Page 5 of 11
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:20 pm
by Neoteny
strike wolf wrote:riggable wrote:I'd have to say no, because it takes the fetus a few months' worth of development for the fetus's brain to be grown enough for scientists to determine if it could have down syndrome or not. At this point there's no doubt in my head that this would be considered murder of the worst kind(killing a defenseless human) and I would never be able to do that, down syndrome or no.
I'm gonna agree with riggable on this one.
I'm going to disagree with riggable because I don't think the brain is usually what's examined. Either direct genetic analysis or CSF, which, though near the brain, is not the brain.
I am King of Semantics.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:06 am
by Neutrino
May I be the first to express serious doubt that this debate is going to go anywhere interesting with Napoleon "Catholicism Makes Sence" Ier involved...
EDIT since I clearly have nothing better to do:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
By extension of that logic in itself, we then abort/kill 12 yr old kids with downs, do we?
Since you can arbitrarilary advance the situation 12 years, I can do the opposite...
In 12 years you could potentially produce millions upon millions of sperm. Unless you're sterile, in which case you don't deserve to get married (filthy good-for-nothing swine). Therefore you are killing millions upon millions of potential humans.
Your argument = utter crap.
Unless, of course, you continue to argue that it's valid.
Then you = genocidal maniac.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:21 pm
by Napoleon Ier
Neutrino wrote:May I be the first to express serious doubt that this debate is going to go anywhere interesting with Napoleon "Catholicism Makes Sence" Ier involved...
EDIT since I clearly have nothing better to do:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
By extension of that logic in itself, we then abort/kill 12 yr old kids with downs, do we?
Since you can arbitrarilary advance the situation 12 years, I can do the opposite...
In 12 years you could potentially produce millions upon millions of sperm. Unless you're sterile, in which case you don't deserve to get married (filthy good-for-nothing swine). Therefore you are killing millions upon millions of potential humans.
Your argument = utter crap.
Unless, of course, you continue to argue that it's valid.
Then you = genocidal maniac.
I haven't insulted ou, so please don't insult me. I have tried to reserve my unjustified tirades for DM and snorri, I'd appreciate if you helped me do this.
The problem of this argument is that at conception you have a genetically distinct embryo, whereas the sperm/egg are cells indistinguishable from any other in the body.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:21 pm
by Napoleon Ier
heavycola wrote:Napoleon Ier wrote:suggs wrote:cant be arsed to read pages of utter cobblers from neanderthals.
I take we're agreed that aborting the downsyn. foetus is the humane, civilized thing to do. Save everyone, including the foetus, a lot of pain.
By extension of that logic in itself, we then abort/kill 12 yr old kids with downs, do we?
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being disingenuous. Because if you aren't, this is possibly the weakest post you have ever made.
Then please, by all means, rebutt it.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:42 pm
by unriggable
Napoleon Ier wrote:heavycola wrote:Napoleon Ier wrote:suggs wrote:cant be arsed to read pages of utter cobblers from neanderthals.
I take we're agreed that aborting the downsyn. foetus is the humane, civilized thing to do. Save everyone, including the foetus, a lot of pain.
By extension of that logic in itself, we then abort/kill 12 yr old kids with downs, do we?
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are being disingenuous. Because if you aren't, this is possibly the weakest post you have ever made.
Then please, by all means, rebutt it.
The baby isn't a human until it is born, so as a fetus it would be acceptable for the mother to abort it. After that, no.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:27 pm
by Snorri1234
Napoleon Ier wrote:The problem of this argument is that at conception you have a genetically distinct embryo, whereas the sperm/egg are cells indistinguishable from any other in the body.
No they're not. Each sperm carries different information than the other. It's the whole reason why brothers and sisters aren't exactly like each other.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:16 pm
by Napoleon Ier
^^Fair play, my bad, but they have 23 chromosomes, and I woudn't really consider that anyone would call them "human" as opposed to a duplicating embryo.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:20 pm
by Neoteny
Napoleon Ier wrote:^^Fair play, my bad, but they have 23 chromosomes, and I woudn't really consider that anyone would call them "human" as opposed to a duplicating embryo.
I wouldn't call sperm cells or embryos "human." They are a part of a person, and a developing
Homo sapien, respectively. Humanity is something distinctly different from the existence of particular chromosomes in a cell.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:22 pm
by unriggable
Napoleon Ier wrote:^^Fair play, my bad, but they have 23 chromosomes, and I woudn't really consider that anyone would call them "human" as opposed to a duplicating embryo.
By that logic a down syndrome fetus wouldn't be human either since it has 47 chromosomes.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:03 pm
by Harijan
I havn't read this thread, but all you fuckers who say "no, don't abort defects."
Thats how we end up with cunt-nuggets like prowler and Whump.
Abortion should be legal up until age 18.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:13 pm
by Dancing Mustard
Napoleon Ier wrote:^^Fair play, my bad, but they have 23 chromosomes, and I woudn't really consider that anyone would call them "human" as opposed to a duplicating embryo.
That's just your opinion though isn't it? I wouldn't consider an embryo 'human', and as the argument stands that's an equally valid viewpoint.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:13 pm
by dustn64
Dancing Mustard wrote:dustn64 wrote:Abortion is wrong either way you look at it.
Didn't Suggs say something about you?
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:13 pm
by dustn64
Neoteny wrote:dustn64 wrote:Abortion is wrong either way you look at it.
Gotta love the serious contributers.
I try.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:52 pm
by Bavarian Raven
"i'd do it for their sake."
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:49 am
by Napoleon Ier
Dancing Mustard wrote:Napoleon Ier wrote:^^Fair play, my bad, but they have 23 chromosomes, and I woudn't really consider that anyone would call them "human" as opposed to a duplicating embryo.
That's just your opinion though isn't it? I wouldn't consider an embryo 'human', and as the argument stands that's an equally valid viewpoint.
Ah, but then it has its own DNA making it a
distinct individual, to abort it is to deny someone's chance to life.
It's like Nathanson said :
"I am not a formal religionist, but believe with all my heart that there is a divine nature to existence which commands us to declare a final halt to this shameful crime against humanity."
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 11:51 am
by Napoleon Ier
Bavarian Raven wrote:"i'd do it for their sake."
Did you not read symmetry's post?
How can you possibly say you, as someone not affected by this disease and jst sat behind a keyboard, that their life won't be worth living and that they should just be killed since it is "better for them". Should we execute all affected downs indiscriminatly? We enter a terrifying and Orwellian world through your proposition...
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:53 pm
by heavycola
Napoleon Ier wrote:Dancing Mustard wrote:Napoleon Ier wrote:^^Fair play, my bad, but they have 23 chromosomes, and I woudn't really consider that anyone would call them "human" as opposed to a duplicating embryo.
That's just your opinion though isn't it? I wouldn't consider an embryo 'human', and as the argument stands that's an equally valid viewpoint.
Ah, but then it has its own DNA making it a
distinct individual, to abort it is to deny someone's chance to life.
It's like Nathanson said :
"I am not a formal religionist, but believe with all my heart that there is a divine nature to existence which commands us to declare a final halt to this shameful crime against humanity."
SHoudl we stop IVF treatment in that case? According to DoH figures, over 1 million embryos were destroyed as a byproduct of IVF treatments over the past 14 years.
An embryo is not a human being. You are not denying someone a chance at life - who is this 'someone'? Every sperm is then a potential human being. So is every egg. But neither has any more or any less claim to human-hood than an embryo.
In fact given advances in cloning technology, every bogey and fingernail clipping and picked-off scab might soon be a potential human being. This argument from potantiality is inherently false.
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:28 pm
by viperbitex
I'm a chic and I'd abort a fetus if I know it was going to have d.s. Why? Survival of the fittest. You don't see any retard animals around, because (am I'm no scientist so feel free to jump down my throat if I'm wrong) over the course of millions of years, the hereditary whatever that causes retardation has been wiped out. Not completely, I'm sure that there are some latent mutant genes that pop up in nature, but the babies born effected with those genes are left to die off or killed by their mother.
Am I saying that we should start the 'final solution' and off all the retarded people OF COURSE NOT!! But I personally wouldn't want to have a retarded kid, no one does, and I'd have no problem aborting one inside me, my conscience would be clear.
To be 100% honest and zero percent politically correct, retarded people make me uncomfortable and I don't like to be around them. A big difference between a retard and a crazy person, is crazy people don't know they're crazy...someone who is mentally handicapped knows that they are different, and that's soooo sad. I would most likely kill myself if I was mentally handicapped, like if I had an accident tomorrow and got serious brain damage. Anyways, thats my 2 cents.
P.C. America can go f*ck itself.
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 9:16 pm
by Fieryo
viperbitex wrote:To be 100% honest and zero percent politically correct, retarded people make me uncomfortable and I don't like to be around them.
Your honesty is refreshing and equally disturbing.
viperbitex wrote:A big difference between a retard and a crazy person, is crazy people don't know they're crazy...someone who is mentally handicapped knows that they are different, and that's soooo sad.
To be blunt: No.
To be more in depth: To lump all "retarded" people into one category in regards to their mental capacity is like classifying all dogs as one breed. You are making an unabashed generalization and as a by product you are radically misjudging people in a negative manner.
Many mentally handicapped people who have sever cases of whatever disorder they suffer from are blissfully unaware of their differences. True, there are some who live "horrible" lives, but there are many who are happy. On the other side of the equation, there are people whose disability is hardy one at all since they are in fact aware of it and work to adapt themselves to "normal" society.
Again, your honesty is appreciated.
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:21 pm
by duck
viperbitex wrote:I'm a chic and I'd abort a fetus if I know it was going to have d.s. Why? Survival of the fittest. You don't see any retard animals around, because (am I'm no scientist so feel free to jump down my throat if I'm wrong) over the course of millions of years, the hereditary whatever that causes retardation has been wiped out. Not completely, I'm sure that there are some latent mutant genes that pop up in nature, but the babies born effected with those genes are left to die off or killed by their mother.
Am I saying that we should start the 'final solution' and off all the retarded people OF COURSE NOT!! But I personally wouldn't want to have a retarded kid, no one does, and I'd have no problem aborting one inside me, my conscience would be clear.
To be 100% honest and zero percent politically correct, retarded people make me uncomfortable and I don't like to be around them. A big difference between a retard and a crazy person, is crazy people don't know they're crazy...someone who is mentally handicapped knows that they are different, and that's soooo sad. I would most likely kill myself if I was mentally handicapped, like if I had an accident tomorrow and got serious brain damage. Anyways, thats my 2 cents.
P.C. America can go f*ck itself.
If you really want to go by survival of the fittest then we must stop all foreign aid to third world countries and allow them to kill each other off. Survival of the fittest is not in line with human behavior. Survival of the fittest is the mode of behavior in nature. As humans we can think on a level that allows us not only to behave but to analyze our behavior and recognize the consequences of our actions. Reflective logic is the term I believe my professor used. I guess what I'm saying is the fact that we can have compassion shows that we are above "behaving" in line with survival of the fittest and instead allows us to consider the good of all those involved in our decisions. We can choose to act on a level that animals are incapable of acting on, thus obligating us to do so if we are to sincerely consider ourselves the pinnacle of evolution (mentally at least).
ps. I also second everything Fieyo said.
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:41 pm
by Symmetry
duck wrote: Survival of the fittest is the mode of behavior in nature.
Inigo Montoya wrote:You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 11:42 pm
by Neoteny
Symmetry wrote:duck wrote: Survival of the fittest is the mode of behavior in nature.
Inigo Montoya wrote:You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
That's good. I like that.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:01 am
by duck
Symmetry wrote:duck wrote: Survival of the fittest is the mode of behavior in nature.
Inigo Montoya wrote:You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Indeed as I wrote that I didn't think it sounded right, but I think my point remains the same. Just because something is the way it is doesn't meant that's the way it should be. In this case, just because handicapped children/fetuses would die doesn't mean they should die.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:07 am
by peanutsdad
Ahhh, a pertinant question brought to us all... And yet, the men thing they can answere it. Well, we can't!!!! it's the woman's choice, and it should be her choice. Now, before you guys start ripping me about well it's your baby too... SHUT UP!!!!! it's her body, nough said!!!
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:55 pm
by Gregrios
peanutsdad wrote:Ahhh, a pertinant question brought to us all... And yet, the men thing they can answere it. Well, we can't!!!! it's the woman's choice, and it should be her choice. Now, before you guys start ripping me about well it's your baby too... SHUT UP!!!!! it's her body, nough said!!!
NO. The fetis isn't part of the female body. It just feeds off of it. The woman has no more RIGHT than the man does in determining if the baby should be aborted or not. By the way, what ever happened to adoption as an alterntive option?
The way I look at it is if your about to have a baby and you don't feel that you can provide the neccessary care, then put it up for adoption. If adoption cost too much money, why not just leave it at someone's door? To me, it's much worse to have an abortion than to leave a baby at someone's door. Sure, it might be unfair to the poor soul that answers the door but at least the baby will have some shot at life.
I've said my peace and now I say "peace out".