Forum Index            

SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors

Share

This isn't complicated. 2020 is a referendum on Trump.
Is your name welcomed below? Then you can post here. Otherwise, click "Log In" to post!
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
August 26, 2014 03:30AM
Again with the name calling? As previously noted - easy to see when you're losing a debate - it's always the first line of your incredibly weak defense.

Nonsense. I love the name calling... I just wish you had the ability to argue rationally...

Of course you are. You believe in a woman's right to choose as long as she chooses to do what you tell her to do.

This isn't meaningful. There is no reason to suggest I'm not pro-choice. (and every reason to suggest I am, since I said I was... eye rolling smiley Your BS hunches and assumptions have no convincing power... It's hot air, and a waste of net space...

The "obvious definition"? As in YOUR definition?

Yes. Everyone of us believe as soon as a baby is born here in the USA they have a right to 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.' It's a self-evident truth...

However, I'm unsure what, if any, legal rights and protections ought to be extended to an unborn baby... The reason for posting my thought experiment above...

Lie about what? About being pro-choice? About not being a wingnut? Yes - someone is obviously lying. It aint me.

More nonsense. Attacking the person is just fine with me as long as you can back it up with a reasonable argument... So far in this discussion, and in many others I have had with you, you show everybody you are not capable of it...

ROFLMAO!!! Even when you're lying your ass off about it you can't commit. If it is the parents' choice as you now laughingly tried to claim - then the parents can choose to abort a DS baby. Can you not follow that simple logic?

That is NOT where my outrage lies! Again, there is no moral imperative to abort all DS fetuses... That's crazy Dawkins talk! How is it that a women who chooses to have a DS baby is committing an immoral act?

And no one said there was. You - the anti-choice zealot - imagined that declaration that was never stated

He's not denying or apologizing for what he said, Indy. Again, he didn't say the parents don't have a right to choose... He said it's immoral if they don't choose abortion, implying that a women who chooses life for their DS child is immoral...
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
August 26, 2014 05:04AM
"An unconscious pregnant women with no ID is in the ER. The soon to be mother is fitted with a baby monitor and doctors determine the baby needs immediate surgery/care to live... Does the fetus have a right to life and emergency treatment? Is the fetus a patient of the hospital?" -tuk

Unless they happened to know for a fact that the pregnant woman was on her way to an abortion clinic to have an abortion, there's absolutely no reason that the doctors would even consider not treating the fetus also. And even if they knew she was on her way to have an abortion, given that they don't have any legal authority, they'd still be obliged to help the fetus I would think.

Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
August 26, 2014 06:23AM
Tuk, there is no getting around the fact Dawkins never said anything about aborting ALL DS babies. He did not say that. He did not imply that. You are ASSUMING that is what he meant. Again - YOUR OPINION (obviously based on your anti-choice beliefs). That is all you care about and all you can understand. And if you are pro-choice (you're not) - instead of creating some ridiculous "unconscious woman" scenario that will never happen - give us ONE example that doesn't involve a dying mother or a rape victim where you would be okay with a woman having an abortion. Just one.
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
August 26, 2014 09:12AM
So what if Dawkins thinks that choosing not to abort a fetus with Down's is immoral? He's allowed to think that. For all I know, my old friend with the sis with severe cerebral palsy thinks it's immoral to bring a child like her sister into the world. It doesn't change anything - it's just an opinion.
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
August 26, 2014 03:56PM
Tuk wrote: When I say I don't have a concept of personhood other than the obvious definition that's exactly what I mean...

Obvious? I see very little that is obvious about the concept of personhood. It's certainly not a concept that's carved in stone somewhere. It's an arbitrary decision made by fallible human beings who are doing the best they can.

To me, a fertilized human egg is no more a person than a chicken egg is a chicken. A fertilized egg is potentially a person, sure, but the egg must successfully pass through several developmental stages before it, IMO, merits the title of "person." For instance, I think that at a minimum a fetus should develop a functional brain before it should be counted as a person. Viability, a point which Indy brings up, is another developmental stage that many folks (probably even most) feel should be reached before conferring personhood on a fetus. What's so unreasonable or obviously mistaken about this?
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
August 26, 2014 06:33PM
Tuk, there is no getting around the fact Dawkins never said anything about aborting ALL DS babies.

Quite clearly he states there is a moral obligation to do just that...

And if you are pro-choice (you're not) - instead of creating some ridiculous "unconscious woman" scenario that will never happen - give us ONE example that doesn't involve a dying mother or a rape victim where you would be okay with a woman having an abortion. Just one.

It's not surprising you don't know what a thought experiment is...

WIKI
Quote

In its broadest usage, thought experimentation is the process of employing imaginary situations to help us understand the way things really are (or, in the case of Herman Kahn’s "scenarios", understand something about something in the future). The understanding comes through reflection upon this imaginary situation. Thought experimentation is a priori, rather than an empirical process, in that the experiments are conducted within the imagination (i.e., Brown’s (1993) "laboratory of the mind), and never in fact.

Thought experiments, which are well-structured, well-defined hypothetical questions that employ subjunctive reasoning (irrealis moods) – "What might happen (or, what might have happened) if . . . " – have been used to pose questions in philosophy at least since Greek antiquity, some pre-dating Socrates (see Rescher 1991). In physics and other sciences many famous thought experiments date from the 19th and especially the 20th Century, but examples can be found at least as early as Galileo.

Thought experiments have been used in philosophy, physics, and other fields (such as cognitive psychology, history, political science, economics, social psychology, law, organizational studies, marketing, and epidemiology). In law, the synonym "hypothetical" is frequently used for such experiments.

Regardless of their intended goal, all thought experiments display a patterned way of thinking that is designed to allow us to explain, predict and control events in a better and more productive way.

I'm pro-choice because it's really up to the parents and ultimately up to the mother to decide what to do with her body... When I have a more detailed concept of personhood I will let you know what I think is morally acceptable... Again, what I'm sure of, is there is no moral obligation to abort all DS fetuses...
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
August 26, 2014 06:45PM
So what if Dawkins thinks that choosing not to abort a fetus with Down's is immoral?

Because people with special needs are people too, and Dawkins irrational assumption that DS is so awful that the moral thing to do is abort the fetus does not reflect the facts about DS. This kind of thinking can lead to discrimination... Do you know anything about that?
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
August 26, 2014 06:48PM
Obvious? I see very little that is obvious about the concept of personhood

We all believe it exists at the time of birth... Maybe some people think it's when a baby becomes self-aware, but I don't know anybody who thinks that...
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
August 26, 2014 10:49PM
Dawkins was referring to ONE (hypothetical) circumstance of a DS child. One that (hypothetically) would be the child of a mother who obviously has a problem with the idea of a DS child. Dawkins said it would be immoral not to abort THAT child. Not "every" child as you keep claiming.

No reason to address the rest of your red herrings. We can both move the goal posts around pretending the other doesn't understand - I'll let you handle that end of the... ahem... "debate". eye rolling smiley
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
August 26, 2014 11:18PM
tuk22 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We all believe it exists at the time of birth...
> Maybe some people think it's when a baby becomes
> self-aware, but I don't know anybody who thinks
> that...


So you believe that a fetus isn't a person?
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
August 26, 2014 11:35PM
Indy wrote: So what if Dawkins thinks that choosing not to abort a fetus with Down's is immoral?

Tuk wrote: Because people with special needs are people too.


I am absolutely certain that Dawkins agrees with you that people with special needs are people, too. But Dawkins here clearly isn't talking about people. He's talking about a fetus. Big difference.
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
August 26, 2014 11:40PM
Running in circles here. The obvious problem is Tuk can't get around his belief that life (and personhoodsmoking smiley) begin at conception. Not making a judgement call, but most religious folks are trained to believe that and deep down do - no matter what words come out of their mouth or get posted on BBSs in cyberspace.
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
August 27, 2014 12:25AM
Indy wrote Running in circles here.

No @#$%&, it's because you're an idiot and you need to stop replying to me... I only have so much patience for the person who thinks, and thinks without a shred of proof, I'm lying and have hidden agendas. If there was an ignore feature I would have used it a long time ago...

Dick wrote, So you believe that a fetus isn't a person?

Abortion has always been someone else's concern since I have never had the need for it... I don't want to rush into a strict concept of personhood without giving it some thought. I want to be consistent with legal rights as well...

I am absolutely certain that Dawkins agrees with you that people with special needs are people, too. But Dawkins here clearly isn't talking about people. He's talking about a fetus. Big difference.

He believes it's immoral to have a DS child if there is a choice to abort... It tells us Dawkins believes people with DS would be better off if they were never born... And why say this when the facts about DS clearly show people with DS enjoy life.

Let's not sugar coat this either...

Many people abort DS babies because it's convenient. Having a special needs child will exhaust a lot of your time and money. What if the state guaranteed resources for all DS children... would we see the abortion rate lowered? Absolutely!

Bottom line: It's not rational to claim a particular quality of life for all people with DS, so to say would be parents have the moral obligation to abort is wrong.

Quote

An unconscious pregnant women with no ID is in the ER. The soon to be mother is fitted with a baby monitor and doctors determine the baby needs immediate surgery/care to live... Does the fetus have a right to life and emergency treatment? Is the fetus a patient of the hospital?

Pondy said the doctors would provide care, and she is right... There was a case I read where the mother died and the physician refused to save the baby, but that is being argued right now...

So how do you remain consistent with a fetus, rights to life, and emergency care without some definition of personhood? And where does the mother's individual rights factor... I'm not sure... Maybe there is some developmental stage where it does make sense to call a fetus a person...
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
August 27, 2014 06:53AM
You need a button to ignore someone? smiling smiley
Re: Dawkins says it's immoral not to abort DS babies...
August 27, 2014 08:24AM
I understand Tuk's stand here cos I am of similar opinion. I am against abortion of healthy fetuses of healthy mothers. That said, it's a woman's decision whether to abort under any circumstances and I'd respect that.

As for personhood, Indy, I am not sure the fetus needs to come out of the womb to be a person. I have read so much on fetus activities inside the womb which make me believe they are little persons already. Feeling your baby twist, wriggle, punch, kick, and hiccup is one of pregnancy's biggest thrills. That's solid sign of an energetic life growing inside you. From the second trimester onward, the fetus starts kicking and thrashing like an NFL champ. The mother's sense of well-being is said to affect fetus development. Maybe the fetus gets a soul only after it's born, but it's a live energetic body! We even respect the bodies of our dead people. Why not respect the dear little bodies of our defenseless unborn people?

Maddie
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login



Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!