If we can kill fetuses, can we kill retards?

I disagree with this massively!

There is such a thing as humane termination of life and inhumane.

A moment of pain is not the same as enduring pain. I have had both kinds and the latter made me wish for death to end that pain. It is called 'sufferring'.

By your analogical method of thought, you thinking late abortion is acceptable demonstrates you consider the prolonged torture of a child and eventual death acceptable also.

However, I imagine this is not the case, rather the other case, you have divorced yourself from as it is conveneient to do so.

Or are merely sufficently brain washed by popular culture that you 'believe' it to be acceptable, much the same as many cultures consider mutilating new borns to be acceptable in the name of religion (circumsicon of males and females).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We are only hung up on killing in circumstances that the government/religion/popular culture has decreed is wrong. All other forms of killing are considered acceptable by those who cannot think beyond what they are told/conditioned to think.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I totally agree.

Execution by woodchipper, ja?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I did a little research, and in the states, an abortion after two months is not allowed. And by a little reasearch, I mean I asked a guy and that is what he said.

Potential = amount of work that can be done. A retard can do no work, and in fact, requires work to maintain. Therefore, no potential. A baby can do work in the future, though it may drain current resources. Thus, fetus>retard. In potential, anyway.

Mmmkay. Could you point me to where I specified you insulted me? kthx.

You are quite adept at passively aggressively insulting people. But passive-aggressive insults don't really impress me.

Is it a stupid idea, or am I just offending cultural sensibilities and forcing people to face their own baby killing hypocrisy and stammer "buh buh buh it's different!" Also, saying "second of all" is incorrect. Simply saying "second," will suffice. Ad hominems add nothing to a discussion, wulfie.

Some retards have no potential. I don't think I made any statement to define all retards as having no potential. For instance, some retards are exceptionally good at math.

Can. You read?

Well the parents may find out that the child is too much to deal with, and since it still can't really survive on its own, the parents should have the right to terminate the baby's life. It's their offspring, their house, their food, their right. Right?

Full-fledged? Like they can fly? They can hardly tie their shoes!

Who are you to say a fetus isn't enough of a person to allow doctors to kill them?

Because I'm posting as Roman.

It does protect my reputation, as you don't really believe I'm wes. But that's ok, because you're only a kid.

 

Imagine the potential scientists and artists and philosophers that are being aborted every day.

Every 'blob' 'fetus' 'baby' is unique. They cannot be moulded to be what you want them to be, they have their own potential which all we can do is help them to fulfill. Anyone with their own kids knows this.

We do not know whether the babies lost are more 'valuable' human beings than the ones being kept.

 

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2001/Oberw-/conf_aug01_tjel.html

The desire to kill retarded babies is NOT a new one

"
'Dr. Death'


Let us take a closer look at Singer. This is a book by Peter Singer and the German author Helga Kuhse from 1985, Should the Baby Live?. It was published in German in 1993. Look at what they write: "This book contains conclusions which some readers will find disturbing. We think that some infants with severe disabilities should be killed."

In this book they write that it should be legal to kill handicapped children below one year old, even if they can be cured,; such as children who are born with a handicap called spina bifida, which affects the spine. Why? Because of two reasons. One is that, if they live, they might "suffer" in the future, and the other because it costs too much to treat them.

The most widely read philosophy book in Sweden today is Singer's Practical Ethics, which published in six editions in German, with the latest in 1994. Let's look at what Singer writes. He repeats the arguments for infanticide and against treating newborns with spina bifida. He also describes one of his favorite concepts: That the notion of human rights should be replaced by the "right of persons." That is, that higher animals, like baboons and chimpanzees, as well as humans above one year of age, should be regarded as persons with the right to life; a right that no newborn baby, and no one with severe handicaps, should have—they, in reality, are "non-persons!"

You might have heard that the European Union is researching this subject today. They want to replace the notion of human rights with the rights of persons. Guess where they got that idea!

Singer continues the general idea we have about babies as cute and valuable, and the love we feel when thinking about newborn babies, is preventing a serious discussion about the "need" to kill some of them. Singer calls these emotions irrelevant. "If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby, we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants.... Jeremy Bentham was right to describe infanticide as 'of a nature not to give the slightest inquietude to the most timid imagination.' "

NOTE

If we did apply this philosphy of game theory it would not end at infants, it would then extend to those injured and incapacitated, let's off them too, oh and the elderly, they are a burden, let's off them.

Meanhwile I guarrantee the disabled and old rich would somehow manage to escape this slaughter.

Then there are the children of your enemies who can make up armies of the future..............oh we do that already ....................deep apologies.

Do you see where your relaxed attitudes to taking human life can lead you.

You'll be on the receiving end of these attitudes one day.
Inhumanity will only lead you down one road and it ain't the scenic route.

 

The government/religion/popular culture are three different things often with opposing views.Who considers 'other forms' of killing acceptable?

You haven't answered my question so I'll put it another way. Why are humans so hung up about the killing of other humans? Or rather humans say they are hung up about the killing of other humans but often behave in a way that is contradictory to these claims.

Why are artists more valuable than other humans? Either all humans are eqaully valuable or there is a sliding scale.

 

And imagine all the murderer, theives, rapists, and drug addicts that are being aborted every day. The majority of abortions occur because the parent(s) cannot provide the child with the proper environment of how a child should be raised. I doubt anyone just feels like offing their kid for fun. When you know the child will be hungry most of the time, is it better to let it suffer that way, or to keep it from reaching that level of suffering?

 

Your people who allow and encourage and support the following of course:

death penalty
abortion
war
euthanasia

killing door to door sales men in self defence

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I did answer this, I said they were only hung up on some forms, other not so hung up.

Who said they were more valuable?

 

You did in saying that aborted feotus may turn into an artist suggesting that artists and scientists too as i recall, might be more valuable than those who do not possess such skills.

 

just a quick impromptu list

 

Should people be allowed to continue to exist in the abject misery which leads them to post 'new theories' on sciforums, without a shred of evidence, or an ounce of understanding? Surely these pathetic creatures would be better off dead?
Lists of who should or should not be aborted, or euthenased, tend to reflect the background of the list compiler. Strange that, isn't it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This argment is retarded, so can we kill you?

A fetus does not have emotions, a retarded person does

there are no similarities between the two, why would you compare them??

 

Roman, have you ever visited a hospital, for sick children, have you ever watched a child give him self an injection, to help him fight myloid leukaemia, because his family were to far away, for you to go to sleep at night next to your own son, and he asks if he is going to die of leukaemia, have you ever seen a retard (as you call them) smile, or laugh,have you ever watched a parent break down, when they have lost a child, well i have, so how dare you say that a person who is different from anyone else (retard) should be and i quote(" PUT DOWN") every one and every thing has the right to live, i have watched parents sit up all night with ther children, in hospital, i was one of those parent's, if you have children i pity them.

 

How do you know that fetuses don't have emotions?

You can try.

 

I don't know. Did we want three quarters of the Earth's human population dead?

 

"How do you know that fetuses don't have emotions?"
I have no reason to doubt the word of those who've made human biology their life's work. Until the brain is sufficiently developed, a fetus is no different to a sperm or egg

"you can try"
ooh, where do ya live?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Who are you to say that retards have emotions?

 

Yeah, exactly. A retard's got about as much emotion as a cow.

 

ROMAN/ i teach martial art i have three mentally impaired people in my class, and any one of them would kick your arse, they have emotions, they have feelings, they take a little longer to teach, but they get there,they have totall dedication,and they under stand better than some people.