the Vulcans. Despite their humanoid appearance they have pointy ears, green blood, greater physical strength and endurance than humans, significantly longer lifespans and markedly different brain physiology. They definitely aren't human: is it okay murder them in cold blood? What about Spock - he's half human/half not human. What is his moral status?

I think most of you would agree that no, it isn't okay to murder Vulcans. Why is not okay to murder them? Because they are people too. People with green blood, pointy ears etc. Which shows that personhood is a concept that transcends mere biology: the fact that we can even imagine a race like the Vulcans demonstrates that humanity and personhood are not identical ideas. So what makes a person a person? I'll leave that one as an exercise for philosophers.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 1 March 2012 4:16:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hilarious!

Daffy Duck avoids the subject by writing about the war in Iraq when the topic is about advocating killing newborn children.

McReal avoids the subject by writing about capital punishment when the topic is about advocating killing newborn children.

Houellebecq is a lost cause who can't even determine the difference between a real human and the potential to make one.

and Yabby is convinced that his completely arbitrary determination of when life begins is valid, and is laughably still arguing that using laptops is mutually exclusive with being pro-life!

And NONE of them seem to realise that their only point of agreement with each other is that they would do ANYTHING other than align with the straightforward science that life begins at conception, something almost as obvious as rain coming from clouds. Which would mean chaos in practical terms if you applied that range of ideas into life.

But it really isn't so funny I guess. These people are intellectual children and moral reprobates equivalent to the most evil murderers. If you cannot stand the defence of innocent life, you equally deserve the strongest form of denunciation possible. You have crossed the line into a zone where no-one is safe.
Posted by Stephan, Thursday, 1 March 2012 5:24:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whoever thinks that there are too many people on the planet and aggressive pro-active steps are needed to save the planet,then they should be the first to volunteer for the great human cull,which many environmentalists are actively pursuing without including themselves.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 1 March 2012 5:27:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course moral affections attach to people who seem to be like us, vulcans would be included. But would the rationalistic vulcans let an abortionist anywhere near their children? Absolutely not! it is utterly illogical, for it would be murder.

A baby vulcan is nothing other than a vulcan who has yet to develop all its intrinsic capacities, and is dependent on others by degree. An 13 y.o. is undeveloped and dependent in this sense, why murder them? Any criterion introduced in order to de-humanise our intended victims so we can murder them, will just be arbitrary and exclude vast amounts from the embrace of the human family, and it means oceans of blood.

Black people and Jews weren't considered persons either, they 'weren't like' the rest of us according to Powerful interests and de-humanised as rats or another sub-human species. The powerful and intellectuals were able to get everyone to go along with pogroms and chattel slavery. Everyone goes along with murdering very young human beings, who are just like we were, because the plutarchy is utterly dependent on it, it's legitimacy is staked upon baby corpses now.

Sex makes babies, but sex is needed to sell things, feminism (implicit masculinism) has successfully taught that a women's freedom is constituted by her liberty to kill her daughter. So the state and big money conspire to sell female fertility for cheap labour, and baby blood for the ideal sold as 'career and consumption' i.e. profit. Just like the cotton gin made chattel slavery pay.

The whole rotten nihilistic edifice is elite driven culture war on families http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF09H36.pdf (Family Research Council) and the parasitic class' journalists defend their own in the MSM.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 1 March 2012 5:44:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Much ado about nothing here!

In case people haven't noticed, global politics are about economic and commercial viabilities.

It makes no economic sense to kill infants, the elderly or disabled as they are profitable for companies that supply their needs.

However I think we all recognise that global population growths must be reversed in all countries till a 6 billion sustainability ceiling is reached. Otherwise human caused crises like climate change and energy(oil) wars & attendant diseases will consume the whole species.

To that end, forcing women to have only one child per lifetime (satisfactory ways exist) satisfies the sustainability criterion and is a hell of a commercial boon because it keeps women(1/2 of the workforce) employed and up to speed for up to 80% more global productivity

Only immature, sexually insecure dolts who are a nuisance to society would disagree.

But to let idiots drag the entire human race into hormonally charged wars is a great case for keeping global populations around the 6 billion mark.

If populations drop too far its easy to open the baby flood gates in a controlled and globally equal manner.

That women do not have the intelligence to understand this, support it and thrive on it is foreign to my knowledge of the hearts and minds of modern women.

If I'm wrong then bring on the neutron bombs because that is the alternative in rather short (decadal) order.
Posted by KAEP, Thursday, 1 March 2012 5:54:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KAEP,Prince Charles and Maurice Strong( ex Secretary of the UN + Oil Billionaire) are on record in wanting to reduce the world's populuation by 90%.Those who back them want it done soon.We have a few lunatics who are pursuing Global Genocide in the form of war,chemical and biological means,food control,monetary control and control of our Govts.

They have all their under ground cities not bunkers at the ready.Prof Chris Busby has found evidence at Fallujah in Iraq of Uranium refined beyond Depleted Uranium; meaning weapons grade nuclear bombs on a small scale.He suspects the USA have an advanced mini nuke which they think gives them a edge over China/Russia.Now how insane are the psychopaths on our side?
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 1 March 2012 6:21:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*and Yabby is convinced that his completely arbitrary determination of when life begins is valid,*

I made no such claim, Stephan, so you are shooting down your own
strawman arguments it seems.

For of course life simply continues, sperms and eggs are not dead.
My point is that a zygote is not a person, a child or even a baby.

We flush live sperms and eggs down toilets daily, witout a second
thought, but suddenly the zygote becomes holy.

Holy sperms come straight out of the Catholic book of dogma, based
on Onan's holy sperms from the old testament. I reject their dogma.

My point about when a fetus could be classified as becoming a
person, is a valid one and you are free to disprove it.

As to you valuing your computer more highly then saving a starving
baby, its once again correct, as we all can see. Joke about it all
you want, but that is the reality.

So don't come preaching to me

Where I have a problem is the unintended consequnces of all this
in the world, especially the third world. Much poverty and misery,
hunger and suffering, due to religious dogma. How sad.

Zygotes don't think, feel or suffer, people do.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 1 March 2012 6:44:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@KAEP. Humans are not drones for big money turbo-capitalism. Though they try to insist we are.

Only the deranged could suggest we murder our children in order participate in the world. We are dignified human beings not some species of homo economicus. KAEP KEEP your corporate hivemind mentality. Thanks but no thanks.

You need a lesson in demography. Fertility rates can't be turned on like a tap. There is a point of no return. No society in history has recovered from a fertility rate of 1.3. Taxes too high supporting ageing population; workforce contraction; families can't afford 2 let alone the 4 required to rebalance the population pyramid; nor is there a way to instantly overcome the inertia and conditions that produced the crisis in the first place. It takes 20 yrs for the next generation to start contributing to general revenue, by that time it is too late.

Demography 101
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBS6f-JVvTY&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL838DE67E3DB9025B

Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse: Why Civilisations Die
http://atimes.com/atimes/global_economy/ml13dj05.html
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 1 March 2012 7:13:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Who are you kidding Martin? Most of the people on this planet are slaves to a banking system that expresses their worth as debt.They are the debt slaves of those who counterfeit their currencies.

We are witnessing it right now in the $ trillions,yet the scammers continue to deny it.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 1 March 2012 7:23:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Arjay,

You wrote,

"Whoever thinks that there are too many people on the planet and aggressive pro-active steps are needed to save the planet,then they should be the first to volunteer for the great human cull,which many environmentalists are actively pursuing without including themselves ".

How about 2 children at around 30 years of age and balanced migration. That is 70,000 out ,then bring in 70,000.

No culling required. I guess you are religious, so by doing this you can use the brain that God gave you and you can preserve the beauty of God's natural world. Rather than your design of trashing the planet.

Cheers,

Ralph
Posted by Ralph Bennett, Thursday, 1 March 2012 10:18:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin

Enjoy your sandpit demography 101.

The rest of the PhD's have moved way on.

Look up neutron bomb in your Funk and Wagnel, dude!

And then decide if asking your woman to only have one child per lifetime is a better option on an increasingly overpopulated and gridlocked planet.

Hint: only a drone could not answer this correctly.
Posted by KAEP, Thursday, 1 March 2012 11:03:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>And NONE of them seem to realise that their only point of agreement with each other is that they would do ANYTHING other than align with the straightforward science that life begins at conception<<

Wow, no kidding? I can see you must have been top of your biology class.

You've managed to miss the entire point of the argument, Stephan. Everybody knows life begins at conception: but this applies as pigs just as much as it does to people. I happily pay other people to murder and butcher pigs for me so that I can cook and eat their delicious flesh. Clearly, the taking of life only matters sometimes. Even hardcore vegans swat mosquitoes.

The question that matters is: when is it wrong to take a life? When that life is human? What about in self-defence? And if only human lives are sacred where does that leave the poor Vulcans? Where does it leave Spock, with a foot in both camps? Or is it when that life belongs to a person? If that is the case we have to determine what a person is. Is being human all there is to being a person, or are there other criteria to take into account beyond mere biology?

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 1 March 2012 11:56:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have some interesting points here. Some people are defining a "person" as a fertilized egg, however Stephan seems unable to explain the difference between a fertilized egg and other diploid cells. What makes one more special than the other? Many seem to attach magical properties to the human race, which can only come from religious indoctrination.

Tony Lavis makes a good point that we value life not based on the level of human, but on other factors that we relate to as humans.

So, how do we value human life? Are all "people" equal, from a single fertilized egg to a 10 year old child to a 99 year old cancer patient? I think not. The fact is, killing anything (human or animal) is not nice. Nothing that is alive (including plants and bacteria) wants to die. The taking of life is justifiable, and necessary, however we must judge the value of all life before taking it. To me and many other people single celled organisms are not valued in the same way as multicellular organisms. You can extend these comparisons to other animal/species/developmental groups. Note: Without killing, none of you would be alive today. The fact that you pontificate due to the fact that you have drawn a different line in a grey area just shows your ignorance and pseudo moral superiority.
Posted by Stezza, Friday, 2 March 2012 12:27:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stezza - I have a few issues with your arguments.

"Many seem to attach magical properties to the human race, which can only come from religious indoctrination." I think you will find there are a large number of people here whose views are not based on any sort of religious belief. There are many scientific reasons for distinguishing humans from other life forms as well as philosophical ones. Note that I am not saying value human life more, or less, than other life forms, just see them differently.

What is your definition of equality? Mine is to do with how we value someone and therefore do indeed see all humans as equal. Note; equal does not mean the same. My wife is somewhat different to me and I appreciate the differences!

"The fact that you pontificate due to the fact that you have drawn a different line in a grey area just shows your ignorance and pseudo moral superiority." Wow! Glad that's not a morally superior statement. Oh, wait...

Stezza, I'm glad you have an opinion in this area, and I realise it is an area in which people feel strongly, but I think you need to learn to value the opinions of others a little more and not resort to cheap shots and generalisations.
Posted by rational-debate, Friday, 2 March 2012 7:37:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you read my posts you would see that I am neither forcing my opinion on the abortion issue, nor attacking others opinions. I am merely asking questions of those who take a moral stand and state that everyone behind their arbitrarily drawn line is an immoral baby killing nazi. If people realized that their own position does not stand up to scrutiny, then perhaps it will prevent them forcing their opinions onto others.

We all value life differently, but a pregnant woman has more of a right to decide to have an abortion than anyone else.

"There are many scientific reasons for distinguishing humans from other life forms as well as philosophical ones"

Such as?
Posted by Stezza, Friday, 2 March 2012 7:51:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"... the straightforward science that life begins at conception, something almost as obvious as rain coming from clouds."
Posted by Stephan, Thursday, 1 March 2012 5:24:01 PM

"Everybody knows life begins at conception."
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 1 March 2012 11:56:56 PM

Conception, in sexual reproduction, is a *continuation of life*: a single living cell - a sperm - enters another living cell - an egg [ovum] - to provide the double DNA machinery to start to manufacture an organism. It often goes awry, naturally - in about 50% of conceptions ie. ~50% die, naturally (by design?)

".. These people are intellectual children and moral reprobates equivalent to the most evil murderers. If you cannot stand the defence of innocent life, you equally deserve the strongest form of denunciation possible. You have crossed the line into a zone where no-one is safe."
Posted by Stephan, Thursday, 1 March 2012 5:24:01 PM

- Rhetorical nonsense.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 2 March 2012 8:42:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The purpose of my comment and the reference to the now inter-generational tragedy caused by depleted uranium was to provide a wider context in pointing out that, contrary to his rhetoric, Bill is not as pro-life as he pretends to be.

Such deliberately caused suffering was at the time dismissed and justified as "collateral damage".
Posted by Daffy Duck, Friday, 2 March 2012 12:45:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only nonsense, McReal, is how people without a moral compass try to defend baby killing for the most absurd of reasons - that don't stand up to scrutiny. Actually, it's not really nonsense, nonsense can be fun - THIS is totally evil on a similar level as Auschwitz. Moral relativism and no conscience - you people defending this for ANY reason should be UTTERLY ashamed of yourselves. Seriously, it's disgraceful and morally equivalent to mass murder.

The unique DNA code formed when the genetic material of the mother and father fuse is genetically 100% equal to the information in an adult. Deliberately destroying that information to achieve the point where it cannot live any more is murder.

Draw the line of the beginning of life at any other point other than conception and you are on a road to hell - as the article above demonstrates!

Stop being obtuse.
Posted by Stephan, Friday, 2 March 2012 12:46:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Even were it true, Daffy, it's 100% irrelevant. You seem to think personal attacks are an argument. You're only confirming what I wrote. The subject is 'after-birth abortion'.
Posted by Stephan, Friday, 2 March 2012 12:58:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@rational-debate.

I understand you want to try and help people out of, what is to normal people impossible to even contemplate. You want to be careful not to alienate. Perhaps it crossed your mind attitudes so incomprehensible could only be the product of a child mind or one so emotionally broken as to require the gentle manner of a crisis counsellor. But even children could not mistake killing babies for anything other than repellently evil. Only years of wilfully entertained and nurtured thoughts could inure someone to such wickedness.

Please remember your interlocutor is guilty of incitement to murder - there is no charity at all in tolerating speech of this kind, in fact it shows a cruelty to those threatened.

By rejecting the standards within which any rational debate can take place they by definition self exile from social life.

The only discussion to be had is who will take responsibility for investing taxpayer money in educating, employing, and nurturing the moral monsters responsible for this published article. And what the contact details are of our elected representatives.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Friday, 2 March 2012 1:20:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Deliberately destroying that information to achieve the point where it cannot live any more is murder.*

Not so Stephan, because of course you like anybody else, would be
regularly flushing genetic information down the toilet and not
think twice about it.

Murder applies to people and as we have shown and concluded, zygotes
are not people.

Personally I am for a world with less suffering, misery and poverty
and as Darwin made clear, far more of any species will be created, then can
ever survive. He was correct of course, the limitation
is on resources to raise the offspring, not on creating them.

Geldorf learned the hard way, when he went to save Africa. 20 years
later, there were twice as many to feed and even more starving babies.

Even Stephan cannot defy the laws of nature and if we follow Stephan's
morals, we will continue to have more hunger, misery and suffering.
How sad and pointless, all for a bit of religous dogma.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 2 March 2012 1:38:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Is being human all there is to being a person, or are there other criteria to take into account beyond mere biology?'

Existing outside the womb is a good start.

'The fact that you pontificate due to the fact that you have drawn a different line in a grey area just shows your ignorance and pseudo moral superiority.'

Too true.

'I think you need to learn to value the opinions of others a little more and not resort to cheap shots and generalisations'

What like 'These people are intellectual children and moral reprobates equivalent to the most evil murderers'?

'Draw the line of the beginning of life at any other point other than conception and you are on a road to hell - as the article above demonstrates!'

What about before conception? Sperm is alive!

Here's a good one. Once we get cloning down pat, is it OK to waste any DNA that could be used to make a human. Or say if the DNA has been used to so far make a foetus, if you then decide you've made a hash of it is it ok to throw it away. I mean I saw those half Alien half Sigourney Weavers and they were an abomination! But they were a person, existing outside the womb and having DNA!

I reckon a woman has ownership of what's inside, or really, part of her own body. If she cuts a tumour out is that as bad as an abortion at 4 weeks? The tumor would have grown and grown, and it's living, and has DNA. The foetus may have miscarried anyway.

If you say, well, the foetus would have grown a brain and hence become a human, well, we're back to a potential human. It's all about potential. I reckon it's no sure thing of being a human until it's no longer part of the mother.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 2 March 2012 1:53:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just out of curiosity, does anyone here advocate that newborn babies, toddlers or children be legally allowed to drink, smoke, vote, drive or have sex?
Posted by Clownfish, Friday, 2 March 2012 2:33:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This certainly is one of the those threads which is put up all over the place on a regular basis.

..

It is to me something which has the potential to be better defined by starting with a review with follow up legislation on what exactly constitutes "religious freedom" in current day Australia.

..

For my part, I have always been pro the biological mothers right to choose, irrespective of whether it be simply a personal preference or otherwise.

In my first marriage when I was younger, my wife of that time had 2 terminations. I was simply strongly disinclined, we were insufficiently financially secure and my partner was studying.

..

Having said that though, in the aftermath of our separation and eventual divorce, and based on some of her comments, it may be in fact that she long harbored some resentment towards me because of it.

..

With my present wife, and excepting medical emergency or criminal tragedy in which case the little bleeder would be in the medical waste bucket pronto, I would otherwise not ever suggest the invasive and not entirely risk free medical procedure of termination even if it were inconvenient or unplanned, out of fear to damage the Love core within the inner being of my BeLoved.

(and I remain disinclined to have a biological child for a number reasons though note with trepidation that my BeLoved is subjecting me to an ongoing program of "interrogarsee & rehabilitarsee" a la Indonesian style, which can incidentally include follow up "muteelarsee" if I fail to answer correctly.)

;-)

T.B.C.
Posted by DreamOn, Friday, 2 March 2012 2:44:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But back to the argument, perhaps if we consider this for a moment outside the confines of time, then indeed we are dealing, as has been commented on here several times, with an Entity that could be.

(or perhaps already is in some regards)

Perhaps a greater understanding of particle physics may indeed arrive at evidenced based additional dimensions from which facts emerge to give us pause to reconsider the current "line" again.

However, do we create a right at law for the unBorn and make that to be greater than that of the current limited right of the biological mother to choose?

I would say as regards to this and also as to issue of recognising at law the sanctification of gay couples for legal marriage, if you want to respect the freedom of religion of all members of the Australian community, then you must not allow

(by choosing wisely whom to vote for)

a moral view which stems from one group's belief system to be imposed by legislation on another, else, you become, and perhaps are to a certain extent, more of a theocratic democracy than anything else.
Posted by DreamOn, Friday, 2 March 2012 2:51:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>THIS is totally evil on a similar level as Auschwitz. Moral relativism and no conscience - you people defending this for ANY reason should be UTTERLY ashamed of yourselves. Seriously, it's disgraceful and morally equivalent to mass murder.<<

>>Draw the line of the beginning of life at any other point other than conception and you are on a road to hell<<

>>You seem to think personal attacks are an argument.<<

Do you actually stop and read your own posts, Stephan?

And why are you still belaboring this point about conception? Is there actually anybody in this discussion arguing that life doesn't begin at conception for sexually reproducing organisms? I haven't noticed that. Are you sure you're not just attacking strawmen because you don't know how to respond to some of the arguments which have been made? Even if you're not: I fully, 100%, agree with your argument that life begins at conception for sexually reproducing organisms. That has been established. Now: is it always wrong to take a life?
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 2 March 2012 2:52:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stephan, Fri 2 March, 12:46pm

I haven't made any attempt to "try to defend baby killing", let alone "for the most absurd of reasons".

There is no baby killing, let alone any widespread "defending of baby killing".

I have nothing to be ashamed of, let alone be "UTTERLY ashamed of".

The unique DNA code formed when the genetic material of the mother and father fuse is *often Not* genetically 100% equal to the information in an adult. As I stated, up to 50% of conceptuses die soon after conception, often because their genetic code cannot produce a viable foetus. Therefore, one might say creation is "deliberately destroying that information to achieve the point where it cannot live any more is murder."

"Draw the line of the beginning of life at any other point other than conception and you are on a road to hell."

Well, I do not draw a line "of the beginning of life" for philosophical, biological reasons I outlined above -

>>Conception, in sexual reproduction, is a *continuation of life*: a single living cell - a sperm - enters another living cell - an egg [ovum] ... <<

The FULL ARTICLE under discussion is HERE -

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full.pdf+html

Oh, and hell is an unsubstantiated notion.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 2 March 2012 3:40:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having read the article in the BMJ I can't help but feel that the author of this opinion piece may have misconstrued it. It is in fact a fairly powerful argument about why abortion is wrong. If one can't find a moral distinction between a fetus and a newborn then if it is wrong to kill a newborn then it must also be wrong to kill a fetus. As much as the article did advocate killing unwanted babies, it would not surprise me if it was written tongue in cheek, to make those supporters of abortion reconsider their moral position.
Posted by Rhys Jones, Friday, 2 March 2012 4:11:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The rush to rationalise the murder of babies is not surprising. Self righteousness and moral relativism go hand in hand.Those killing Jesus thought they were doing the world a favour and moral relativism allows proudful self righteous men and woman to condone any behaviour in order to live sin filled guilt free lifestyles. No wonder drug usage and suicide is at epidemic levels. Some are dumb enough to ask why.
Posted by runner, Friday, 2 March 2012 5:23:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe that's what's happened *Runner* Oh dear, the re-Incarnation of the *Christ Jesus* summarily ended by the vacuum and medical waste practitioners.

;-)

..

Perhaps you ought consider the Islamic concept of God to ease any anxiety that you may have over the issue.

..

But, come now, I think of greater concern is the vile preaching of some homophobes which has acted as a not insignificant factor in the suicide of vulnerable persons of the *Gay* persuasion.

..

Clearly, for those who choose to subscribe to the "New Covenant," there is a great divergence of opinion as to both what it means and how it should be applied.
Posted by DreamOn, Friday, 2 March 2012 6:51:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Murder applies to people and as we have shown and concluded, zygotes
are not people. "

You have shown no such thing. The truth is a zygote is as fully human and deserving of basic rights as an adult, else you slip into the moral quicksand. Civilised people (and civilisation means being above nature - you do know this, don't you?) do this because they understand that ultimately it protects THEM. There is no such protection in "nature". All you have shown is you have the exact same morality of the Nazis who gassed and experimented on people.

"Personally I am for a world with less suffering, misery and poverty and as Darwin made clear, far more of any species will be created, then can ever survive. He was correct of course, the limitation is on resources to raise the offspring, not on creating them."

Wow o wow! Have you ever watched any of the Nazi propaganda films? Because that statement above is indistinguishable from some of their reasoning.

And please don't quote me Godwin. Adults debate, children play games. And ESPECIALLY evil children play word games and cite jokes when the discussion is about people's lives.

Yabby has declared himself in public to have the equivalent moral compass of a Nazi - and is proud of it!
___________
"Now: is it always wrong to take a life?"

The mere fact you need to ask this, Tony, would be sufficient to appall the vast majority of people, since we are discussing not just any life, but NEWBORN CHILDREN.

I'm staggered at the moral blackness of some people here. It is FULLY EVIL to merely approve of the killing of the innocent - not just do the deed - do you not get that? End of story. END of story. The difference between the two is civilisation or anarchy since even tacit approval - and I would even add - failure to condemn - facilitates monsters.

The likely personal perception this is a 'detached intellectual discussion' masks the fact it is morally evil to even consider it.
Posted by Stephan, Friday, 2 March 2012 7:18:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*You have shown no such thing*

I certainly have Stephan, but all that you are showing is that
you are unable to use a dictionary. A zygote is a human organism,
not a person. No human brain = no person. The brain stops and you
have a corpse. The word murder applies to people, not to organisms.

Off you run, check your dictionary and then admit that you are wrong.

Mankind is certainly not above nature, we remain part of nature.
I remind you, you were created quite naturally, no supernatural input.

Perhaps biology 101 could be another subject to enlighten you.

Nazis? You mean a bit like those religious folks who used to burn
people like me at the stake? Last time I checked, Hitler was
a Catholic.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 2 March 2012 7:57:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
is it always wrong to take a life?"
Stephan,
No ! In many cases it's fully justified. Just don't let lefties be the judge of it. They'd rather that millions of unwanted babies starve to death so as to prove the point that every life is sacred. What religion do they belong to where they consider every life sacred but do nothing when lives are suffering a slow agonising death. Because life is sacred we can't put those mongrels who cause so much suffering, away for good.
I'd rather abort a foetus than knowingly bring a baby into an existence of suffering.
This may well be infanticide but what do we call children's suffering because of some leftie idealists ? Extreme hypocrisy ?
Posted by individual, Friday, 2 March 2012 8:03:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I doubt anyone is happy with the current unacceptable rate of abortion in this country, whether they are pro-choice or not.

We should certainly strive for far more effective sex education and contraception availability in high schools.
I'm sure the author of this article will be happy with this.

Failing this, then I think we should allow sex between men and women only when conception is desired, and only at the optimal time of fertility for each couple.
No sex at other times should be allowed.

If after all these measures, we still see abortions happening, then we should imprison all pregnant women until they give birth...
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 2 March 2012 11:36:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti-abortionists (I refuse to refer to them as “Pro-lifers” since they are overwhelmingly pro death penalty and war, and all while bagging moral relativism - ironically) are quite happy to talk about slippery-slopes when it comes to allowing abortion, but then totally ignore the slippery-slope of the state dictating to pregnant women what they must and must not do with their own bodies.

If we strip women of the rights to abortions, then how do we prevent the unsafe, backyard-job abortions and how do we police the ban?

Dictatorship much?

It doesn’t matter how morally right or wrong abortions are, the cost of not allowing them is far worse - even if we forget about over-population and rising crime rates due to the millions of unwanted children.

As for after-birth euthanizing, that’s a hairy topic and, in most cases, would probably at least be kinder than the DNR’s put on children born with chromosomal conditions, that are incompatible with life, from selfish parents that valued the state of their heavenly credit rating more than the comfort of their own child.

By the way, Stephan, none of the definitions of “civilisation”, that I can find, say anything about them being above nature (that is purely an invention of your own making used to bolster your rigid and narrow worldview), civilisation is the social process whereby societies achieve an advanced stage of development and organization - nothing more.

Perhaps you'd prefer we became uncivilized like the Abrhamic God who - without asking how we felt about it - thrust us into a celestial dictatorship in which we are expected to accept the horrifically immoral notion of the sacrifice of another in order to cleanse us of our wrong-doings, despite the fact that any one of us would have been obliged to stop it had we been around at the time?
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 3 March 2012 12:39:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>The mere fact you need to ask this, Tony, would be sufficient to appall the vast majority of people, since we are discussing not just any life, but NEWBORN CHILDREN.<<

What? Everybody else here is discussing UNBORN humans. Except me when I'm discussing Vulcans. You appear to have an amazing talent for missing the point of the argument, Stephan.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Saturday, 3 March 2012 12:52:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The irony is that commentary about that article is that some commentators are saying by conflating infanticide and abortion, it provides some ammunition to an argument against abortion.

And, in an editorial well worth reading, the editor says

"The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide – the paper repeats the arguments made famous by Tooley and Singer – but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests."

Read That Editorial here -

http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/02/28/liberals-are-disgusting-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-after-birth-abortion/

The irrational discourse around this is pitiful.
Posted by McReal, Saturday, 3 March 2012 6:50:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"a zygote is as fully human and deserving of basic rights as an adult"

What about when an oocyte fertilized ex vivo? There are millions of zygotes cryopreserved for IVF treatments. If you believe that these millions and millions of zygotes all deserve to live, should they all be implanted and allowed to develop? What if they have genetic mutations and are 99% likely to fail, possibly killing the mother? According to you these are millions of babies that will one day die unless we implant them all.

Do you know that a single one of you skin cells has the potential to generate a zygote, which then can develop into a human? Should your individual cells all have basic human rights?

I can give you plenty of examples where your 'black and white' view fails to live up your stated moral standards.
Posted by Stezza, Saturday, 3 March 2012 12:29:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I doubt whether the prophet Jeremiah knew a lot about science although the patheric attempt to deny the obvious is summed up in his writings.
(Jer 17:9) The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?

Compare that to modern day psychology that teaches that man is inherently good. No wonder we have so many attempts to justify baby killing in the name of 'science '. With deceitful hearts everything is justifable. Abortion is not a science issue it is a hardened heart issue.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 3 March 2012 2:14:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As long as any living being depends on another living being, we have to accept that the dependent is dependent on the other hence the other has the power to make choices.
Humans are legislating against nature because compassion has become fashionable. Take away the luxury of compassion & we'll see how low humans can stoop for self-preservation.
All those who are against abortion raise your hands to commit to looking after all unwanted babies including the not so cute ones & support them till support is no longer needed.
Put that on your Driver's license beside the organ donor indicator & also include it on your Tax file number.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 3 March 2012 2:23:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?*

Clearly old Jeremiah did not have a friggin clue, Runner. For of
course the heart is simply a pump. Install an artificial heart,
nothing changes.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 3 March 2012 2:27:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby

Clearly you don't have a clue. Heartless people only care about number one.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 3 March 2012 4:18:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,
even with an artificial heart one can still be heartless.
It's like the brain, everyone has one but it's the state of it that is the question. You can argue that it is heartless to abort a foetus but I think it's more heartless to knowingly bring a baby into a life of misery. It borders on sadism.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 3 March 2012 5:28:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*The heart is deceitful above all things*

Ah Individual, that is what old Jeremiah wrote and for good reason.
Back in those days, they thought that the heart was the centre of
intelligence. That is why the Egyptians used to leave the heart
but remove the contents of the brain, when they wrapped up mummies.

So people who you call heartless actually have a heart. They simply
lack empathy, which is centred in the limbic system of the brain.

Just like in those days some people heard voices and thought they
must be in touch with the Almighty himself. Today we know that
a small % of the population commonly suffer from schizophrenia
and do in fact hear voices, but unlikely to be from the boss himself.

For if he really wanted to inform us, he could simply write it on the
moon for all to see and it would no doubt be a bit more accurate
then Jeremiahs claims.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 3 March 2012 6:34:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,
Jeremiah, as did everyone else in those day, wrote in symbolical terms which many modern readers can't grasp & so they take everything literally.
Sad but that's the way things are going .
The boss in all probability didn't write the message on the moon because people need a little challenge.
The people who are hearing things are not as dangerous as those who can't see with perfect vision.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 3 March 2012 6:49:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I come back after a nice weekend to hear Stephaaaan hasn't had a go at my new question. McReal has also identified the Sigourney Weaver principal...

'What about when an oocyte fertilized ex vivo? There are millions of zygotes cryopreserved for IVF treatments. If you believe that these millions and millions of zygotes all deserve to live, should they all be implanted and allowed to develop? What if they have genetic mutations and are 99% likely to fail, possibly killing the mother? According to you these are millions of babies that will one day die unless we implant them all.'

What say you Stephan?

Yes indeedy Tony we are talking about UNBORN children. Like Zygotes and other DNA material that can be used to make potential babies.

'Conception, in sexual reproduction, is a *continuation of life*: a single living cell - a sperm - enters another living cell - an egg [ovum] ...'

All that really needs to be said McReal. My arguments are looking more sound by the minute, and we are back to all the 'potential' humans, ie sperm, eggs, test tube experiments including the Sigourney Weaver/Alien ones.

Care to take on 'continuation of life' Führer Stephan?

'FULLY EVIL'? Only a Sith Lord talks in absolutes.

I still say runner is a national treasure. He's really in his element here. If I was to receive a smack in punishment, I'd want it to be from runner. Is that weird? It seems kinda sensual or something...
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 5 March 2012 8:18:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What if infanticide had been practised on those advocating infanticide?
Posted by TAC, Monday, 5 March 2012 4:09:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*What if infanticide had been practised on those advocating infanticide?*

Ah Tac, if I wasn't here, I would not know that I wasn't here,
so it would hardly matter. If my mother had had a cup of tea,
or had a headache, or a thousand other thins, I would not be here
either.

That's why Houllie's point is such a good one. What about the
egg and sperms that the wife flushed down the toilet last month?
Are you going to accuse her of murder? Sheesh, maybe it was
another Einstein! She murdered another Einstein! Best then that
all those women have sex with us whenever we want, so that we
don't murder a potential Einstein.

Sheesh, what a great chat up line :)
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 5 March 2012 4:37:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well for a start I see nobody advocating infanticide here.

But I would say it would be the same if 'What if abstinence had been practised by the parents of those advocating abstinence, what if contraception had been used by the parents of those advocating contraception, how many more starving children would there be without contraception, and what if your aunty had balls.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 5 March 2012 4:42:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BTW I have it on good authority that Jeremiah was a bullfrog.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 5 March 2012 4:47:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellie,

Correct.
He was a good friend of mine : )
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 5 March 2012 6:00:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I certainly have Stephan"

Yabby, no. you. haven't. You merely condemn yourself. Your "zygote is a human organism not a person" claim is just an infantile word-game, nothing else, to hide the fact that inside you resides a monster with the intellect of a child. The fact people are small and helpless and unformed is the VERY reason they should be protected, not this early stage of human development used as a thin pretext for the killing deed. Your definition of a person is just an evil game to hide the moral truth.

You simply have no moral compass like the Nazis, distorted and irrelevant claims about Hitler's manipulation of religious ideas notwithstanding. btw, I've personally heard stories from Christians who lived during WW2 in Germany with strong ties to the underground (Confessing) Church and your claim is pure revisionist drivel. But then, lying seems to be your talent, as is the habit of the morally bankrupt. So, the fact remains, you arguments are the modern day equivalent of the Nazis.

As for being created "naturally" - LOL! If that is true, please, show us all how laboratory guru Yabby can easily jump into his white coat and synthesise life. Your arrogance is breathtaking. You just make assertions with no evidence. Until any reasonably close creation of life vaguely like human beings can be created from raw chemicals you are not even one step forward on a very very long journey. The complexity of even one cell is almost beyond comprehension. I believe God created life and that your view is just plain idiotic and irrational since you can't even moderately back it up.
Posted by Stephan, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 5:04:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As for the rest of you, I'm currently travelling and I have no interest or time to argue with people who clearly can't grasp the point. The article above IS about killing NEWBORN children and most of you here can't even stay on subject. You divert the issue discuss rubbish ideas that are easily dismissed. For example, none of you take in former slaves yet I imagine you're likely against slavery. According to your own logic that would make you hypocrites since that is apparently what I am for not personally caring for allegedly 'unwanted' children. As for this howler - "Only a Sith Lord talks in absolutes."! 'Only' sure sounds like an absolute to me, but what would I know?

A debate with mature people would be great but I'm obviously not going to find it here. Good day!
Posted by Stephan, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 5:06:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deary me Stephan, you certainly got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning. Go back and try the other side :)

*The fact people are small and helpless and unformed is the VERY reason they should be protected*

If the object of discussion is unformed, then it is clearly not
yet a person. A bit like a piece of steel being exactly that, until
it is formed into a car. So the problem is not mine, but your
lack of ability to use our language as it was intended. Don't blame
me for your poor education skills.

* As for being created "naturally" - LOL! If that is true, please, show us all how laboratory guru Yabby can easily jump into his white coat and synthesise life.*

I need to do no such thing Stephan, because of course my claim was
that you were indeed created naturally, when mummy and daddy had sex.

Its common in nature amonst many species, from chimps to rabbits to
humans. All very natural and no substantiated evidence of any supernatural input.
If there is, please produce the evidence.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 5:56:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ralph,
fine help support children in difficult situations. Yes we need to do more to support parents. But would you kill the child that gets brain damage later? Where do you draw the line?
We did away with the death penalty for criminals and now we apply it to those who are not the ones who sinned.
Posted by katydid, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 8:02:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>A debate with mature people would be great<<

Why would it be great? You can't even win a debate with immature people.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 8 March 2012 10:49:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by Stephan, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 5:04:06 PM

" ... Yabby, no. you. haven't. You merely condemn yourself. .. to hide the fact that inside you resides a monster with the intellect of a child. .. Your definition of a person is just an evil game to hide the moral truth .. You simply have no moral compass like the Nazis .. So, the fact remains, you arguments are the modern day equivalent of the Nazis. .. "

Aye, seize the *Anti-christ* wretch, off with his shell, let him be drowned in garlic, fried in virginal oils and let us feast upon his flesh and quaff it down with a goat's bladder of white home brew.

HaHaHa

*Yappy* I trust you have been enjoying this as much as I have.

;-)

..

Part of the problem in my view when dealing with these sorts of religious types is that they do not understand the difference between "know" and "believe," do not really understand what constitutes a "fact" and do not understand how a matter may be evidenced by the standards of science, medicine and law.

..

As for the history of the catholic church, Jesus!, they should have long ago been put down. I note the serious allegations by english human rights lawyers who would have had ratsinger in the dock for covering up crimes of pedophilia against real live children which likely would have happened if the nefarious, in my view, head of state hadn't of stepped in, no doubt due to her own involvement in crimes including the forceful transference of children from one group to another, an arguably breach of the "Genocide Convention Act."

No, if the allegations which include those made in australia were found to be true, I would have some or all of their land seized, and would additionally very likely break it up and share it out amongst the other religious organisations and lock up the offenders for the term of their natural lives.
Posted by DreamOn, Friday, 9 March 2012 1:20:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy