An old thread with this topic came back to life on vnn today and I would like to hear your opinions on it.

I would say if the child is so severely handicapped(especially mentally)/deformed/whatever that they are never going to be able to live a normal life on their own, then yes. I don't think anyone could make a reasonable arguement that society, the parents and the child would not be better off. Even in cases where the parents agree that they are going to try to provide everyone that is needed to sustain the child, there is going to come a time when the parents die, leaving the duty to others who may not want the burden.

This would extent to adults who may have become incapacited through some accident or other type of life experience.(example: terry shaivo)

I wouldn't agree to euthanasia of flawed babies, but I would agree to abortion after testing during pregnancy.

Yes, of course. It's a public scandal that (eg.) Downs Syndrome children are still being born and raised to adulthood

Christians are good people, but on this issue they are quite wrong

I believe in eugenics through sterilisation, but not euthanasia.

Yes, of course. It's a public scandal that (eg.) Downs Syndrome children are still being born and raised to adulthood




A couple my mother works with recently found out that the unborn child the woman is carrying is going to have downs syndrome. She is still well within the stage where she can legally abort the child and they have chosen not to do so. they have two other healthy children. It seems almost selfish. I don't get it.

I think the problem is that we're now an urban civilization, and have little personal familiarity with the bloody and unsentimental business of breeding and slaughtering livestock. Affluence also insulates us from reality.

Our ancestors may have been Christians, but it was a Christianity tempered by a hard-headed understanding of what was necessary for survival and success in the world

I suspect this mawkish obsession with unconditionally preserving all-life-everywhere would have been completely alien to them

No, they shouldn't be euthanized. The action should be taken preemptively, before pregnancy.

I believe in eugenics through sterilisation, but not euthanasia.

I agree with this position.

In the vast majority of cases, sterilisation should be voluntary and have some material incentive.

Only in the most severe cases should it be involuntary.

Also, some very few abortions should be mandatory.

I think the problem is that we're now an urban civilization, and have little personal familiarity with the bloody and unsentimental business of breeding and slaughtering livestock. Affluence also insulates us from reality.

Our ancestors may have been Christians, but it was a Christianity tempered by a hard-headed understanding of what was necessary for survival and success in the world

I suspect this mawkish obsession with unconditionally preserving all-life-everywhere would have been completely alien to them

I agree, and additionally:

A lot of it has to do with the fact that vital resources are much more abundant now. Back in the 'good old days', a small village couldn't afford to waste precious food , energy, and time, on defectives. To do so would mean less for everyone else. Too many weak members of the tribe draining precious resources at the expense of everyone else could be a fatal mistake when the hostile, stronger tribe several leagues away comes calling, i.e., warfare.

These days, eugenics is more of a quality-of-life issue, than simple survival.

Handicapped strictly no... handicapped and retarded( downs syndrome) yes...

No, they shouldn't be euthanized. The action should be taken preemptively, before pregnancy.


I would not disagree, but what about in the case where a reasonably healthy mother gives birth to a child with severe disabilities?

I would not disagree, but what about in the case where a reasonably healthy mother gives birth to a child with severe disabilities?

It very much depends on the disabilities...

I would not disagree, but what about in the case where a reasonably healthy mother gives birth to a child with severe disabilities?

Then he should be left alive and taken care of, imo. Unless he is a complete brain-dead vegetable, maybe. Difficult question.

A couple my mother works with recently found out that the unborn child the woman is carrying is going to have downs syndrome. She is still well within the stage where she can legally abort the child and they have chosen not to do so. they have two other healthy children. It seems almost selfish. I don't get it.

I remember when I called the local radio talk show, and said that 'nature's mistakes' should be prevented thru abortion and/or sterilisation. After that, several caller's bleeding hearts started uncontrollably gushing.

One modern xtian on the show even went so far as to miserably bleat: "My neighbours have a child with down's syndrome and he's just a joy to behold" (her emphasis).

"Joy to behold"??? I thought, 'you sadistic hag, what the hell is such a joy to behold in someone who is condemned to a life of imbecility?' It's crap like that which gives people the impression that xtianity is a sadomasochistic cult which thrives on suffering.

Depending on the level of handicapped if the child is a total depend and can not even move and just drools and eats by tube, what is the point of it's life? Just to exist for existance sake no matter how wretched it's existance....In that case I'am all for mercy killing. For cases still bad but not to the extreme I'am for sterilisation. The approach taken should fit the situation on a case by case base, I do not like the cookie cutter model that modern society loves, especially on such serious matters.

On the flip side a good eugenics policy would ensure that the highest quality would breed with the highest quality. And not just center around weeding retards.

Of course.

A fellow I know who raised 4 kids three where normal one was a tard, he sat down and told me straight out never keep a retarded kid, either have it aborted or shipped to a home. He said it is a shitty life all around, and the tard will never amount to anything in the end. He said given the chance again he would not go thought it.

I find people who praise the glory of retard childern do not have any of there own. And given the chance to raise some would turn it down quickly. People like that christian bitch are pure selfish, they would rather keep people suffering so they can pat themselves on the back and feel warm fuzzies of self-righteous egotism. Where on the other hand the father who mercy kills his zombie child acts out of a pure love. Where the christian just pretends to care.



I remember when I called the local radio talk show, and said that 'nature's mistakes' should be prevented thru abortion and/or sterilisation. After that, several caller's bleeding hearts started uncontrollably gushing.

One modern xtian on the show even went so far as to miserably bleat: "My neighbours have a child with down's syndrome and he's just a joy to behold" (her emphasis).

"Joy to behold"??? I thought, 'you sadistic hag, what the hell is such a joy to behold in someone who is condemned to a life of imbecility?' It's crap like that which gives people the impression that xtianity is a sadomasochistic cult which thrives on suffering.

I would not disagree, but what about in the case where a reasonably healthy mother gives birth to a child with severe disabilities?

Pre-birth screening is a method to detect defective babies, followed by possible termination of the pregnancy. Perfectly fine people can have defective babies.

On the flip side a good eugenics policy would ensure that the highest quality would breed with the highest quality. And not just center around weeding retards.

Weeding hereditary defects is an aspect of eugenics that works, there is less support for what you describe( althout IQ and class tend to correlate and people of greatly diffrent classes rarely marry each other... bootycall slumming aside).

Yes sadly I must agree.



On the flip side a good eugenics policy would ensure that the highest quality would breed with the highest quality. And not just center around weeding retards.

Weeding hereditary defects is an aspect of eugenics that works, there is less support for what you describe( althout IQ and class tend to correlate and people of greatly diffrent classes rarely marry each other... bootycall slumming aside).

Well, if you want to kill babies on either side of the womb, you probably won't have long to wait. We already have specialized language to make killing unborn children sound like nothing more than an in-patient medical procedure - no biggie, and you're home that same night! - and take all the sting and the onus out of murdering the most vulnerable/helpless/blameless of human beings...so why not kill the inconvenient ones once they're out of the womb, too?

My idea for this sort of eugenics is pretty simple. Anyone in favor of aborting the already-born for whatever reason (high-faluting social engineering or simple garden-variety sadism) gets elected, like it or not, as baby-killer for their province. And no needles, or other bloodless methods that allow you to otherwise detach yourself from your task: you gotta do it with your hands each time. If you refuse the appointment, you get shot in the head on the spot. A strong, healthy state has no use for the wishy-wishy or the equivocating.

(Actually I think there needs to be an unwritten-but-understood law that mercifully looks the other way should a parent decide themselves to end a defective child's suffering - after an autopsy, of course, because there are a lot of Susan Smiths out there. But I'm only half-kidding about my above 'remedy'. As I assume a lot of you are, who bitch about 'freedom' endlessly when it comes to your right to own a fully-functional Panzer tank, but stand ready to bring a little Red China home to all of us for the good of the state by mandating the extermination of babies who are just a burden to their parents, whether they're kidding themselves that they 'love' the repulsive little gorks or not. And, no, I don't have any in my family.)

Oh, one other thing: suppose the parents had this defective child through a combination of medical factors, or simple heredity. Sterilize em on the spot? But first you'd have to strip them of their rights as citizens, wouldn't you? Or could any citizen be sterilized against their will with a stroke of the legislative pen? You're gonna have to stay up worrying who's wielding that pen then, too.)

Il Ragno what do you think specifically of the case of Down Syndrome... gotta be a very miserable existence both for the person that has it and the family that has to deal with it...

I think this is an idea that white supremacists should promote more often, and louder.

MUCH louder.

Well, if you want to kill babies on either side of the womb, you probably won't have long to wait. We already have specialized language to make killing unborn children sound nothing more than an in-patient medical procedure, and take all the sting and the onus out of murdering the most vulnerable/helpless/blameless of human beings...so why not kill the inconvenient ones once they're out of the womb, too?

My idea for this sort of eugenics is pretty simple. Anyone in favor of aborting the already-born for whatever reason (high-faluting social engineering or simple garden-variety sadism) gets elected, like it or not, as baby-killer for their province. And no needles or other bloodless methods that allow you to otherwise detach yourself from your task: you gotta do it with your hands each time. If you refuse the appointment, you get shot in the head on the spot. A strong, healthy state has no use for the wishy-wishy or the equivocating.

(Actually I think there needs to be an unwritten-but-understood law that mercifully looks the other way should a parent decide themselves to end a defective child's suffering - after an autopsy, of course, because there are a lot of Susan Smiths out there. But I'm only half-kidding about my above 'remedy'. As I assume a lot of you are, who bitch about 'freedom' endlessly when it comes to your right to own a fully-functional Panzer tank, but stand ready to bring a little Red China home to all of us for the good of the state by mandating the extermination of babies who are just a burden to their parents, whether they're kidding themselves that they 'love' the repulsive little gorks or not. And, no, I don't have any in my family.)

Oh, one other thing: suppose the parents had this defective child through a combination of medical factors, or simple heredity. Sterilize em on the spot? But first you'd have to strip them of their rights as citizens, wouldn't you? Or could any citizen be sterilized against their will with a stroke of the legislative pen? You're gonna have to stay up worrying who's wielding that pen then, too.)

What're you, some kind of libertarian?

Il Ragno what do you think specifically of the case of Down Syndrome... gotta be a very miserable existence both for the person that has it and the family that has to deal with it...


The family can give that child up to the state. There's no reason to murder an innocent whose only crime is that they'll live their entire lives AS a child.

I think this is an idea that white supremacists should promote more often, and louder.

MUCH louder.you're no better than them, with your support for the mass killing of muslims. imo, you're just two different types of western supremacists, zionist and non-zionist. as that saying goes, pox on both your houses.

Il Ragno what do you think specifically of the case of Down Syndrome... gotta be a very miserable existence both for the person that has it and the family that has to deal with it...

No doubt. Like I said, there should be enough leeway to provide that option (euthanasia) for those parents who can't financially or emotionally bear the burden, although I'd like to see an attempt at placing the child with an adoptive family first before we rush right to 'murder'.

But the murder of children as policy? At the very least, you would lose forever any right to look down on anyone else as 'uncivilized', which seems to be the animating principle for too many 'nationalists' anyway. Because this would be murder, just as abortion-for-convenience is murder. And here's a news-flash that doesn't seem to be penetrating: most parents of defective chldren desperately love those children, and most human beings who live next door to them also develop real sympathy and fondness towards them. I think even if that unwritten law were to come to pass, fewer than 10% of these families would opt to euthanize their own children. (Which is why it has to be policy, huff-and-puff the childless eugenicists.)

you're no better than them, with your support for the mass killing of muslims. imo, you're just two different types of western supremacists, zionist and non-zionist. as that saying goes, pox on both your houses.

Ugh. Spare us this drivel. You're one of those creatures who can barely contain his exstatic glee everytime some teenage virgin blows himself up in a pizzaria while whining when someone does something to stop it.

Rant all you like. All I ask is that you don't bore me.

The family can give that child up to the state. There's no reason to murder an innocent whose only crime is that they'll live their entire lives AS a child.

Funny that someone who reveres the Roman Republic says this, Roman law explicitly demanded( up till late) the killing of any child with any defect more severe then being cross eyed.

What is the cost to the taxpayer, if they can be kept around for 2-3 grand a year fine... if its 100k give them a slightly excessive morphine dose...

State your objections, sulla.

I think this is an idea that white supremacists should promote more often, and louder.

MUCH louder.

With all of the screeings out there to detect if your child may have certain "problems" or not it should be rather obvious that quite a few may have concerns about the health of their child and the decisions that may come with that. Lots of people will choose to abort their child if something is wrong with it. Nobody truly wants a retarded or severely handicapped child. I do believe that there would be more people who would choose to abort their child or end their disabled child's life if there was not such a taboo against it.

What would you consider more humane, a quick shot of morphine bringing about a painless and quick death or being forced to live the life of a retard dependent on others for the most simple things?

Ugh. Spare us this drivel.who is 'us'? speak only for yourself, zionist. You're one of those creatures who can barely contain his exstatic glee everytime some teenage virgin blows himself up in a pizzaria while whining when someone does something to stop it.examples of when I have done so? Rant all you like. All I ask is that you don't bore me.you missed my point, on purpose I am sure. how can you whine about euthanization when you support the mass killing of muslims?

Stop trolling Damavand, trolling is all well and good but it had better be funny.

Attempts should clearly be made for an abortive procedure while the baby is still in the womb; as for euthanizing a defective baby, I think it's acceptable depending on the actual handicap/defect. This is something that would be easier to address in a socialist society where health care is completely nationalized, and its assumed that ALL individuals have equal access to appropriate health care. If that is the case, then with even current technology and equitable access to it, most babies could be detected for such disabling diseases as PKU, tay-sachs, Huntington's, Downs syndrome (not a genetic disease but rather a developmental defect), and other problems where the child could be aborted relatively quickly and effortlessly. In the case that such children as those born with tay-sachs, downs-syndrome, it is probably easiest to simply euthanize the child as soon as possible (as both these defects have serious, and often painful results.

Now, there are other diseases that represent serious defects but not necessarily as valid as downs syndrome itself. For instance, if an infant with PKU is put on a selective diet (and assuming in a socialist state such a diet would be feasible for a parent) since the child is already born it could be maintained (albeit a drain) and live a relatively normal life assuming all doctor's advice is adhered to. Though, if your assuming a negative eugenics policy than if such a child were to be kept alive, it would inevitably have to be sterilized sometime in its future. The question is complex, and requires adequate consideration for which policies a state would want to implement. Personally, I'm more for negative eugenics and attempting to eliminate dangerous and harmful genetic defects (BRCA1/2 and Trisome-21). People with even the slightest predisposition or trace of such genetic traits should be prohibited from spreading them even further.

With that in mind, back to the original question, I think it would be best for society to try to utilize its resources to try and catch such defects in utero, and avoid a number of the messy bioethical issues that arise out of euthanizing a child that has come to term that is completely mentally retarded; rather, use the retarded baby as a research tool in helping us understand more about Trisome-21 and other various genetic variable that would ultimately lead to better genetic screening and counseling, as well as other important medical research.

With all of the screeings out there to detect if your child may have certain "problems" or not it should be rather obvious that quite a few may have concerns about the health of their child and the decisions that may come with that. Lots of people will choose to abort their child if something is wrong with it. Nobody truly wants a retarded or severely handicapped child. I do believe that there would be more people who would choose to abort their child or end their disabled child's life if there was not such a taboo against it.

State your objections, sulla.

I wouldn't kill my child for instance because I was told it would never be able to walk...

1. I think biotechnology will be able to cure that in our lifetime

2. There are well adjusted competent handicapped people going about

Down's Syndrome or vegetable state is another story.

Stop trolling Damavandnot trolling, i'm pointing to an obvious contradiction in sulla's 'logic'. if you want to call it that.

Funny that someone who reveres the Roman Republic says this, Roman law explicitly demanded( up till late) the killing of any child with any defect more severe then being cross eyed.


Very true. But my admiration for the Republic is in its role as the founder of Western Civilization, not in its application of laws to the modern age. :p


What is the cost to the taxpayer?

A pittance compared to seniors.

This isn't Libertyforum you people don't have much sympathy even among the antisemites, burning European embassies because a cartoon got published their and they wouldn't censor it wasn't too bright.

I don't like the idea of killing the helpless,
but, I think it's all for the best.

Though, we have a duty to discover all the reasons which cause defectivity.
Once it becomes norm, it becomes all too easy to just 'remove' something we don't like.

I'm also pro-abortion, even though I hate the idea.
I think there are some things we have to deal with realistically,
not just pretend as if some legislation will solve everything.

I wouldn't kill my child for instance because I was told it would never be able to walk...

Neither would I. Remember I am personally only talking about people who would be completely incapable of ever living any kind of normal life.

Welcome back, damavand.

I don't like the idea of killing the helpless,
but, I think it's all for the best.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator
You're one of those creatures who can barely contain his exstatic glee everytime some teenage virgin blows himself up in a pizzaria while whining when someone does something to stop it.

examples of when I have done so?

Because you claim to be a muslim, he assumes you do these things. And he bitches at some of us for being "bigots" LOL.

Funny that someone who reveres the Roman Republic says this, Roman law explicitly demanded( up till late) the killing of any child with any defect more severe then being cross eyed.
Not only ancient Rome. Derbyshire has some interesting comments on Chinese attitudes to this issue (http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire022701.shtml)

A rough kind of eugenics has, in fact, been practiced in China for a long time. Several years ago, when I was living in that country, I mentioned Down's Syndrome in conversation with a Chinese colleague. She did not know the English term and I did not know the Chinese, so we had to look it up in a dictionary. "Oh," she said when she got it. "That's not a problem in China. They don't get out of the delivery room."

I'm sure that similar attitudes prevailed in Western countries until comparatively recently.

It was unspoken but well understood by all concerned that parents would not thank midwives and doctors who delivered them of live but damaged children

This isn't Libertyforum you people don't have much sympathy even among the antisemitesi disagree, i've only gotten positive rep points (lol watch you rush to change that). if whoever runs the forum asks me to leave, i'll leave. until then, i'll keep offering my opinions here as i please.
, burning European embassies because a cartoon got published their and they wouldn't censor it wasn't too bright."their"? you don't seem to have room to talk. you say i'm trolling, but who is posting the stupid insults? not me. i'm just asking for sulla to explain his hypocrisy. if he can.

Rant all you like. All I ask is that you don't bore me.

Do you support the death penalty?

Welcome back, damavand.thanks.

btw do you know if sulla is a jew? he is obviously at least a zionist but if he is a jew then that would explain even more.

If I'm not opposed to parents euthanizing defective children (I'm not crazy about the idea, but I wouldn't be the one suffering, either) then obviously I have no objection to them aborting a child detected to be inevitably born in such a state. But remember there are crazy folks out there who put two-year-olds in convection ovens to 'exorcise demons' out of them, too. And I wonder if any children have ever been early-detected as hopelessly deformed/disabled who've defied that prognosis once they were born.

But we're talking about policy, not individual choice. A soldier tearing a Down's syndrome child from a crying mother to perform his civic duty is just a murderer, no matter how many statutes he cites or signed requisition forms he waves.

Actually I've always found this 'issue' to be one of the all-time non-starters. It's the lunatic rider that kills any support for the otherwise-reasonable bill, and hopefully it always will be.

State your objections, sulla.


Why would you entrust the genetic planning of our populace to a government you won't trust with your postage?

I don't think defects justify destruction. I have yet to see a person so unique in his perfection as to be in a legitimate position to call for that.


With all of the screeings out there to detect if your child may have certain "problems" or not it should be rather obvious that quite a few may have concerns about the health of their child and the decisions that may come with that. Lots of people will choose to abort their child if something is wrong with it. Nobody truly wants a retarded or severely handicapped child. I do believe that there would be more people who would choose to abort their child or end their disabled child's life if there was not such a taboo against it.


As you correctly point out, there's already a remedy available. No 'take backs' for those who choose to shoot the dice.

And DEFFINATELY not at the State's behest.


What would you consider more humane, a quick shot of morphine bringing about a painless and quick death or being forced to live the life of a retard dependent on others for the most simple things?

I consider a full life for a mentally disabled person who will spend their lives as a child, loved by his friends and family. Your scornful reference to the 'retard' reveals how concerned you are about 'humane' treatment.

Very true. But my admiration for the Republic is in its role as the founder of Western Civilization, not in its application of laws to the modern age. :p

The Romans founded Western civilization? It seems were are always learning something new from Sulla.

Do you support the death penalty?

Yes, I do.

The Romans founded Western civilization? It seems were are always learning something new from Sulla.

I'm glad to aid you in your education. :)

Yes, I do.

Now go sit in the corner.

Humans are funny animals.

We are all bleeding-heart when it comes to euthanizing little retards,
but we also like to laugh at them.

Sulla & Ragno have a point about the terrible nature of bureaucracy
which would be involved in this sad deal.

I'm glad to aid you in your education. :)

Thanks. I must have missed that studying Greek philosophy.

Now go sit in the corner.

Will the first School of Eugenics be founded in the Ozarks, Fade? :p

Thanks. I must have missed that studying Greek philosophy.

I'm sure you did. Greek philosophy isn't a history of Western Civilization. :p

But we're talking about policy, not individual choice. A soldier tearing a Down's syndrome child from a crying mother to perform his civic duty is just a murderer, no matter how many statutes he cites or signed requisition forms he waves.


How about this, proponents of eugenics?

I assume you don't think it should be a voluntary measure.

Will the first School of Eugenics be founded in the Ozarks, Fade? :p

You mean Cold Spring Harbor, right? :/

I'm sure you did. Greek philosophy isn't a history of Western Civilization. :p

Explain. How did the Romans pioneer Western civilization?

Yo, admin. Split the Roman discussion to some other thread. Please.

[QUOTE]I don't think defects justify destruction. I have yet to see a person so unique in his perfection as to be in a legitimate position to call for that.

You are right. And why does it seem you think I am talking about "imperfections" or minor disabilities or problems, rather then severe lifelong dehabiliting handicaps?


As you correctly point out, there's already a remedy available. No 'take backs' for those who choose to shoot the dice.

Unexpected things happen.



I consider a full life for a mentally disabled person who will spend their lives as a child, loved by his friends and family. Your scornful reference to the 'retard' reveals how concerned you are about 'humane' treatment.

This sounds like a lifetime movie type fantasy existence. Very often not the case. And yes, i used the word retard. A word they are going to hear quite a few times in their life in that same scornful manner.

But we're talking about policy, not individual choice. A soldier tearing a Down's syndrome child from a crying mother to perform his civic duty is just a murderer, no matter how many statutes he cites or signed requisition forms he waves.

Murder is unlawful killing.

It is also the ultimate violation of any civilized society's moral code first, before 'lawful' even enters the equation, for a whole lot of us. Laws not based in morality are dictates, as seen in any garden-variety tyranny.

You surprise me: given the imminent birth of your own child, don't you feel a whistling-past-the-graveyard pause discussing this? Or did you get a clean bill of health at the screening, freeing you to resume disassociating from the rest of humanity?

why does it seem you think I am talking about "imperfections" or minor disabilities or problems, rather then severe lifelong dehabiliting handicaps?


Where is the line drawn? A child born without legs, for example, has a 'lifelong handicap'. Things will be very difficult for him. His parents will have to go to extraordinary means to give him quality of life.

Does he get the needle? A woman in Britain aborted her child because he would have been born with a cleft palate. Thats something I can see 'slipping by'. Should that woman have the option to give him the needle?

So you oppose STATE imposed eugenics, correct?


Unexpected things happen.


Yeah, life's hard.


This sounds like a lifetime movie type fantasy existence. Very often not the case. And yes, i used the word retard. A word they are going to hear quite a few times in their life in that same scornful manner.

Actually when I was going to school they had mentally disabled people working in manual tasks, such as groundskeeping and what not. They were very pleasant, happy to be working, and enjoying each other's company.

I didn't hate them. That they lived cost me nothing. And even if it did, its a price I wouldn't begrudge. They're like children. I don't believe in killing a person for the crime of being childlike.

It is also the ultimate violation of any civiized society's moral code first, before 'lawful' even enters the equation, for a whole lot of us.

Civilization has nothing to do with the matter. The Greeks and Romans often practiced exposure as others in this thread have already point out.

Remember I am personally only talking about people who would be completely incapable of ever living any kind of normal life.
Here's the rub. You're in no position to dictate to anyone what a normal life is, especially when you say you'd make exceptions for the physically handicapped.

Laws not based in morality are dictates, as seen in any garden-variety tyranny.

What is morality?

You surprise me: given the imminent birth of your own child, don't you feel a whistling-past-the-graveyard pause discussing this? Or did you get a clean bill of health at the screening, freeing you to resume disassociating from the rest of humanity?

My child is not a defective.

Civilization has nothing to do with the matter. The Greeks and Romans often practiced exposure as others in this thread have already point out.
They also crucified Jesus; you don't have a point. :p

They also crucified Jesus; you don't have a point. :p

Christ or Barrabas?

still waiting for sulla to explain why he condemns euthanasia of the disabled yet he has also argued for the mass killing of muslims. i'm having trouble seeing how his 'moral indignation' is anything but false, and hypocritical.

Yes we all know this. The Romans and Greeks practiced a number of things we've seen fit to discontinue. Should we crucify thieves, too? I mean, assuming the proper forms were in order and properly initialed, crucifixion would be lawful, too.

still waiting for sulla to explain why he condemns euthanasia of the disabled yet he has also argued for the mass killing of muslims. i'm having trouble seeing how his 'moral indignation' is anything but false, and hypocritical.

I don't know where I've argued for the mass killing of muslims. Did you read that in a cartoon?

Yes we all know this. The Romans and Greeks practiced a number of things we've seen fit to discontinue.

You stated that this practice violates the moral code of any civilized society. That is false.

Should we crucify thieves, too? I mean, assuming the proper forms were in order and properly initialed, crucifixion would be lawful, too.

This is irrelevant to the point being addressed.

My child is not a defective.
But what if it were? What if, God forbid, some accident should befall the toddler that caused some form of irreperable brain damage? These things happen, you know. And we were talking about euthanasia, not abortion. One rule for me, another for thee?

Yes we all know this. The Romans and Greeks practiced a number of things we've seen fit to discontinue. Should we crucify thieves, too? I mean, assuming the proper forms were in order and properly initialed, crucifixion would be lawful, too.i hate to say this, but to me the electric chair seems just as nasty as crucifixion. isn't that still a common way of execution in the states? getting slowly roasted with electrical power until you die, that does not sound like a comfortable way to go. however i agree with your general argument, just because ancient peoples did something, is not by itself proof it is a good idea today.

The Greeks and Romans often practiced exposure as others in this thread have already point out.

Greek eugenics worked very well for the Spartans, didn't it?

We don't put two year olds in the electric chair. Or murder our daughters because they've been raped.

Christ or Barrabas?
Do you know what 'Christ' means?

Here's the rub. You're in no position to dictate to anyone what a normal life is, especially when you say you'd make exceptions for the physically handicapped.


Mental handicaps, severe physical handicaps, possibly and major deformities(cleft palate, and others, can be fixed)

even the legless guy has the mental facilties present to be able to care for and look after himself. This is kind of what I am trying to get at by "halfway normal life"

But what if it were? What if, God forbid, some accident should befall the toddler that caused some form of irreperable brain damage? These things happen, you know. And we were talking about euthanasia, not abortion. One rule for me, another for thee?

I think euthanasia should be an option in the case of severe birth defects, that is, it should not be illegal. If my child came out looking like the Elephant Man, then I would probably endorse the procedure. I also think abortion should be an option in the case of rape.

I don't know where I've argued for the mass killing of muslims. Did you read that in a cartoon?remember the thread on syria? you claimed that the al-assad government killed twenty thousand muslims, and later in the thread, you said you had no problem with this.

Do you know what 'Christ' means?

Was Jesus Christ the Son of God?

I think euthanasia should be an option in the case of severe birth defects, that is, it should not be illegal. If my child came out looking like the Elephant Man, then I would probably endorse the procedure.

I would go so far as to say I would definitely endorse the procedure in the case of my own.

still waiting for sulla to explain why he condemns euthanasia of the disabled yet he has also argued for the mass killing of muslims. i'm having trouble seeing how his 'moral indignation' is anything but false, and hypocritical.

He also supports the death penalty. Selective outrage and "moralities." This is something that afflicts all of us.

Mental handicaps, severe physical handicaps, possibly and major deformities(cleft palate, and others, can be fixed)

even the legless guy has the mental facilties present to be able to care for and look after himself. This is kind of what I am trying to get at by "halfway normal life"
What you're trying to "get at" is evanescent. To what extent do you distinguish between the normal life capabilities of someone with Down's Syndrome and someone with Asperger's syndrome? There are degrees of each, and I'd like to see you draw a nice, precise line for me.

Greek eugenics worked very well for the Spartans, didn't it?

What about the Spartans?

You stated that this practice violates the moral code of any civilized society. That is false.

We are proceeding here on the unstated understanding that we are speaking of post-industrialized civilized societies. The classical world represents early civilization, in part because the institutions of civilization developed there amid a lot of practices we would today view as barbaric or sexually profligate.

And how do you plan on selling this idea to the great retard-hugging unwashed, pray tell? (A more important question than splitting hairs over ancient antecedents. Please - some practical discussion, before we go to the cut-n-pastes!))

We don't put two year olds in the electric chair.but "you" (as in americans in general, not you in particular) do slaughter millions of unborn babies every year. do you not? with legal approval. anyway, you were listing crucifixion as barbaric punishment, but it's hard to see electric chairs as a nicer way to go. that was my point. Or murder our daughters because they've been raped.in muslim countries, that is rare, and it is not done with official approval. one can find also find murders in america -and they are more common per capita. in western countries, child murder (under the name abortion) is not rare - and it does have official approval.

no offense to you, as i doubt you support these policies of your government - but it is the truth.

Was Jesus Christ the Son of God?
It's quite possible. :p
He also supports the death penalty. Selective outrage and "moralities." This is something that afflicts all of us.
I may not support the death penalty, but a reasonable man can distinguish between an innocent victim of genetics or circumstance and a murderous criminal. Sulla's no hypocrite.

remember the thread on syria? you claimed that the al-assad government killed twenty thousand muslims, and later in the thread, you said you had no problem with this.

I claimed? Did it happen or didn't it?

You were cheering Iran's alliance with Syria. I don't understand how you can be outraged by my alleged support for an alleged atrocity by a government you like.

This is the type of logic your region operates by, of course.

We are proceeding here on the unstated understanding that we are speaking of post-industrialized civilized societies.

Are you endorsing the values of post-industrialized civilized societies now?

The classical world represents early civilization, in part because the institutions of civilization developed there amid a lot of practices we would today view as barbaric or sexually profligate.

I cited the Greeks and Romans to falsify the assertion that no civilized society practices kills defective infants.

And how do you plan on selling this idea to the great retard-hugging unwashed, pray tell? (A more important question than splitting hairs over ancient antecedents.)

Have you forgotten our conversation in the other thread? I don't pay any attention to such people.

What about the Spartans?

How well did their practice of exposing babies to the wolves and elements work for them?

I may not support the death penalty, but a reasonable man can distinguish between an innocent victim of genetics or circumstance and a murderous criminal. Sulla's no hypocrite.

That murderous criminal could be the victim of genetics or circumstance, that compel him to act, in some ways. And the death penalty thing is only secondary. the real comments were on his "death to muslims" mindset.

He also supports the death penalty. Selective outrage and "moralities." This is something that afflicts all of us.

Strangely enough, I don't see murderers and child rapists as the moral equivalent of a baby.

A related thread (http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1976)

It's quite possible. :p

Explain. How is it possible for a human female to give birth to the offspring of a supernatural deity?

How well did their practice of exposing babies to the wolves and elements work for them?

This is an irrelevancy.

That murderous criminal could be the victim of genetics or circumstance, that compel him to act, in some ways. And the death penalty thing is only secondary. the real comments were on his "death to muslims" mindset.
In which case it is illegal under American law to sentence him to death, so your point falls flat anyway. By 'circumstance,' I meant acute physical trauma leading to disability, not "his mommy didn't hug him enough." :rolleyes:
Explain. How is it possible for a human female to give birth to the offspring of a supernatural deity?
Why, divine intervention, of course.

Why, divine intervention, of course.

Does God talk to you?

I claimed? Did it happen or didn't it?

You were cheering Iran's alliance with Syria. I don't understand how you can be outraged by my alleged support for an alleged atrocity by a government you like.irrelevant, as whatever happened in that case, happened under a previous government. syria has a new ruler now, and new policies. though you probably were not even aware of this. i doubt you could find syria on a map.

you are still hiding from my point- that you support killing, even mass killing when it suits your purposes. much like you whine about the nazi "holocaust" yet you support the israeli holocaust against the palestinians, etc. your way is total hypocrisy.
This is the type of logic your region operates by, of course.as opposed to the brilliant western logic of "come to 'democracy', or 'democracy' will come to you- with bombs!"

Does God talk to you?
Nope. I'm neither saint, nor prophet, nor messiah.

you're no better than them, with your support for the mass killing of muslims. imo, you're just two different types of western supremacists, zionist and non-zionist. as that saying goes, pox on both your houses.
Do not conflate White Nationalism with White Supremacism please.

In which case it is illegal under American law to sentence him to death, so your point falls flat anyway.

I am referring to the idea that some people may be born with a predisposition to commit violent acts. Not about someone who may be legally judged to be unfit because they are retarded or insane.

We are, of course, a bit off topic, now.:nono:

Do not conflate White Nationalism with White Supremacism please.i wasn't. i was responding to a post where sulla mentioned 'white supremacists'. if true nationalists (as opposed to supremacists or imperialists ) were in power in the west, things would be much better for everyone, no doubt about it.

Nope. I'm neither saint, nor prophet, nor messiah.

Did God talk to these people?

I think euthanasia should be an option in the case of severe birth defects, that is, it should not be illegal. If my child came out looking like the Elephant Man, then I would probably endorse the procedure. I also think abortion should be an option in the case of rape.

But the question was markedly not about birth defects. Small children have accidents, and, being as vulnerable as they are, can develop serious problems in functioning afterwards. Nothing congenital about it. What do you tell the soldier with the proper initialed form who comes to put Junior to sleep - that he was in a car accident, and damaged his brain in the impact? Well, a gork is a gork, and if there were an exemption for born normal but became disabled, all the mothers of retards would be claiming "car accident", or "fell and hit his head", or "reacted badly to medication".

Still ready to wave bye-bye to Li'l Fade as they put him in the Beddy-bye Truck to Heaven because, after all, it's for the ultimate good of the nation-state?

I'm kidding, of course. Because as long as eugenicists require proles to do their dirty work - and they always will - murdering disabled children ain't happening. There are always more clinically-detached political theorists ready to kill babies on paper that there are rank-and-file soldiers willing to kill them for real. Set the wayback machine to AD 50 then, cos it ain't happening here and now.

My vote is for the euthanasia of those with 48 chromosomes.

But the question was markedly not about birth defects.

The initial post.

"I would say if the child is so severely handicapped(especially mentally)/deformed/whatever that they are never going to be able to live a normal life on their own, then yes."
--Starr

Still ready to wave bye-bye to Li'l Fade as they put him in the Beddy-bye Truck because, after all, it's for the ultimate good of the nation-state? I'm kidding, of course.

1.) My child is not defective.
2.) Accidents are not hereditary defects and are thus irrelevant to eugenics.

Because as long as eugenicists require proles to do their dirty work - and they always will - murdering disabled children ain't happening.

Murder is unlawful killing. Euthanasia would not be murder if it was legal, say, in the case of children with severe birth defects.

Because there are always more clinically-detached political theorists ready to kill babies in theory that there are rank-and-file soldiers willing to kill them for real. Set the wayback machine to AD 50 then, cos it ain't happening here and now.

This is a straw man. I think euthanasia is warranted in some cases and should be an option. This seems to be a reasonable position to me. Euthanasia is also legal in several European countries today.

What about children with cancer and leukemia? Shit, they're gonna die anyway, the little bald-headed fucks. Why not give Mother Nature a little push? Sure they're otherwise normal, but - it costs society a helluva lot more to tendto seriously ill children than retarded ones.

How about harelips? Yeesh. They're so aesthetically displeasing - especially in little kids. It offends my sense of beauty and order, a kid with a damn harelip. OK to zotz 'em too?

This is an irrelevancy.

Because it was a disaster?

Did God talk to these people?
Yup.
I am referring to the idea that some people may be born with a predisposition to commit violent acts. Not about someone who may be legally judged to be unfit because they are retarded or insane.
This is quite possibly the most pathetic argument I've ever seen. To equivocate disabled children with serial murderers and rapists - I'm sorry, but I won't be continuing because you aren't serious.

To equivocate disabled children with serial murderers and rapists - I'm sorry, but I won't be continuing because you aren't serious.sorry, but that isn't much of a counter argument.

Because it was a disaster?

How was eugenics a disaster in Sparta?

What about children with cancer and leukemia?

Cancer and leukemia are caused by environmental factors, right?

How about harelips? Yeesh. They're so aesthetically displeasing - especially in little kids. It offends my sense of beauty and order, a kid with a damn harelip. OK to zotz 'em too?

I won't entertain your straw man.

Cancer and leukemia are caused by environmental factors, right?
Is that why oncology clinics offer genetic screenings for its likelihood of emergence? Or why women with family histories of breast cancer are begged to get mammograms on a regular basis?

To equivocate disabled children with serial murderers and rapists

NOt really what I was doing. Not any kind of moral comparison, anyway.
I knew this topic would get some people riled.:cool:

Is that why oncology clinics offer genetic screenings for its likelihood of emergence? Or why women with family histories of breast cancer are begged to get mammograms on a regular basis?

Are you suggesting that environmental factors have nothing to do with cancer and leukemia?

You're ducking. I specifically asked you about developmentally-disabled kids, not merely those due to birth defects. Since juvenile euthanasia is not yet a law, why are we presuming it would be passed for purely eugenic reasons? Suppose killing 'special' children had a primarily-economic motive? (What suppose? If such a law were to pass, this would likely be its primary reason. This is 21st-century America, after all, not ancient Rome).

1.) My child is not defective.

And thank goodness for that. But why does this sound like "Fuck you, Jack, I'm all right" in the context of this discussion?

Could you love your child if he or she were 'special'? Or would you simply feel selfish contempt towards that baby?

Murder is unlawful killing. Euthanasia would not be murder if it was legal, say, in the case of children with severe birth defects.

Please go into politics and say this into a live microphone just once. Please.

Are you suggesting that environmental factors have nothing to do with cancer and leukemia?
Are you suggesting that genetic factors have nothing to do with cancer and leukemia?

What is "special" I always thought that was a bizarre way to refer to someone who is retarded. To me, special describes someone who is different in a positive or "greater" way.

irrelevant, as whatever happened in that case, happened under a previous government. syria has a new ruler now, and new policies. though you probably were not even aware of this. i doubt you could find syria on a map.


LMAO Ah yes, a 'new regime' under the SON of the guy who did it. Totally unrelated. The army which did it is still there, the party that did it still runs the country.

But thats in the past. Fine.

Well, where is Syria's apology to the Muslim Brotherhood? Why are you a coward? Denounce it.

By the way, your little jibe didn't go unnoticed. Of course I can identify the location of Syria. However, I gain endless amusement watching how pissy you guys get if the world isn't intimately familiar with your little dustbowl.


you are still hiding from my point- that you support killing, even mass killing when it suits your purposes.


Actually, I don't. I understand why Assad crushed the muslim brotherhood, so Syria wouldn't be plagued by fanatics like you. Of course, he was a monster and went overboard.

But notice, this little fellow could care less. He cares MORE about his perception of me approving of the act than he does about the ACT ITSELF!

Thats because these guys view each other as ordinance, not people.


much like you whine about the nazi "holocaust" yet you support the israeli holocaust against the palestinians, etc.


Blah blah blah. I'm sure someone's eager to hear this rubbish in your local marketplace. Run to them. You've got a lot of faux outrage to unburden yourself of.

You're ducking. I specifically asked you about developmentally-disabled kids, not merely those due to birth defects.

My initial response in this thread addressed the issue of children with severe birth defects. I responded and said that euthanasia should be an option in such cases. What do you mean by developmentally-disabled kids?

Since juvenile euthanasia is not yet a law, why are we presuming it would be passed for purely eugenic reasons?

Euthanasia is legal in several European countries.

Suppose killing 'special' children had a primarily-economic motive? (What suppose? If such a law were to pass, this would likely be its primary reason.

Such laws are actually passed to give parents the option to terminate the lives of defective offspring and the elderly the right to commit physician assisted suicide.

This is 21st-century America, after all, not ancient Rome).

Do you endorse the values of 21st-century America?

And thank godness for that. But why does this sound like "Fuck you, Jack, I'm all right" in the context of this discussion?

You keep asserting that my child has some sort of hereditary defect which is why I have responded to the false accusation.

Could you love your child if he or she were 'special'? Or would you simply feel selfish contempt towards that baby?

There is no indication that my child is retarded or defective if that is what you are insinuating. If that were the case, then it would turn on the severity of the defect. I would never condemn my child to a miserable dysfunctional life on account of some ridiculous ideology.

Are you suggesting that genetic factors have nothing to do with cancer and leukemia?

I don't recall ever saying that. What does this have to do with euthanasia?

I don't recall ever saying that. What does this have to do with euthanasia?
Let's say a child is born with a 75%+ genetic predisposition to developing cancer. Is that child 'defective'? How about other hereditary conditions with protracted latency periods?

What is "special" I always thought that was a bizarre way to refer to someone who is retarded. To me, special describes someone who is different in a positive way.

Are you sitting down, Starr? Ok. 'Special' is a term used out of a impulse of kindness and empathy.

But those terms are of course lost upon people who need to check their Tacitus first, before deciding whether such frivolities would have a place in their version of human society.

Let's say a child is born with a 75%+ genetic predisposition to developing cancer. Is that child 'defective'? How about other hereditary conditions with prolonged latency periods?

Obviously. What does this have to do with euthanasia?

Obviously. What does this have to do with euthanasia?
You are proposing to euthanise children born with genetic defects, isn't that correct? I assume, given these two admissions, you're equally keen to nix all those baby girls whose mothers and grandmothers had breast cancer, along with the boys liable to sink into clinical depression or become alcoholic. Any other defects you consider worthy of a bullet in the face?

I don't recall ever saying that. What does this have to do with euthanasia?

If you're destroying children because of hardship, why wouldn't you eliminate those who carry genetic diseases?

LMAO Ah yes, a 'new regime' under the SON of the guy who did it. Totally unrelated. The army which did it is still there, the party that did it still runs the country.he and his father are two different people.
Of course I can identify the location of Syria. i will remain skeptical...
However, I gain endless amusement watching how pissy you guys get if the world isn't intimately familiar with your little dustbowl. what you call a 'little dustbowl' is the birth of many great civilizations and central to much of what is covered in international news. anyone not familiar is simply uneducated period.
Actually, I don't. I understand why Assad crushed the muslim brotherhood, so Syria wouldn't be plagued by fanatics like you. Of course, he was a monster and went overboard. amazing, you really have no clue what you are talking about. it's like you are doing best to prove you are ignorant. first i am shi'ite, i have nothing to do with the 'muslim brotherhood', which is sunni. i have good words to say about today's syrian government. the 'muslim brotherhood' would not. yet you accuse me of being like them? you have no clue. Thats because these guys view each other as ordinance, not people.so says the apologist for zionism. your words are worthless.

You are proposing to euthanise children born with genetic defects, isn't that correct?

I have already stated my position in this thread. I believe euthanasia should be an option in the case of severe birth defects that would prevent people from living otherwise functional lives. The grounds for such a procedure would to be alleviate their suffering. What are your objections?

I assume, given these two admissions, you're equally keen to nix all those baby girls whose mothers and grandmothers had breast cancer, along with the boys liable to sink into clinical depression or become alcoholic.

This is a straw man.

Any other defects you consider worthy of a bullet in the face?

This is a hysterical, dishonest, unwarranted misrepresentation of my position on this issue. Don't bother responding to this post. I don't have anything further to say to you in this thread.

If you're destroying children because of hardship, why wouldn't you eliminate those who carry genetic diseases?

I believe euthanasia should be an option in the case of children who are born with severe birth defects, that is, I can see situations arising in which euthanasia would be warranted. I have not said that I endorse euthanasia as a measure to stop the spread of genetic diseases, as there are all sorts of other methods for dealing with such problems.

Damavand, start a separate thread if you want to battle Sulla on Syrian affairs. You're going miles off-topic in this one.

You are proposing to euthanise children born with genetic defects, isn't that correct? I assume, given these two admissions, you're equally keen to nix all those baby girls whose mothers and grandmothers had breast cancer, along with the boys liable to sink into clinical depression or become alcoholic. Any other defects you consider worthy of a bullet in the face?

Cancer, depression, alcoholism? LOL. Aren't we getting just a little ridiculous now. Again to remind you the intended topic was on severe handicaps. Why do these discussions always turn into "OMG, you want to euthanize everyone who is not 100% perfect"
If that was true, I would be starting with a bullet to my own head.:222:

I believe euthanasia should be an option in the case of children who are born with severe birth defects, that is, I can see situations arising in which euthanasia would be warranted.
Be more definitive. Euthanasia as an option open only to the parents, or euthanasia as public policy overriding the desires of the parents?

he and his father are two different people.


LOL The son is a lot more incompetant. Thats the biggest difference.


i will remain skeptical...


Sure you will. You're an ignorant little buffoon. You're a ponce.


what you call a 'little dustbowl' is the birth of many great civilizations and central to much of what is covered in international news.


Keep resting on your laurels. Maybe when the oil dries up they'll feed you.



amazing, you really have no clue what you are talking about. it's like you are doing best to prove you are ignorant. first i am shi'ite,


How would I know you're a shi'ite, little guy? I'm not your biographer. I'm talking about 'you' as a fanatic. The Muslim Brotherhood shares your fanatical hatred of the West and Israel. I could care less that you're of a different sect.

So then since they're just sunnis, do you support what Assad did to them?

Damavand, start a separate thread if you want to battle Sulla on Syrian affairs. You're going miles off-topic in this one.you're right, it is getting too off-topic now. but that is not my intention. at first i was making an on-topic point- that his opposition to killing isn't consistent. obviously he will not address this, he would rather drag things off topic, so it is hopeless. i will shut up now : )

Cancer, depression, alcoholism? LOL. Aren't we getting just a little ridiculous now.


Its more ridiculous to destroy a child because he's born with down syndrome than it is to destroy him for having cancer.

Be more definitive. Euthanasia as an option open only to the parents, or euthanasia as public policy overriding the desires of the parents?

I don't see it as an either/or question. Both should retain the option.

I have already stated my position in this thread. I believe euthanasia should be an option in the case of severe birth defects that would prevent people from living otherwise functional lives. The grounds for such a procedure would to be alleviate their suffering.
'Functional' is not any kind of qualifiable criterion. Is the boy who might grow up to become seriously clinically depressed because of a chemical imbalance and then get addicted to alcohol because of a patrilinial disposition in the family functional once he reaches that stage? Is he not suffering? Who are you to tell me or anyone else that children with Down's Syndrome are suffering?

What are your objections?
1. Your criteria for 'disability,' 'functionality,' 'normal life,' et. al. are subjective and not rooted in anything concrete.
2. You are in no position to comment on the quality of a life of any other human being from their point of view.
3. It is a slippery slope argument for the reasons listed in (1).
4. My question of degrees has yet to be answered. Let me repeat it: "To what extent do you distinguish between the normal life capabilities of someone with Down's Syndrome and someone with Asperger's syndrome? There are degrees of each, and I'd like to see you draw a nice, precise line for me."


This is a straw man.
It is the logical corollary of what you propose.

This is a hysterical, dishonest, unwarranted misrepresentation of my position on this issue. Don't bother responding to this post. I don't have anything further to say to you in this thread.
Meow. :rofl: For someone with no qualms about pushing needles into infants' brains because they don't meet your definition of humanity (being part of the great retard-hugging unwashed masses, no doubt), you've certainly got thin skin.

Cancer, depression, alcoholism? LOL. Aren't we getting just a little ridiculous now. Again to remind you the intended topic was on severe handicaps. Why do these discussions always turn into "OMG, you want to euthanize everyone who is not 100% perfect"
If that was true, I would be starting with a bullet to my own head.:222:
It illustrates the nebulous quality of your non-standards. Give me a strict medical definition for "severe handicap" you propose to apply to your euthanasia criteria. I'll have fifteen counter-examples inside of a minute, whatever you say.

I don't see it as an either/or question. Both should retain the option.

In that case doesn't the state have ATLEAST as compelling an interest in the destruction of people carrying genetic diseases as they do in eliminating people born with defects or mental challenges?

Why is a "medical definition" needed?Pot, why don't you just use my attempted definition in the beginning of the thread. Or something along the lines of this, I suppose:
Just to exist for existance sake no matter how wretched it's existance.

How would I know you're a shi'ite, little guy?i have said so several times on the forum. also, my support for the syrian and iranian governments should give you a clue! do you really think at all before you post?! I'm talking about 'you' as a fanatic. The Muslim Brotherhood shares your fanatical hatred of the West and Israel. I could care less that you're of a different sect. look fool - you should not talk about things about which you are totally ignorant. you said they attacked the 'muslim brotherhood' to get rid of people like me. yet i am nothing like the 'muslim brotherhood'- i am shi'ite, they are sunni. i support the governments of syria and iran, they do not. you speak of 'hatred of the west and israel', well yes i oppose the zionist entity and the corrupt regimes of the west. but so what - so does the government of syria! lol, you have no idea what you are talking about.

anyway you refuse to address my point, that your opposition to killing is totally inconsistent. so i will depart this conversation in respect to those who want to stay on topic.

Pot, why don't you just use my attempted definition in the beginning of the thread.
"so severely handicapped(especially mentally)/deformed/whatever that they are never going to be able to live a normal life on their own"

"I am personally only talking about people who would be completely incapable of ever living any kind of normal life."

These are the bases upon which you propose to define a medical diagnosis?

In that case doesn't the state have ATLEAST as compelling an interest in the destruction of people carrying genetic diseases as they do in eliminating people born with defects or mental challenges?

1) The state obviously does have an interest in striving to eliminate hereditary diseases.
2) Euthanasia is not required to contain the spread of hereditary diseases.
3) The elimination of such diseases is neither an end in itself or the only concern of the state.

It illustrates the nebulous quality of your non-standards. Give me a strict medical definition for "severe handicap" you propose to apply to your euthanasia criteria. I'll have fifteen counter-examples inside of a minute, whatever you say.

Potyondi, what would you do if you had to father a child who was a retard or even worse - brain-dead, for example? Hypothetic question, I wish it never happens to anyone here.

Why is a "medical definition" needed?Pot, why don't you just use my attempted definition in the beginning of the thread. Or something along the lines of this, I suppose:

You know that "health" and "sickness" are subjective terms, right?

1) The state obviously does have an interest in striving to eliminate hereditary diseases.
2) Euthanasia is not required to contain the spread of hereditary diseases.
3) The elimination of such diseases is neither an end in itself or the only concern of the state.

Fade the realist?

I don't see it as an either/or question. Both should retain the option.

If govt retains the 'right' to make euthanasia public policy, it doesn't matter what illusory 'options' are allowed individual parents. That's like saying firearms confiscation is now public policy, although individuals retain the right to turn them in voluntarily. (Or they're free to go to jail, of course. More 'options'.)

You are in favor of the government euthanizing small children under the aegis of Taller And Stronger White People One Fine Day (I assume this is the case, since kids with Down's Syndrome rarely rob banks), and candy-coating it with some toothless unless Mom and Dad kill Junior first lip-service; when the only reason you'd need the govt to do it at all is the near-certainty that Mom and Dad wouldn't countenance such an 'option'.

Potyondi, what would you do if you had to father a child who was a retard or even worse - brain-dead, for example? Hypothetic question, I wish it never happens to anyone here.
I would try my darndest to be a good father and to raise a boy or girl who knows right from wrong and is polite, which is all you can ask of any man. I certainly wouldn't feel any revulsion or lack of love evinced by some others in this thread. Children aren't presents you can return or toss in the rubbish if you don't like them.

Why is a "medical definition" needed?
You're proposing to divide people up based on their physical and mental (i.e. bio-medical) characteristics based on your opinion of a "wretched life"?

Does someone who is severely brain damaged have the capacity to understand such ideas as "right" and "wrong"

I certainly wouldn't feel any revulsion or lack of love evinced by some others in this thread.

I would say keeping the child alive for your own enjoyment, not thinking of such things as the quality of life of the child, may show a lack of love.

If govt retains the 'right' to make euthanasia public policy, it doesn't matter what illusory 'options' are allowed individual parents.

This does not follow.

That's like saying firearms confiscation is now public policy, although individuals retain the right to turn them in voluntarily.

This is a false analogy.

You are in favor of the government euthanizing small children under the aegis of Taller And Stronger White People One Fine Day (I assume this is the case, since kids with Down's Syndrome rarely rob banks), and candy-coating it with some toothless unless Mom and Dad kill Junior first lip-service; when the only reason you'd need the govt to d it is the near-certainty that Mom and Dad won't countenance such an 'option'.

Here is what you are saying. A couple has a severly deformed child that will spend its entire life sucking food out of a straw and staring at the ceiling of a hospital with its one eyeball. The parents of such a child (or the state) should not have the right to end the suffering of such a poor unfortunate human being through the use of euthanasia because of right to life fundamentalists who refuse to tolerate the existence of any exceptions to their insane ideology.

Does someone who is severely brain damaged have the capacity to understand such ideas as "right" and "wrong"

This is a subjective assessment. Who are you to diagnose someone as being severely brain damaged? Where does severe brain damage become moderate brain damage?

Does someone who is severely brain damaged have the capacity to understand such ideas as "right" and "wrong"
I suppose every 'functional' human being understands the difference between right and wrong, is that it? :p If that were the case, you and I wouldn't be arguing. You've stopped defending a position, Starr. I suggest you find some ground to stand on by responding to my objections.

I would say keeping the child alive for your own enjoyment, not thinking of such things as the quality of life of the child, may show a lack of love.
What a facile assessment of child-rearing, and obviously one uninformed by knowledge about mothers and fathers who actually do raise disabled children. I, and they, assure you that there is more self-sacrifice involved in that than anything you've ever attempted. In fact, these parents go out of their way to ensure a very happy life for their children and in the vast majority of cases, they are happy. This is born of unconditional love.

This is a subjective assessment. Who are you to diagnose someone as being severely brain damaged? Where does severe brain damage become moderate brain damage?
The difference between giving someone medical treatment for a condition and killing them on account of it underlines the relative importance of absolute definitions in each case.

Starr,

Who are you to say that blindness is a disability; that people who suffer from hearing loss are 'dysfunctional'?

i have said so several times on the forum.


It might surprise you to learn I don't read every hateful piece of dreck to drip from your fingers.


also, my support for the syrian and iranian governments should give you a clue!


Why? Muslims of all stripes support the Iranian government, simply because of its opposition to Israel and the United States. Boy, you sure ignorant. You don't know anything about who supports who on internet bulletin boards. Don't you think? Even white supremacists sometimes support Iran, and they're not shi'ites. Don't you even know that white supremacists aren't shi'ites?

Or maybe just a noob to how internet discussion works.

I and they, assure you?:D

Potyondi, spokesmen for the mothers and fathers of the retarded.

Who are you to say that blindness is a disability;

I say no such thing:nono: Blind people are not without sight, they just see differently then we do. They are not "disabled", but "differently abled":p

I would try my darndest to be a good father and to raise a boy or girl who knows right from wrong and is polite, which is all you can ask of any man. I certainly wouldn't feel any revulsion or lack of love evinced by some others in this thread.


What if everything this child can do is stare at a point on the wall and drool, unable to speak or understand anything that is going on around him? What if he has microcephaly or some other kind of desease that would make his public life unbearable?


Children aren't presents you can return or toss in the rubbish if you don't like them.


I admire such a position, although hypothetically speaking about it and having to deal with it on a daily basis are different things.

I would say keeping the child alive for your own enjoyment, not thinking of such things as the quality of life of the child, may show a lack of love.

Did you just say that a woman who raises her mentally disabled or handicapped child loves them less than the woman who kills it in disappointment after it leaves her womb? :confused:

You didn't just say that, did you?

Starr,

Who are you to say that blindness is a disability; that people who suffer from hearing loss are 'dysfunctional'?


Make sure the murderers in white coats get your updates for the eugenics list.

What if everything this child can do is stare at a point on the wall and drool, unable to speak or understand anything that is going on around him? What if he has microcephaly or some other kind of desease that would make his public life unbearable?
"Time heals what reason cannot" - Aeschylus. I'd change that to time inures us to what reason cannot - after some amount of time, I imagine it would seem perfectly normal and I wouldn't give it a second thought. To raise a child who is a baby all her life is not the worst of all possible crosses to bear.

I admire such a position, although hypothetically speaking about it and having to deal with it on a daily basis are different things.
I never said it would be easy, but the right thing never is.

Originally Posted by Potyondi
Children aren't presents you can return or toss in the rubbish if you don't like them.

Nor should they be an empty box that you wrap up all nice and pretty in an attempt to pretend there is actually something inside.;)

Make sure the murderers in white coats get your updates for the eugenics list.


You're an avowed atheist, Sulla...what the hell do you care if some retarded kid gets euthanized?

Nor should they be an empty box that you wrap up all pretty to pretend there is something inside.

What is this 'empty box' business? Someone with mental handicaps isn't a vegetable.

You're an avowed atheist, Sulla...what the hell do you care if some retarded kid gets euthanized?

This is the only life they've got. Thats why I care.

Nor should they be an empty box that you wrap up all pretty to pretend there is something inside.
The pith of human life is independent of the cheapness you assign it. To destroy what you find flawed or unattractive epitomises the selfishness you so disdain.

This is the only life they've got. Thats why I care.

If humans are just automatons...a gestalt of biochemical reactions that came about by accident of organic matter upon a rare Earth, there is no compelling reason to sustain life that has no real utility.

Bruinius makes an interesting point in his book. Darwinism is Christianity in reverse. According to Christianity, humans have moved from a perfect state to a fallen state. According to Darwinism, humans evolved out of inferior lifeforms and have progressed to a higher state of development.

Bruinius makes an interesting point in his book. Darwinism is Christianity in reverse. According to Christianity, humans have moved from a perfect state to a fallen state. According to Darwinism, humans evolved out of inferior lifeforms and have progressed to a higher state of development.
Except that evolution isn't about progress but adaptation.

If humans are just automatons...a gestalt of biochemical reactions that came about by accident of organic matter upon a rare Earth, there is no compelling reason to sustain life that has no real utility.

Sure there is. The preservation of a moral society recognizing the value of life and celebrating the love and care of family towards the product of their union is of immense value. It allows us all to live our lives in a civilized and dignified manner.

If humans are just automatons...a gestalt of biochemical reactions that came about by accident of organic matter upon a rare Earth, there is no compelling reason to sustain life that has no real utility.
And your usefulness is? I have more use for a thousand handicapped children than one internet Nazi.
Bruinius makes an interesting point in his book. Darwinism is Christianity in reverse. According to Christianity, humans have moved from a perfect state to a fallen state. According to Darwinism, humans evolved out of inferior lifeforms and have progressed to a higher state of development.
Darwin wrote that there are no objectively higher and lower states of development, just better adaptations to one's environment. Church fathers wrote that since Christ's crucifixion, the state of man is a perpetual attempt to attain grace through virtue.


Have you ever read The Origin of Species? The Bible?

Sure there is. The preservation of a moral society recognizing the value of life and celebrating the love and care of family towards the product of their union is of immense value. It allows us all to live our lives in a civilized and dignified manner.

"Morality" that is not of a divine source is merely utilitarian...a product of group evolutionary psychology.

And your usefulness is? I have more use for a thousand handicapped children than one internet Nazi.



What do you plan to do with this leigon of handicapped children? Build your own "Neverland Ranch"?

Sure there is. The preservation of a moral society recognizing the value of life and celebrating the love and care of family towards the product of their union is of immense value. It allows us all to live our lives in a civilized and dignified manner.

I take it this moral society practices the death penalty.

Since politics is the art of compromise...and we're all playing what if here anyway...let's say you guys get your govt-mandated euthanasia of disabled children...and I get my proviso stating ther loudest cheerleaders have to do the killing. By hand.

Ok then - show of hands. Who here would be capable of it? Who could ride around in a van with a strike-force unit in tow, and a computer printout in hand and: knock/kick down the doors of private homes; billy-club screaming, crying, pleading relatives into docile submission; drag out hopeless, harmless, completely innocent children and babies, and break their necks in your clenched hands? And do it ten, twenty, fifty times a day?

I wanna know how many of you are just talking the moral-monster talk, and how many are champing at the bit to really and truly kill retarded children. And don't bother hiding behind get-out-of-jail-free cards like strawman because nobody's grading your papers here, and advocating murder is something that should require hands-on participation.

Who among you would - could - do it?

Except that evolution isn't about progress but adaptation.

It was his point. Bruinius isn't a historian. He is some kind of theologian according to the dust cover.

What do you plan to do with this leigon of handicapped children? Build your own "Neverland Ranch"?
I don't need to "do" anything with them; people are not chattel and their worth is not contingent on how readily I can exploit them. That they are loved by their family and friends, live full lives and don't demonstrate the immorality of seeking to foment racial hatreds is what makes them more valuable to me and everyone else than you.

Since politics is the art of compromise...and we're all playing what if here anyway...let's say you guys get your govt-mandated euthanasia of disabled children...and I get my proviso stating ther loudest cheerleaders have to do the killing. By hand.

Ok then - show of hands. Who here would be capable of it? Who could ride around in a van with a strike-force unit and a computer printout, knock/kick down the doors of private homes, club screaming, crying, pleading relatives into docile submission, drag out hopeless, harmless, completely innocent children and babies, and break their necks in your clenched hands? And do it ten, twenty, fifty times a day?

I wanna know how many of you are just talking the moral-monster talk, and how many are champing at the bit to really and truly kill retarded children. And don't bother hiding behind get-out-of-jail-free cards like strawman because nobody's grading your papers, and advocating murder is someething that should require hands-on participation.

Who among you would - could - do it?

I don't endorse euthanasia...I am just curious as to how the secular humanist peanut gallery can keep a straight face when railing against the evils of Euthanasia while simultaneously clinging steadfastly to atheism.

I don't need to "do" anything with them; people are not chattel and their worth is not contingent on how readily I can exploit them. That they are loved by their family and friends, live full lives and don't demonstrate the immorality of seeking to foment racial hatreds is what makes them more valuable to me and everyone else than you.

I now have the answer to the question: What is the lamest, cliche bullshit ever posted on the Phora.

I have no intention of that Fade...I raised a relevant point. The Christian objection to euthanasia has internal consistency, and philisophical/ethical foundation...the secular objection does not.

il ragno,

I will respond to you when you decide to stop talking to yourself.

I am just curious as to how the secular humanist peanut gallery can keep a straight face when railing against the evils of Euthanasia while simultaneously clinging steadfastly to atheism.

Atheism is not Satanism, Tom. I don't believe you need profess a belief in a higher power to value human life, or recognize people's right - particularly an innocent child's right - to not be murdered by the State for the "crime" of
being born with a birth defect.

I have no intention of that Fade...I raised a relevant point. The Christian objection to euthanasia has internal consistency, and philisophical/ethical foundation...the secular objection does not.

I will point out that the secular objection to euthanasia (i.e., that breeding better citizens isn't an absolute end of the state) is the only rational objection to euthanasia.

I don't need to "do" anything with them; people are not chattel and their worth is not contingent on how readily I can exploit them. That they are loved by their family and friends, live full lives and don't demonstrate the immorality of seeking to foment racial hatreds is what makes them more valuable to me and everyone else than you.
Promoting multiculturalism foments racial hatred.

Atheism is not Satanism, Tom. I don't believe you need profess a belief in a higher power to value human life, or recognize people's right - particularly an innocent child's right - to not be murdered by the State for the "crime" of
being born with a birth defect.

If there is no God, the value of human life becomes absolutely relative...any objection to killing a handicapped child would merely be the result of a biochemical altrusim response towards chilren.

I don't need to "do" anything with them; people are not chattel and their worth is not contingent on how readily I can exploit them.

The question is what "they" can "do" to contribute to society - to which every individual has obligations - not vice versa. I am not claiming they couldn't do anything (indeed I contend that they can) but people tend to be - I'm opening a can of worms here - happiest when they are productive.

I will point out that the secular objection to euthanasia (i.e., that breeding better citizens isn't an absolute end of the state) is the only rational objection to euthanasia.
Are you confusing euthanasia with eugenics here?

il ragno,

I will respond to you when you decide to stop talking to yourself.

As Homo Aestheticus? Spare me. You responded to my earlier "what if this were your kid?" question with "my kid is perfectly fine". Which is about the most loathsome answer you could have dredged up in these circumstances.

I'm talking to the gallery, not myself. Although it may seem that way given the tenor of the gallery thus far. But I harbor a little hope regardless.

I will point out that the secular objection to euthanasia (i.e., that breeding better citizens isn't an absolute end of the state) is the only rational objection to euthanasia.

If there is no such thing as objective "wrong", why would it be outside of the State's proper dominion to enforce a program of Euthanasia?

Are you confusing euthanasia with eugenics here?

No, I have pointed out in earlier responses that a distinction exists between the two.

The question is what "they" can "do" to contribute to society - to which every individual has obligations - not vice versa. I am not claiming they couldn't do anything (indeed I contend that they can) but people tend to be - I'm opening a can of worms here - happiest when they are productive.
Assuming your contention, I'd reply that most people are happy with that which they produce within the limits of their abilities. In that case, I don't see disabled people as likely being any unhappier if they produce less than a mentally average or even exceptional person. Much the way I content myself with studying history and don't beat myself up over not being able to understand maths past grade 10.

I have no intention of that Fade...I raised a relevant point. The Christian objection to euthanasia has internal consistency, and philisophical/ethical foundation...the secular objection does not.

Rubbish. You don't have to go on Crusade in order to have some human empathy. You don't need to be an orc in order not to believe in a deity.

If there is no God, the value of human life becomes absolutely relative...any objection to killing a handicapped child would merely be the result of a biochemical altrusim response towards chilren.

When we return to tribal hunter gathering, we'll all take that under consideration.

While we're enjoying the luxury of modern civilization, we'll indulge ourselves by not murdering our children.

If there is no such thing as objective "wrong", why would it be outside of the State's proper dominion to enforce a program of Euthanasia?

There is such a thing as objective morality. This morality can be rationally known. It is deduced from the ultimate end of the state; the well-being of the collective. The various virtues are the means that facilitate the actualization of this end. They are only rationally intelligible in this sense. Euthanasia would be unjustifiable because the betterment of the collective through the elimination of hereditary diseases is not an absolute end, but merely a single good subsumed by others.

Rubbish. You don't have to go on Crusade in order to have some human empathy. You don't need to be an orc in order not to believe in a deity.

As I said, if humans are not part of God's province, they are just highly developed beasts of the field...it falls a little flat to suggest that people should not kill people because it makes you feel queasy or because "its just wrong"...that is nothing but sentimentality.

If a crippled child has no soul, it is nothing more than a collection of matter and chemical reactions...so killing it would be like putting down a sick dog.

There is such a thing as objective morality. This morality can be rationally known. It is deduced from the ultimate end of the state; the well-being of the collective. The various virtues are the means that facilitate the actualization of this end. They are only rationally intelligible in this sense. Euthanasia would be unjustifiable because the betterment of the collective through the elimination of hereditary diseases is not an absolute end, but merely a single good subsumed by others.
Does anyone else want this one? :p

When we return to tribal hunter gathering, we'll all take that under consideration. While we're enjoying the luxury of modern civilization, we'll indulge ourselves by not murdering our children.

What is the basis of your objection to euthanasia?

As I said, if humans are not part of God's province, they are just highly developed beasts of the field...it falls a little flat to suggest that people should not kill people because it makes you feel queasy or because "its just wrong"...that is nothing but sentimentality.


In order to secure the safest and most civil society, it is in my interests to indulge what you suggest is 'sentimentality'.

Because I don't believe in your God, does that mean there is 'no reason' I shouldn't want to eat your flesh and mount your skull over my door? :rolleyes:


If a crippled child has no soul, it is nothing more than a collection of matter and chemical reactions...so killing it would be like putting down a sick dog.

"It" is a human being, the highest order of life on this planet. "It" is the product of my fellow human's union. One can believe in higher philosophical and social concepts without having stigmata.

There is such a thing as objective morality. This morality can be rationally known. It is deduced from the ultimate end of the state; the well-being of the collective. The various virtues are the means that facilitate the actualization of this end. They are only rationally intelligible in this sense. Euthanasia would be unjustifiable because the betterment of the collective through the elimination of hereditary diseases is not an absolute end, but merely a single good subsumed by others.

The elimination of hereditary diseases is not an absolute end in and of itself...but if the ultimate end of the State is to cultivate a more perfect population, the elimination of such genetic elements is an indispensable element of that ultimate end.

If the proper dominion of the sovreign is the well-being of the collective, I behoove you to answer me when I ask how the well-being of the collective can be actualized without the application of euthanasia?

Assuming your contention, I'd reply that most people are happy with that which they produce within the limits of their abilities. In that case, I don't see disabled people as likely being any unhappier if they produce less than a mentally average or even exceptional person. Much the way I content myself with studying history and don't beat myself up over not being able to understand maths past grade 10.

This roughly summarizes my take on this issue. Disabled people, as broad as the definition may be, can be given suitable and appropriate roles (education, jobs) in their lives to which they can live up to and be productive.

This is probably the point of those people who claim that disabled people ought to be spared unless they are "vegetables", to which the above doesn't apply.

A different issue is the reproduction of these people. Should they be discouraged from reproducing? They are obviously not very well adapted to the environment they live in and the perpetuation of their genes would fly in the face of evolution (i.e. adaptation). They can often survive only because their respective societies are successful enough to accommodate them (but only a limited number).

The elimination of hereditary diseases is not an absolute end in and of itself...but if the ultimate end of the State is to cultivate a more perfect population, the elimination of such genetic elements is an indispensable element of that ultimate end.

Are you certain these measures you would like implemented would not lead to the end of your own lineage?

If the proper dominion of the sovreign is the well-being of the collective, I behoove you to answer me when I ask how the well-being of the collective can be actualized without the application of euthanasia?

Would you undergo voluntary sterilization if it were for the benefit of the collective?

http://www.discoverchimpanzees.org/chimps/goblin_bio.php

This roughly summarizes my take on this issue. Disabled people, as broad as the definition may be, can be given suitable and appropriate roles (education, jobs) in their lives to which they can live up to and be productive.

This is probably the point of those people who claim that disabled people ought to be spared unless they are "vegetables", to which the above doesn't apply.

A different issue is the reproduction of these people. Should they be discouraged from reproducing? They are obviously not very well adapted to the environment they live in and the perpetuation of their genes would fly in the face of evolution (i.e. adaptation). They can often survive only because their respective societies are successful enough to accommodate them (but only a limited number).
I see this as an issue of child-rearing rather than child-bearing. There are already laws in place to guarantee that children are parented by capable and competent persons. I don't think anything beyond existing legislation is needed to regulate this particular problem.

In order to secure the safest and most civil society, it is in my interests to indulge what you suggest is 'sentimentality'.
If self-interest is the arbiter of morality, that is absolutely relative. Suppose that a genetic marker is identified that predisposes humans to violent, criminal behavior...it would also be in your self-interest to euthanize children who are found to carry this marker, would it not?

Because I don't believe in your God, does that mean there is 'no reason' I shouldn't want to eat your flesh and mount your skull over my door? :rolleyes:
That is a different matter. Killing and cannibalizing your neighbors is offensive to law and order and would perpetuate anarchy if such conduct were permitted to go on. That is categorically different than a calculated program of eugenics that aims to eliminate handicapped people from an insular population. In fact, it would actually serve your self interest to support the euthanasia of these elements because your earnings will be appropriated (in part) to care for these dysfunctional elements.

Let us consult the Chronicles of Fade. :D

There is such a thing as objective morality.


There is no such thing as objective morality.


This morality can be rationally known. It is deduced from the ultimate end of the state; the well-being of the collective. The various virtues are the means that facilitate the actualization of this end. They are only rationally intelligible in this sense.


Morality is an illusion. There is no "true morality" anywhere. There is no objective morality either. It is created by human beings, especially by mediocre individuals who simply need to feel better about their own pitiful condition. Existence is amoral.

Thus spoke Fade the Butcher. :p

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41557&page=2

Are you certain these measures you would like implemented would not lead to the end of your own lineage?



Would you undergo voluntary sterilization if it were for the benefit of the collective?

http://www.discoverchimpanzees.org/chimps/goblin_bio.php

Irrelevant. I do not advocate euthanasia.

Irrelevant. I do not advocate euthanasia.

Maybe that's an answer. ;)

What are the odds those arguing for a eugenic state, possibly with mandatory death for the unfit, are males of reproductive age? :p

If self-interest is the arbiter of morality, that is absolutely relative.


Self interest is one part of the argument. However, it is the most direct rebuttal of your suggestion that as an atheist I should have no objection to the eating of human flesh. :p

It is a rational reason.


Suppose that a genetic marker is identified that predisposes humans to violent, criminal behavior...it would also be in your self-interest to euthanize children who are found to carry this marker, would it not?


No. Because I am one who contributes to society as well as a fellow who might be genetically predisposed towards vice. Obviously, it isn't in my self interest to be destroyed.


That is a different matter. Killing and cannibalizing your neighbors is offensive to law and order and would perpetuate anarchy if such conduct were permitted to go on. That is categorically different than a calculated program of eugenics that aims to eliminate handicapped people from an insular population.


That sure depends on the deffinition of what 'handicapped' is. Why would I be interested in opening the door of that particular barbarism?

Destroying one's own offspring to 'offensive to law and order'.

As I said, if humans are not part of God's province, they are just highly developed beasts of the field...it falls a little flat to suggest that people should not kill people because it makes you feel queasy or because "its just wrong"...that is nothing but sentimentality.

If a crippled child has no soul, it is nothing more than a collection of matter and chemical reactions...so killing it would be like putting down a sick dog.
Non-religious moral objectivity can take several forms, so you're wrong. Let's consider an argument from universality:

1. Human nature is relatively similar in essential respects, having a common set of basic needs and interests.
2. Moral principles are functions of human needs and interests, instituted by reason in order to meet the needs and promote the most significant interests of human beings.
3. Some moral principles will meet needs and promote human interests better than other principles will.
4. Principles that will meet essential human needs and promote the most significant interests in optimal ways are objectively valid moral principles.
5. Therefore, since there is a common human nature, there is an objectively valid set of moral principles, applicable to all humanity.

The elimination of hereditary diseases is not an absolute end in and of itself...

The elimination of hereditary diseases is neither 1.) an end in itself, 2.) the absolute end of the state, or 3.) even a secondary good. It is simply a way to promote health amongst the population; health being one good amongst many. Thus, I have pointed out there are higher goods that give us reason to place limits on such a practice.

but if the ultimate end of the State is to cultivate a more perfect population, the elimination of such genetic elements is an indispensable element of that ultimate end.

The ultimate end of the state is the well-being of its citizens. The well-being of the populace subsumes all secondary goods and the third order goods subsumed by them. The well-being of the state is not promoted by pursuing one lower order good at the expense of the rest, especially a third order one.

If the proper dominion of the sovreign is the well-being of the collective, I behoove you to answer me when I ask how the well-being of the collective can be actualized without the application of euthanasia?

I have already answer the question. The two are not synonymous. The well-being of the collective consists of all sorts of things and this requires us to balance and prioritize the goods we pursue in light of the ultimate end. The question would thus be: is euthanasia the most effective method for promoting health amongst citizens? Does the pursuit of euthanasia require us to neglect other goods? If so, then are those? Ultimately, how is the well-being of the collective best served?

Let us consult the Chronicles of Fade.

This is nonresponsive.

There is no such thing as objective morality.

I have changed my mind, obviously.

Morality is an illusion. There is no "true morality" anywhere. There is no objective morality either. It is created by human beings, especially by mediocre individuals who simply need to feel better about their own pitiful condition. Existence is amoral.

This is a logical conclusion to draw, as Alasdair MacIntyre has pointed out, when one is immersed in an environment in which morality has fragmented and lost the context that once made it intelligible. Morality will appear arbitrary in such a society.

MacIntyre uses an analogy to illustrate the destruction of morality by liberalism.

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9608/oakes.html

"The moral problem, as MacIntyre describes it, is evident enough: arguments about just war, abortion, capital punishment, or equality lead inevitably to shrill and sterile debate. In an allegory similar to the premise of Walter Miller's Catholic science-fiction novel Canticle for Leibowitz, MacIntyre imagines a series of environmental disasters turning the public violently against the natural sciences:

Widespread riots occur, laboratories are burnt down, physicists are lynched, books and instruments are destroyed. Finally a Know-Nothing political movement takes power and successfully abolishes science teaching in schools and universities, imprisoning and executing the remaining scientists. Later still, there is a reaction against this destructive movement and enlightened people seek to revive science, although they have largely forgotten what it was. But all that they possess are fragments: a knowledge of experiments detached from any knowledge of the theoretical context which gave them significance; parts of theories unrelated either to the other bits and pieces of theory or to experiment; instruments whose use has been forgotten; half-chapters from books, single pages from articles, not always fully legible because torn and charred.

Any similarity here to the denizens of Plato's cave is no doubt intentional, for what most characterizes both populations is their lack of any clue that they are dwelling inside an epistemological inferno, a veritable Walpurgis Night of confused notions, empty opinions, and hollow ideas. But as the cave dwellers of MacIntyre's dystopia emerge into the light, what they see is not the Sun of Plato's ideal world but mere shards and fragments of the past, with no coherent way of putting the pieces back together again:

Nonetheless all these fragments are reembodied in a set of practices which go under the revived names of physics, chemistry, and biology. Adults argue with each other about the respective merits of relativity theory, evolutionary biology, and the phlogiston theory, although they possess only a very partial knowledge of each. Children learn by heart the surviving portions of the periodic table and recite as incantations some of the theorems of Euclid. Nobody, or almost nobody, realizes that what they are doing is not natural science in any proper sense at all. For everything that they do and say [used to] conform to certain canons of consistency and coherence; [but now] those contexts which would be needed to make sense of what they are doing have been lost, perhaps irretrievably.

Such, says MacIntyre, is the present state of moral argument. Some hidden catastrophe has undermined moral reasoning, so that all we have now are words like "good" and "moral" and "useful" ripped from their contexts, surviving only as relics. And so we live like cavemen in a science-fiction future, using tools fashioned for complex moral discourse as crude weapons to carry on our Stone-Age moral battles-like people after a nuclear war using the severed arms of statues as clubs."

This is nonresponsive.


Its illustrative.


I have changed my mind, obviously.


You've changed your mind about everything but white supremacy. It seems that in all these ideological changes, there is sufficient morphing to preserve that.

Strange, no?

You should return to being a good Anti. :D

Its illustrative.

Why are you dodging my question? What are your grounds for opposing euthanasia?

You've changed your mind about everything but white supremacy.

This is false.

It seems that in all these ideological changes, there is sufficient morphing to preserve that. Strange, no?

This is becoming tiresome. I ask Sulla a question. Sulla dodges the question and addresses me personally.

You should return to being a good Anti. :D

I was never an anti-racist.

Why are you dodging my question?


Eh? You wern't even talking to me when I consulted the Chronicles. You were talking to Thomas. How can I be dodging anything?


What are your grounds for opposing euthanasia?


I don't like the idea of a doctor shaking his head as he injects a needle filled with poison into the throat of a newborn infant.

I find that revolting. I oppose it.



This is becoming tiresome. I ask Sulla a question. Sulla dodges the question and addresses me personally.


I have no doubt that if I were arguing with you, my positions in constant fluxuation, I would get no end of grief about it.

"Addresses you personally" is a little over the top, don't you think?


I was never an anti-racist.

Ok. Pro-Western. :p

Eh? You wern't even talking to me when I consulted the Chronicles. You were talking to Thomas. How can I be dodging anything?

I asked you this question: What is the basis of your objection to euthanasia? You haven't answered it.

I don't like the idea of a doctor shaking his head as he injects a needle filled with poison into the throat of a newborn infant. I find that revolting. I oppose it.

Spare us your rhetoric. I want you to tell us why euthanasia is immoral. Are you saying here that your opposition to euthanasia is a mere personal preference?

I have no doubt that if I were arguing with you, my positions in constant fluxuation, I would get no end of grief about it.

My positions are not in constant flux. I have changed my mind about a few secondary issues. So what?

"Addresses you personally" is a little over the top, don't you think?

You are ignoring the subject and trying to discuss me personally.

Ok. Pro-Western. :p

Correction. I was harshly critical of Nazi Germany on account of Hitler's Eastern Policy on the grounds that it was immoral and did a lot of damage to racialism. I haven't changed my opinion on that subject.

My sister was born two months premature and had a massive cerebral hemorrhage sixteen days afterwards. She can't walk or talk and basically has the IQ of a two year old (or so we've been told). Would any of you like to tell me, right now, that you would have had my sister euthanized?

I can understand sterilizing the genetically defective, or even aborting defective fetuses, but euthanizing the already living in order to satisify some perfectionist ideal? That's unecessary cruelty, both to the child and the family. The mentally retarded aren't threatening to destroy Western civilization, they're not swarming our borders and taking our jobs, they're not defiling our traditions or running roughshod over our cultural institutions. They are a essentially a threat to no one. Taking care of such people is the signature of a civilized society, it is what separates us from sub-Saharan Africans and the savage races of the third world.

I'm of course sorry to hear of this, Aule...but I'm glad you posted this comment. Some of us needed the bracer.

As distasteful as this topic was from Jump Street, it grew exponentially viler once Fade sought to reduce this to another clinical exercise in theory and logic like it was yet one more WW2 arm-wrestling contest ("Define 'morality'. Define 'euthanasia'. Be sure to show your work."), and to dismiss any/all reminders that these are human beings whose lives have value and meaning as shrill emotionalism, and utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

This topic isn't about anything but murdering defenseless children. Anyone attempting to put a learned, chin-stroking spin on it is kidding themselves.

I asked you this question: What is the basis of your objection to euthanasia? You haven't answered it.


There are ten pages, atleast, explaining my objection to euthanasia.


Spare us your rhetoric. I want you to tell us why euthanasia is immoral.


I need to tell you why killing innocent children is immoral?

Are you serious?


Are you saying here that your opposition to euthanasia is a mere personal preference?


Fortunately my 'personal preference' is supported by the law, and a thousand years of Western tradition.


My positions are not in constant flux. I have changed my mind about a few secondary issues. So what?


MORALITY is a secondary issue?

So what? So how can you challenge a person's sincerity on a given issue?


You are ignoring the subject and trying to discuss me personally.


There are 10 pages of me talking about this subject. There's nothing 'personal' here. There's the fact that you claim to believe in morality NOW while supporting eugenics, as opposed to before when you didn't believe in morality while supporting slavery.

Two ULTRA white supremacist positions, with opposite justifications. These are fluxations to justify a conclusion. It does not follow that the consequence of a moral awakening is a belief that a baby should be put down for whatever flaws it has on its birthday, through no fault of its own.


Correction. I was harshly critical of Nazi Germany on account of Hitler's Eastern Policy on the grounds that it was immoral and did a lot of damage to racialism. I haven't changed my opinion on that subject.

But you've come to the point where Nazi Germany has 'its good points and its bad points'.

Sorry, I did not intend to start this thread to offend anyone or anything of that nature.

The mentally retarded aren't threatening to destroy Western civilization, they're not swarming our borders and taking our jobs, they're not defiling our traditions or running roughshod over our cultural institutions. They are a essentially a threat to no one. Taking care of such people is the signature of a civilized society, it is what separates us from sub-Saharan Africans and the savage races of the third world.

Well said. WN eugenics nuts have too much ideology and little real world experience. They've no idea how genetics work, yet they're obsessed with this absurd infinite aryan purity yoogenicks ideal.

I knew this topic would get some people riled.:cool:
http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=52156&postcount=113

:rolleyes:

http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=52156&postcount=113

:rolleyes:


How did i know that quote was going to be thrown in my face?:nono: I was referring to riling people like you. I didn't realize or even think about anyone possibly having any real connections to this topic. That was stupid, I guess. That is what I am apologizing for.

How did i know that quote was going to be thrown in my face?:nono: I was referring to riling people like you. I didn't realize or even think about anyone possibly having any real connections to this topic. That was stupid, I guess. That is what I am apologizing for.
You riled people like me because I have real connexions to this topic. That didn't count with you, however, because I'm not a fellow-traveller racist. In fact, you threw it in my face as I recall. "Potyondi, spokesmen for the mothers and fathers of the retarded."

The family can give that child up to the state. There's no reason to murder an innocent whose only crime is that they'll live their entire lives AS a child.I find myself in the peculiar situation of being on the same side as Sulla, for a change.

Deliberately destroying the life of an innocent human being - be they a foetus, a handicapped child/adult, a person wrongly convicted (and known to be so), or the aged and gaga, and any other category that I may have left out - is murder pure and simple and by defintion.

A personal anecdote, for what its worth. When I was a child there was a little group of us where I lived then, one of whom had Down's Syndrome. It didn't really matter at that stage, she was just as much a part of the group as the rest of us. As we started to grow up, she didn't, she stayed a child. For the rest of us that was a peculiar and heartbreaking experience, particularly with the onset of teenage. But I think I speak for the rest of our little gang when I say that if anyone wants to take her life away from her, then they will have to contend with us and her family first.

We could of course endlessly go over the philosophical and theological dimensions of these questions, which would be pretty futile actually, because at the end of the day you will still be left wriggling around trying to square away the proposition - "destroying the life of the innocent is murder"

I think Il Ragno has put it best - "This topic isn't about anything but murdering defenseless children. Anyone attempting to put a learned, chin-stroking spin on it is kidding themselves."

I generally support euthanasia among old people if they're down for it themselves. If I had cancer eating me from the inside I wouldn't want some holy roller telling me I can't end the pain.

I agree. Kill the oldies, let the kids run free. :222:

I can understand sterilizing the genetically defective, or even aborting defective fetuses, but euthanizing the already living in order to satisify some perfectionist ideal?

I think euthanasia should be an option to relieve suffering. I don't consider euthanasia to be a eugenic practice. Neither did Francis Galton for that matter.

This topic isn't about anything but murdering defenseless children. Anyone attempting to put a learned, chin-stroking spin on it is kidding themselves.

I have argued that euthanasia should be an option to relieve suffering in cases of severe birth defect or injury, that is, I can forsee situations in which euthanasia might be called for. If you are arguing against this position, then you would have to deny people who are suffering from hideous deformities or injuries the right to put an end to their miserable lives. You would have to deny this option to parents in all cases. I find that hideously cruel.

I think euthanasia should be an option in the case of severe birth defects, that is, it should not be illegal. If my child came out looking like the Elephant Man, then I would probably endorse the procedure. I also think abortion should be an option in the case of rape.

Synikul put forth a very good arguement why it shouldn't, it gives a very good motive to make a false accusation of rape.

I think Il Ragno has put it best - "This topic isn't about anything but murdering defenseless children. Anyone attempting to put a learned, chin-stroking spin on it is kidding themselves."

il ragno is attacking a straw man of his own creation. I have not argued that the state should engage in euthanasia to advance eugenic goals. il ragno is arguing in favor of cruel and unusual punishment: forcing people to live who are otherwise in extreme pain and/or discomfort.

I've just scrolled through the 23 pages of this thread and there are a few points I'd like to make.
Aule hit on my first point. The epitome of being a white man is the fact that we protect those who cannot protect themselves. We don't prey on the weak. And frankly, anybody who takes pleasure out of advocating the euthanizing of mental and physical defectives is, well, acting like a nigger.
Second, what kind of great medical and science advancements have come about from doctors working with cripples? I'm sure there has to be tons.
Third, in Ancient Rome Stephen Hawking would've been abandoned or otherwise killed. I don't think anybody here is clamoring for his murder.

Now, outside of FadetheButcher, I don't have a lot of experience with retards, but I've personally known two. Both mongoloid Down's Syndrome adults. I've heard Weikel and others on here talking about what a miserable existence. It's been my experience that the exact opposite is true. They always seem extremely happy. Chris, my neighbor growing up, was an altar boy and sacked groceries. Mary, my girlfriend's aunt lives in what I guess you'd call a half-way house for retards and works at a 5 & Dime. You might have to wipe the drool out of their mouth every once in a while, but they're contributing something to society, which is a lot more than can be said of most grad students.
But anyway, the most important thing to consider is can this child derive any joy out of life? I constantly yell at my girlfriend for having the TV on the Discovery Health Channel. The last thing I wanna see with a Sunday morning hangover is a bunch of circus freaks. But we were watching one show and this little girl was completely fucked. She looked like Beaker from the Muppet Show, blind, would never be able to speak, had what no one would call a "face". At first, I was thinking, God, just let her die. Then I saw her do one little thing that changed my whole perspective: she smiled. Right then, I saw the joy she brought to her parents and vice versa. Any philosophical standpoints went right out the fuckin' window.

There are ten pages, atleast, explaining my objection to euthanasia.

You have littered this thread, as usual, with pages of your rhetorical trash, but you have yet to put forth a logical argument against euthanasia.

I need to tell you why killing innocent children is immoral? Are you serious?

I want you to explain why euthanasia is immoral, that is, I want you ground your argument in some principle which you have deduced from some higher principle. Needless to say, I am asking too much when I demand you explain your reasoning because you haven't arrived at your conclusion through reason. If that is the case, then there is nothing to respond to, as your arbitrary opinion would be grounded in nothing more than irrationality.

Fortunately my 'personal preference' is supported by the law, and a thousand years of Western tradition.

This isn't an argument.

MORALITY is a secondary issue?

Absolutely.

So what? So how can you challenge a person's sincerity on a given issue?

I haven't challenged your sincerity. I have simply asked you to give me a rational explanation as to why I should oppose euthanasia. It hasn't been forthcoming. You have dodged the question every single time I have made the inquiry.

There are 10 pages of me talking about this subject. There's nothing 'personal' here.

I know. In ten pages of text, you have yet to give me a rational explanation as to why any person should oppose euthanasia. I haven't seen you make a single substantial point.

There's the fact that you claim to believe in morality NOW while supporting eugenics, as opposed to before when you didn't believe in morality while supporting slavery.

This isn't an argument. It's a personal attack on your opponent.

Two ULTRA white supremacist positions, with opposite justifications.

Capitalizing words isn't an argument.

These are fluxations to justify a conclusion. It does not follow that the consequence of a moral awakening is a belief that a baby should be put down for whatever flaws it has on its birthday, through no fault of its own.

Why is euthanasia immoral?

But you've come to the point where Nazi Germany has 'its good points and its bad points'.

Correction. I spent a lot of time in the past talking about the flaws of Nazi Germany. It doesn't follow, however, that I believed at the time that every single thing Hitler did was wrong. If I talk more about the positive aspects of Nazi Germany today, then it doesn't follow that I have changed my mind about Hitler's Eastern Policy. Similarly, I am of the same view about FDR. FDR had his strengths and weaknesses.

il ragno is attacking a straw man of his own creation. I have not argued that the state should engage in euthanasia to advance eugenic goals. il ragno is arguing in favor of cruel and unusual punishment: forcing people to live who are otherwise in extreme pain and/or discomfort.Regardless of what Il Ragno is responding to or not, that statement I take to be generally apposite to this whole discussion because true.

This line of reasoning you are using for euthanasia was exactly the same kind used by abortion proponents prior to its introduction. Its thin end of the wedge stuff and you should not fall for it.

Look at the situation in the Netherlands where people are routinely offed with or without consent.

You riled people like me because I have real connexions to this topic. That didn't count with you, however, because I'm not a fellow-traveller racist. In fact, you threw it in my face as I recall. "Potyondi, spokesmen for the mothers and fathers of the retarded."

LOL

Pot is trying to tell us he is retarded. :p

I want you to explain why euthanasia is immoral, that is, I want you ground your argument in some principle which you have deduced from some higher principle.How about the argument put forward by Socrates at Phaedo 62a-b?

At risk of dragging this conversation off topic, let me ask a related question:

If technology advances to the point where it becomes possible to keep elderly people alive indefinitely, but with ever-increasing - and irreversible - decrepitude, should this be done?

This line of reasoning you are using for euthanasia was exactly the same kind used by abortion proponents prior to its introduction. Its thin end of the wedge stuff and you should not fall for it.

I see euthanasia as a health measure; health being essential to happiness. I think it might be called for as a treatment on some occasions. That is why euthanasia should remain on the table, for instance, in cases where patients are incurably ill and want to put an end to their suffering.

Look at the situation in the Netherlands where people are routinely offed with or without consent.

The Netherlands is liberalism taken to its logical conclusion. There are liberal arguments to be made in favor of euthanasia, namely, that laws against euthanasia are immoral because they inhibit individual freedom. I have not made that argument, as I obviously do not consider individual freedom to be the highest good or the only good.

At risk of dragging this conversation off topic, let me ask a related question:

If technology advances to the point where it becomes possible to keep elderly people alive indefinitely, but with ever-increasing - and irreversible - decrepitude, should this be done?

Not only that, but there's a real possibility of achieving the technology of resurrecting most dead people, and keeping them 'alive' for decades.

The only problem is they'd be braindead vegetables.

The only problem is they'd be braindead vegetables.

One could make an argument in favor of euthanasia here: such people, suffering from severe brain damage, say, those in a vegetative state, cannot ever be truly happy because they are unhealthy. The purpose of life is to actualize your potential in order to achieve happiness. These people are therefore not living lives worth living and should thus be put out of their misery.

I see euthanasia as a health measure; health being essential to happiness.Really? Topping yourself will bring happiness? An unhealthy man cannot be happy (eudaimonia)? I don't think so. The happy man is the virtuous man.
I think it might be called for as a treatment on some occasions.The word treatment here is a ghastly euphemism.
That is why euthanasia should remain on the table, for instance, in cases where patients are incurably ill and want to put an end to their suffering.You still have to overcome the Pythagorean-Platonic ban on suicide.

The Netherlands is liberalism taken to its logical conclusion. There are liberal arguments to be made in favor of euthanasia, namely, that laws against euthanasia are immoral because they inhibit individual freedom. I have not made that argument, as I obviously do not consider individual freedom to be the highest good or the only good.All sorts of autosophistry can be used to justify aims that have already been chosen.

il ragno is attacking a straw man of his own creation. I have not argued that the state should engage in euthanasia to advance eugenic goals. il ragno is arguing in favor of cruel and unusual punishment: forcing people to live who are otherwise in extreme pain and/or discomfort.

When I asked you point blank, do you mean as an option open only to the family affected, or to the govt as piublic policy, you answered "both".

If you will flip back to the beginning of this thread, you will clearly see I do not object to a compassionate, unwritten-law arrangement in which the afflicted, or their families, should have recourse to mercy-killing. (With conditions.) We have had immoral unwritten law practiced in the US whereby cuckolds could kill their wives if caught flagrante delicto; I merely proposed a more moral one.

But I also know how to read between the lines. And the extreme pain and discomfort you refer to is society's pain and discomfort at keeping imbeciles in the breeding pool, period.

The most telling exchange in this entire thread was when I asked you, as a new/expectant father, if you would support euthanasia as public policy in the tragic event that your child was born defective or disabled.

Your answer was "My child is not a defective."

I rest my case.

Really? Topping yourself will bring happiness? An unhealthy man cannot be happy (eudaimonia)?

Health is essential to happiness. Health is one of the highest order goods because it is a means to so many other lesser goods. If one is suffering from an incurable disease or severe deformity, then one can never be truly happy, as one has no hope of ever becoming healthy. In such a situation, euthanasia should become an option.

I don't think so. The happy man is the virtuous man.

Yes. How can such an unhealthy man, say, someone who is struck down in an incurable vegetative state possibly become virtuous?

The word treatment here is a ghastly euphemism.

Euthanasia would be the only treatment in many situations.

You still have to overcome the Pythagorean-Platonic ban on suicide.

You should easily discern that my reasoning is not Plato's.

When I asked you point blank, do you mean as an option open only to the family affected, or to the govt as piublic policy, you answered "both".

That's right. I can forsee situations in which the state through a licensed physician would have to make that call, say, in the case of an automobile accident in which the guardians of a child were killed and that child suffers from severe brain trauma.

If you will flip back to the beginning of this thread, you will clearly see I do not object to a compassionate, unwritten-law arrangement in which the afflicted, or their families, should have recourse to mercy-killing.

What is your objection then?

(With conditions.) We have had immoral unwritten law practiced in the US whereby cuckolds could kill their wives if caught flagrante delicto; I merely proposed a more moral one.

Please restate your proposal. Furthermore, I would like you to explain your reasoning, as I have done.

But I also know how to read between the lines. And the extreme pain and discomfort you refer to is society's pain and discomfort at keeping imbeciles in the breeding pool, period.

This is a straw man. I have already pointed out that euthanasia has nothing necessarily to do with eugenics. You do not have to exterminate any given individual to render them sterile.

The most telling exchange in this entire thread was when I asked you, as a new/expectant father, if you would support euthanasia as public policy in the tragic event that your child was born defective or disabled.

If my child was born severely defective and/or disabled, then I would want that option made available to me and I would certainly consider it. You distorted my argument and created a straw man out of it that I would be in favor of euthanasia of people who suffer from trivial disabilities.

Your answer was "My child is not a defective." I rest my case.

My child isn't defective. Seeing how often rumors arise on such boards, I made a point to clear that up.

Health is essential to happiness. Health is one of the highest order goods because it is a means to so many other lesser goods.Are you saying that the virtues are lesser goods than health? If so then the healthy scoundrel is happier than the unhealthy just man. Absurd.
If one is suffering from an incurable disease or severe deformity, then one can never be truly happy, as one has no hope of ever becoming healthy.This is a throughly materialist conception of happiness. I can see little difference beteeen what you propose here and Liberalism. Classical Liberalism rests on a neo-Epicurean ethical foundation which is how you are starting to sound.
In such a situation, euthanasia should become an option.Not if we believe that suicide is wrong. Death is the end of all possibilities, in this case of being happy or virtuous (which amounts to the same thing, I would argue).
Yes. How can such an unhealthy man, say, someone who is struck down in an incurable vegetative state possibly become virtuous?Firstly, no one knows what it is like to be in such a state. Secondly, no doctor can state that someone in such a state will never emerge from it, thirdly, such a state represents a disruption, not a termination, of a capacity that is a part of our human nature: the possibility of cultivating the virtues.
Euthanasia would be the only treatment in many situations.Killing is not treatment.
You should easily discern that my reasoning is not Plato's.There is only reasoning and sophistry.

We don't prey on the weak. And frankly, anybody who takes pleasure out of advocating the euthanizing of mental and physical defectives is, well, acting like a nigger.

I don't think anyone is taking pleasure out of this. Speaking just on the individual who is suffering from some awful affliction, my views on this are stemming more from compassion for the afflicted.

This is a bit different than a child or baby, but I will bring up Terry Shavio again and ask if any of you honestly if you could foresee yourself in a similar situation, would want to go on living.
I would feel much more love from the person who would end my suffering than from someone who would keep me around living a non-life.

Basil, how can a person with the intelligence of an infant(or less) be virtuous? How can he be just, temperate, wise, or courageous? This is a serious question that I'd like to know the answer to.

Basil, how can a person with the intelligence of an infant(or less) be virtuous? How can he be just, temperate, wise, or courageous? This is a serious question that I'd like to know the answer to.That particular part of the conversation is solely about euthanasia.

[edit] Fade is arguing that good health is essential to happiness.

Are you saying that the virtues are lesser goods than health? If so then the healthy scoundrel is happier than the unhealthy just man. Absurd.

I'm saying that health is a higher order good that is essential to the realization of all sorts of other goods. It's a fundamental good like security. If you are physically incapacitated in a vegetative state, then you cannot possibly realize all sorts of other goods that make life worth living. You brought up justice above. Justice is another higher order good. If you live in a primitive unjust society in constant fear of being assaulted and/or killed by others, then you cannot realize all the goods that you could realize in a just society. Reason is another higher order good. If you are unable to reason because you are being kept on life support with a tube stuck down your throat, then you are hopelessly dysfunctional and cannot possibly attain true happiness.

This is a throughly materialist conception of happiness.

This is false. I haven't identified health with happiness. I'm saying that health is essential to happiness, that is, a foundational good in the absence of which one cannot possibly be happy. In other words, your health is not valuable for its own sake, but solely as a means to an end. Your television set is not essential to your happiness. It's a good of a significantly lower order.

I can see little difference beteeen what you propose here and Liberalism.

There is a vast difference between my argument and Liberalism. For starters, I am making an Aristotlean argument that assumes the good life is a definite thing. If I were making an argument from liberalism, then I would justify euthanasia on the grounds that laws against euthanasia are unjustifiable because they violate one's individual freedom to define the good life.

Classical Liberalism rests on a neo-Epicurean ethical foundation which is how you are starting to sound.

This is a misunderstanding on your part. I'm saying that health is an objective good of the highest order; that it is essential to the actualization of the good life as such.

Not if we believe that suicide is wrong.

Suicide is unjustifiable in most cases.

Death is the end of all possibilities, in this case of being happy or virtuous (which amounts to the same thing, I would argue).

If you are physically incapacitated in a vegetatitve state or suffering in extreme pain from an incurable illness, then there is no possibility that you can ever actually be happy or virtuous. If you cannot cure someone, then you can only try to alleviate their suffering.

Firstly, no one knows what it is like to be in such a state.

This is irrelevant because I am assuming that happiness is an objective condition. You are starting to sound like the liberal here!

Secondly, no doctor can state that someone in such a state will never emerge from it

There are plenty of such cases where a physician can make such a diagnosis.

thirdly, such a state represents a disruption, not a termination, of a capacity that is a part of our human nature: the possibility of cultivating the virtues.

This capacity is rooted in one's biological makeup. If you were to suffer severe brain damage, for example, then you would lose your capacity to reason and by extension practice the virtues and attain happiness.

Killing is not treatment.

Killing becomes a treatment when one is terminably ill or severely dysfunctional in some way, that is, when the only thing a physician can do is relieve one's suffering.

There is only reasoning and sophistry.

Sulla is the sophist in this conversation. I'm the rationalist. :)

I want you to explain why euthanasia is immoral, that is, I want you ground your argument in some principle which you have deduced from some higher principle. Needless to say, I am asking too much when I demand you explain your reasoning because you haven't arrived at your conclusion through reason. If that is the case, then there is nothing to respond to, as your arbitrary opinion would be grounded in nothing more than irrationality.


Fade you seem to have some wish to kill and be able to justify it in terms of some higher form of thinking.
Ground it all you want in principles , but the bottom line is when all the intellectual chewing of the cud is over , it boils down to the fsimple act that you are killing people and justifying it by saying you are saving them suffering or are serving society.

Fade you seem to have some wish to kill and be able to justify it in terms of some higher form of thinking.

1.) I try to approach all issues in a systematic matter. This would include euthanasia.
2.) I haven't advocated killing anyone. I have argued that euthanasia should be an option in the case of people who are suffering from severe incurable illnesses and/or severe deformities/injuries.
3.) Killing isn't necessarily immoral. There are many instances in which killing another person is justifiable provided certain conditions are met: in self-defense, in a just war, as punishment for certain classes of crimes, to alleviate suffering.

Ground it all you want in principles , but the bottom line is when all the intellectual chewing of the cud is over , it boils down to the fsimple act that you are killing people and justifying it by saying you are saving them suffering or are serving society.

The bottom line is that you cannot rationally explain why euthanasia is wrong. The most you are capable of is telling us how you feel about the issue and that isn't saying much.

I'm saying that health is a higher order good that is essential to the realization of all sorts of other goods. It's a fundamental good like security. If you are physically incapacitated in a vegetative state, then you cannot possibly realize all sorts of other goods that make life worth living.It was the way you initially formulated it that threw me.

You brought up justice above. Justice is another higher order good. If you live in a primitive unjust society in constant fear of being assaulted and/or killed by others, then you cannot realize all the goods that you could realize in a just society.That assumes that primitive socities are as you describe them. Its not obvious that that is the case, e.g. Bk II of the Republic has a different picture of primitive societies. It turns out that injustice stems from the stimulation of the appetites that is not present in these primitive forms. On the Rep. account, injustice is an effect of civilisation. Reason is another higher order good. If you are unable to reason because you are being kept on life support with a tube stuck down your throat, then you are hopelessly dysfunctional and cannot possibly attain true happiness.No, this is not right. It is also not Aristotelian. Such a person has the capacity (dunamis) but is unable to excercise it at that time because of some impediment.
This is false. I haven't identified health with happiness.I did not suggest that you did, I said that you expressed a materialist conception of happiness. Here is your argument which is a conditional one "If one is suffering from an incurable disease or severe deformity, then one can never be truly happy, as one has no hope of ever becoming healthy." This is false for it implies that the virtuous man on falling ill will cease to be happy; and yet happiness is identical with possession of the virtues not good health. An absolute minimum of good health is still only a necessary condition for the cultivation of the virtues. It is also false for it ascribes certainty to future conditionals, which is a contradiction.
I'm saying that health is essential to happiness, that is, a foundational good in the absence of which one cannot possibly be happy.And I'm denying that as it stands.
Your television set is not essential to your happiness. It's a good of a significantly lower order.Its not even a good! :)
There is a vast difference between my argument and Liberalism. For starters, I am making an Aristotlean argument that assumes the good life is a definite thing. Previously you were making a rather more Epicurean argument - "the good life begins with the stomach" (a much misundertsood saying of E. which expresses what you have been saying - health and security are necessary conditions for the good life. But even this I deny for the reasons stated.
If I were making an argument from liberalism, then I would justify euthanasia on the grounds that laws against euthanasia are unjustifiable because they violate one's individual freedom to define the good life.Classical liberal and proto-liberal (e.g. Bacon) thinkers promoted a bad form of revived Epicureanism: that the good life is minimisation of pain, maximisation of pleasure (absence of pain) as an end in itself. The forerunner of Utilitarianism.
This is a misunderstanding on your part. I'm saying that health is an objective good of the highest orderNow you contradict yourself. As a mere means it cannot be a good of the highest order that it is essential to the actualization of the good life as such. Its a necessary but not a sufficient condition.
Suicide is unjustifiable in most cases.It either is or it is not.
If you are physically incapacitated in a vegetatitve state or suffering in extreme pain from an incurable illness, then there is no possibility that you can ever actually be happy or virtuous.This is asbolutely false. In each of the cited sense above the capacity remains interrupted at that time but it is not possible to state with certainty ("no possibility") that it will remain interrupted forever. It is simply false to say that there is no possibility at some future time in respect of the excercise of a capacity. That is the fromal refutation. Empircially speaking you only need one confounder of such a diagnosis to expose the falsity of the prognosis that attributes certainty to a future state. In fact we have more than one, we have very many.
And anyway, the rapid and remarkable innovations in medical technology make such statements otiose in the extreme.
This is irrelevant because I am assuming that happiness is an objective condition. You are starting to sound like the liberal here!No, no, you are the one talking about quality of life. That's empircial not objective.
There are plenty of such cases where a physician can make such a diagnosis.And if so they are formally false. The most that a doctor can say, strictly speaking, is that it is "very likely that . . ."
This capacity is rooted in one's biological makeup.I thought you had disavowed materialist explanations? If you were to suffer from suffer brain damage, for example, then you would lose your capacity to reason and by extension practice the virtues and attain happiness.Again, this is not Aristotelian. Your capacity qua human being is interrupted not eliminated.
Killing becomes a treatment when one is terminably ill or severely dysfunctional in some way, that is, when the only thing a physician can do is relieve one's suffering.Calling 'killing' a 'treatment' is a contradiction in terms.
Sulla is the sophist in this conversation. I'm the rationalist. :)In this particular conversation Sulla is not being sophistical.

1 - Fade you seem to have some wish to kill and be able to justify it in terms of some higher form of thinking.

2 - Ground it all you want in principles, but the bottom line is when all the intellectual chewing of the cud is over ,

3 - it boils down to the fsimple act that you are killing people and justifying it by saying you are saving them suffering or are serving society.
1 - That's a rather loaded statement to make. Has Deconstructionist made any assertion anywhere in this thread or on this board that we "wishes to justifiably kill"? If he hasn't said so, stop putting words in his mouth, and stop making presumptions upon his position if you have no proof that supports your claims.

2 - This statement is incongruent with the next statement you make. Here, you seek to trivialize the act of grounding an act in priniciple, and then you go on to ground your own position with a priniciple ("Killing is wrong, end of story"). Also, you seem to think that there is some sort of dichotomy or barrier between an intellectual appraisal of an act and it's undertaking within objective reality. You cannot act without thought, thus I do not understand your attempt to slough off the "intellectualization" of this discussion. You do not act without reason. Reason can be externally or internally derived, with or without premeditation.

3 - Here we arrive at your assertion that "All killing is wrong". At the risk of a potential ad hom, I do hope that you are a militant, crusading pacifistic vegan, otherwise your morals are out of whack with your arguments presented here. Also, this argument is not a "bottom line", it is merely your position on the matter.