Source? Children were used as sacrificial entities, but with the purpose to kill the infant outside of sacrifice?
- Thread starter kcbird
- Start date
This judge helps those men that were "tricked", as long as they show up in court. Warning; watching this can lead to binge watching more episodes:
I didn't think I was going to say anything in this thread. But I guess I will.
I'm not religious at all - this is my take on abortion:
Imagine that you have moved into a new home...and you are trying to figure out what the light switches do.
Before you can flip the switch on the one next to the fridge, you friend comes up and says "HOLY SHIT! Don't flip that switch. If you do, a child is going to die somewhere."
You are wondering why the hell that switch is there and whats happening, when a second friend you trust just as much as the first one says "That switch there will save you $200 on the power bill".
I won't be flipping that switch - because if the balance is convenience versus the death o a child, and I don't know which is happening...then I won't be flipping that switch.
I'm not religious at all - this is my take on abortion:
Imagine that you have moved into a new home...and you are trying to figure out what the light switches do.
Before you can flip the switch on the one next to the fridge, you friend comes up and says "HOLY SHIT! Don't flip that switch. If you do, a child is going to die somewhere."
You are wondering why the hell that switch is there and whats happening, when a second friend you trust just as much as the first one says "That switch there will save you $200 on the power bill".
I won't be flipping that switch - because if the balance is convenience versus the death o a child, and I don't know which is happening...then I won't be flipping that switch.
They choose to engage in that activity with that knowledge beforehand.
So executing a serial killer and and shelling out a baby’s skull are equivalent to you and I’m the one with issues? Since you apparently haven’t considered the difference, the death penalty is a consequence of choices made BY THE PERSON SUFFERING THE CONSEQUENCES. Abortion is one person suffering the consequences of the choices of another, you know, like murder.
That was amazing. Thanks for posting it. My lady worked with developmentally delayed/challenged/etc kids for a decade. Aside from my own life experiences, I had the opportunity to interact with one family she was working with where the little girl had one of the "Trisomy" chromosomal birth defects that wasn't Down's. Watching that family changed my whole view on so many things. Life is beautiful and shouldn't be snuffed out because of potential hardship.
First off if you can’t spell fetus you probably shouldn’t be lecturing on their status as persons.
So a drunk driver kills your wife and your, thankfully for her, healthy daughter on her way to the hospital to deliver. I suppose you’d ask he only be charged with one count of manslaughter?
Sick. My nephew is autistic. Will probably never be able to live independently. Why not just do away with him also? It’d be easier, cheaper. He’s 9 but really not able to survive on his own. By your standard his “template” never got finished and never will. What’s the difference?
There’s no “curtain of consciousness” a kid passes through at the pelvic brim pal. This is what meant by ignorance earlier. You don’t have enough sense to know what you don’t know. Why don’t you go tell your daughter you’d have disposed of her had she has any issues. Unreal.
I wonder if those who would abort a child because of physical deformities or mental issues avoid all challenges in life?
The sentient human being living inside the woman has the right to live.
In the US, those who kill pregnant women are almost always charged with two counts of murder. But if the mother does the murder via doctor, she gets a pass. That's your argument and it's the most stupid, morally bankrupt, and logically deficient argument ever made.
Last edited:
Speaking from an evolutionary standpoint,(disregarding moral arguments) would it not be beneficial to only propagate the genes of the most "fit" individual?
At what point do we stop propagating genetic material that does not confer fitness? Could the advancements of science actually lead to a less fit and overall ill-adapted species?
Just throwing these questions out there, I am not stating we should kill babies with defects. I interested in a scientific counter argument (not emotional, nor religious based).
There was a German fellow from the 1930s who would be applauding this statement.
Question marks usually delineate questions and not statements but I guess you missed that. I guess reading comprehension hasn't improved over the years.
This is getting awfully close to eugenics
You can't separate science from ethics, and that goes triple when the subject is human reproduction.
every person who goes in for an abortion should watch this
I was just looking for a scientific counter argument. I am not a proponent of it. Biologically we are all animals and fitness rules survival among the other species in the animal kingdom.
You may have made a point, if evolution was a truth. Evolution is a lie.
Trying to create some Ubermensch eh?
Lemme ignore the blatant inhumanity and Nazi philosophy for a second and counter with this.
...name one thing science hasn't fucked up on the first few tries?...now are we willing to risk the effects on a mass population for a goal with dubious benefit?
Is some "scientist" able to a better job at evolution than nature?
Given all the bullshit you've seen from Covid and climate "scientists".....do you really trust them to implement a eugenics program?.......if you do, you are a fucking moron
Also, once we greenlight pre birth eugenics.....what's the actual argument against post birth eugenics?....because frankly, there isn't one from a "science" perspective.
We're not just animals, which is why a purely scientific argument is impossible to make.
Or I guess you could make it but only sociopaths would listen to it.
Well, the argument against nature is it is not allowed to act on our species because of our medical/scientific advancements. Our evolutionary advancements have allowed our species to prosper but have also hindered/stymied nature from acting on the less fit individuals. We are essentially defying nature due to our advancements.
Do I trust the government to run anything in general? Absolutely not, especially determining who is fit to survive.
We are already on our way to a Eugenics program as the population increases and resources become more scarce. Hopefully I am wrong about that. I believe as much has been suggested with nationalized Healthcare and panels of doctors. It does also in some regards exist with the organ donation lists (father is currently waiting for a kidney).
True, I was just wondering if anyone has come up with a good retort to that ideology that did not focus on ethics. Is there a genetic counter argument that maybe what we deem as "weak genes" could confer fitness in the future?
Usually.
Question marks sometimes also delineate when one advocates a position but lacks the fortitude to say it directly.
If we really wanted to "purify" the DNA, a better way would be to stop subsidizing deadbeats, and remove warning labels, and let the chips fall where they may.
If you can't run your life w/o a government check, or need a warning label not to lean an aluminum ladder against high voltage lines, then let natural selection take it's course.
probably, but seems like we are going backward now.
As a form of birth control, no
If it's because it will kill the mom, yes.
Only way it's ok in my book.
Doc
If it's because it will kill the mom, yes.
Only way it's ok in my book.
Doc
Nice try, already stated it wasn't my position. It was a topic I didn't have a good response to a long time ago in college. Usually, I can debate topics well enough but I didn't have a non-ethical based argument to the question when it was asked.
I was hoping someone more intelligent than me came up with a good response but as 308pirate pointed out, it may not be possible.
Sure you aren't.
Is your name Mengele perhaps.
This is what I cant understand. These arguments in the affirmative for abortion of "retarded babies"...Jesus christ you fuckers are evil. That evil has walked this earth before as fucking Nazis....and ancient Romans, Askelonians, etc, ad nauseum.
My cousin was told to abort her baby 22 years ago. The "tests" indicated he would have severe disabilities of various nature.
He is currently a fine young man, with a bright future. None of the horrible disabilities came to fruition. He is slightly autistic, that is all.
The really good news, is that the lines are nearly drawn, and the truly evil bastards in this world are stepping boldly into the light.
Here is a guy that could have been diagnosed prebirth with the technology
we currently have.
R
we currently have.
R
I've yet to see one piece of evidence, supporting evolution, that could not be refuted, logically.
There are certainly a few ethical dilemmas in which reasonable people can consider abortion
This is actually a really good point and one I had not thought of before. As our society moves further away from "physical" labor and more towards "mental" labor, a physical abnormality would not hinder the success of an individual. It may hinder reproductive success. I guess another question would be do individuals with the genetic defects actually reproduce at a significant rate? If not, the mutation is not passed from that individual so does it matter (unless it is a familial trait). Whom better to champion that idea, Stephen hawking.
Correct,
But even if you wanted to try and predict their value purely from a production standpoint the point can be made physical labor is not a requirement at this juncture in society.
Output can and does occur through one's mental faculties which in a significant number of cases is actually enhanced through the genetic mutations.
Im 100% pro choice!
Now there should be some reasonable restrictions for safety.
Lets say 10 month waiting period to get an abortion.
You need to fill out a 10 page application and spend 300$ to ask for a permission to have an abortion.
You must have a certified psychiatrist clear you to have an abortion.
You cant have an abortion if ANYONE "redflags" for any reason, go get a lawyer and lots of money to have that reversed.
Want to go to planned parenthood? Sorry you cant they got closed down due to insane insurance requirements and egregious regulations.
Relax nobody is coming after your reproductive rights.
Now there should be some reasonable restrictions for safety.
Lets say 10 month waiting period to get an abortion.
You need to fill out a 10 page application and spend 300$ to ask for a permission to have an abortion.
You must have a certified psychiatrist clear you to have an abortion.
You cant have an abortion if ANYONE "redflags" for any reason, go get a lawyer and lots of money to have that reversed.
Want to go to planned parenthood? Sorry you cant they got closed down due to insane insurance requirements and egregious regulations.
Relax nobody is coming after your reproductive rights.
Nope.
The high tech world/tech society can only exist, for now, because of the labor of agriculture.
One could replace the word/words high tech/ society with cities.
R
Funny how everybody blames the National Socialists for their Eugenics programs, then conveniently ignores that it was the "Medical science" and academics both in this country and in England and western Europe that were actually the leaders in the whole Eugenics movement for the beginning of the 20th century. People gloss over and ignore all the horrors that doctors with the full approval of the government did here and all the dogma the academics here were putting out.
Much like everybody goes on about Gobbels being such a propagandist, and forget that Gobbels was in awe of the amazing propaganda machine that the USA government had put together in the run up to WWI and only hoped to one day come close to being as good.
Much like everybody goes on about Gobbels being such a propagandist, and forget that Gobbels was in awe of the amazing propaganda machine that the USA government had put together in the run up to WWI and only hoped to one day come close to being as good.
One thing a lot of folks who go on about "better evolution" are completely blind to, is that Humans didn't become the dominant species on the planet due to extreme physical prowess, if that was the case, the Neanderthals would have taken that spot or for that matter other apes.
The key instead was cleverness, adaptability and working as a social unit.
That is becoming even more important as technology continues to make cleverness and adaptability ever more important and physical prowess less of a critical factor.
The key instead was cleverness, adaptability and working as a social unit.
That is becoming even more important as technology continues to make cleverness and adaptability ever more important and physical prowess less of a critical factor.
You guys get that this is really never the case. It takes multiple days to kill a baby in the third trimester. If the baby is presenting an immediate danger to the mom's life, a three-day abortion isn't going to help mom.
Correct,
But that labor would still exist. Although, some of that labor is being replaced by robotics.
Similar threads
- Locked
