Home - List All Discussions

Does anyone else think we should abort fetuses which will not help the race?

by: JRH

I think within a few years we will be able to detect genetic disorders, and other problems with fetuses when a woman is early in her pregnancy. I think that aborting such children will allow us to improve the race over all by removing the fetus from the gene pool before is becomes a person. Does anyone else think thats a good idea?

reply from: Rhiannontex

Eugenics? No, thanks. I can live without a perfect race, thank you very much. You sicken me, you would gladly have had several of my cousins killed in the womb because they wouldn't fit your notion of "normal".

reply from: JRH

Yes
Oh darn.
They are normal. They are just not good for the future of the human race. If you had the choice between a Down's Syndrome baby and a baby with no disorders which one would you choose? If before you were pregnant you got the option. Be honest.

reply from: Rhiannontex

If it happened BEFORE I was pregnant? The baby without Downs syndrome. But that's not what your first post said. You clearly state "early in her pregnancy". Sorry, but once the child is conceived, that's it. You don't get to pick and choose just because you don't like the results. Who are you to choose which human will live and which won't?

reply from: JRH

Then you admit it, a baby without downs syndrome is better than one with it.
The earlier exercise was to get you to admit that it is worse to have a downs syndrome baby.
Who are you to declare that a fetus has the right to life?

reply from: lukesmom

You are one very sick individual. I don't think of you as "normal" so therefore it would be ok for me to kill you "if" your abnormality could be diagnosed prenatally.
Where would you stop with this? I have a 12 yr old son with behavioural and learning disabilities, why shouldn't he be allowed life? According to you Einstien wouldn't have been allowed to live or Whoopi Goldberg, Charles Schwab, and Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps to name a few. Prenatal testing and eugenics is unethical and down right scary!

reply from: JRH

Already a person . I did not say kill people.
Why? It would remove genetic disorders that cause pain to a great many people.

reply from: lukesmom

The earlier exercise was to get you to admit that it is worse to have a downs syndrome baby.
And having two limbs is better than having one so what's your point?
WOH ARE YOU TO DECLARE THAT A FETUS DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO LIFE?

reply from: JRH

It makes sense to abort the fetus with the disorder so the woman can get pregnant with healthy fetus.
Thats my point. It is arbitrary to decide either way.

reply from: lukesmom

If there was a prenatal test for his diagnoses' you are advocating their unnatural death. Therefore people like him would not be allowed to live by some depriving the world of some wonderful individuals who would greatily contribute to this world.
Exactly who did the above people cause pain too (with the exception of Whoopi who is an abortion activist)? All 4 of my kids and my dh have genetic heart problems. If they could have been diagnosed prenatally would you have them dead before birth too?

reply from: BossMomma

No, my nephew has dwarfism and is no less valued than my children who have no genetic defects. Your breed selection mentality is disgusting. Hitler sought to "improve" the gene pool by eliminating members of what he considered an inferior race.

reply from: JRH

They would die as fetuses and never become people in the first place.
Those people are exceptions. They are plenty of amazing people without disorders as well. You know Hitler also had a disability? An unborn fetus could grow up to be a Hitler or an Einstein. Lacking data on what it will be that fact does not enter into my moral calculus.

reply from: Draiocht

I think that people who are predisposed to defects shouldn't even try to breed in the first place...which is part of the reason I refuse to do so. I don't want more cancer thrown into the gene pool and I'm doing my species a favor by not perpetuating doomed genetics, but it's not my place to tell anyone what to do with their reproductive organs. If they want to be selfish *****s and toss more garbage into the gene pool for the self-gratifying purpose of perpetuating their genetics or having a baby to play with, I can't stop them. I can sure as heck hope they'll use common sense and adopt one of the thousands of children already born and languishing in foster care, though.

reply from: lukesmom

Your "moral calculus" lean toward psycopathy.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

It should be up to the parents. They are the ones who will have to live with that child for the rest of his/her life.

reply from: lukesmom

Only the "perfect" should live? Last one out, turn off the lights.

reply from: myasmommy713

YOU ARE A SICK HUMAN BEING JHR!!!! ABORTION IS MURDER NO MATTER WHAT!!! You should love your child NO MATTER what kind of problems the doctors tell you you are going to face. Of course if you have no idea and you give birth to a child with down syndrome your life may be a little more challenging but that does not mean that you should love that child any less or let alone ABORT IT!!!! Thats just sick of you to think and "normal" you tell me what is "normal" these days?!?! I mean look at our economy!! NOTHING IS NORMAL!!!

reply from: BossMomma

A child with a defect is not garbage and giving birth is not selfish. By your logic you should have been aborted as you are not genetically perfect, really none of us are. By eugenics standards I should have been aborted because I suffer a serious mental disorder, arthritis and, scoliosis in the lower back. I'm near sighted and have a stigmatism in both eyes, my family is prone to heart disease and high blood pressure, alcohol and drug use yet I am a productive member of society and a good mother to healthy children.
My eldest sister refused to abort her son who has achondroplasiac dwarfism, he too has scoliosis, breathing problems and, learning and speech impediments but he is a happy child who brings joy to his family. By your standards my nephew should have been aborted.

reply from: ChristianLott2

This from the ones you believe in the Evolution. How do you know it's a defect and not part of a mutation towards a higher evolve?
How do you know that deformed person doesn't have a higher IQ than you? Surely that's not too hard to imagine.
How do you know 'such children' can't bring happiness? Because they're not perfect Ken and Barbie dolls for your master race towards nowhere?
IMO you are the one polluting the genetic pool. I bet if we took a poll right now you'd be voted out. Why don't we just start killing people we just don't like?
Yeah, you and Hitler and a couple other people including the founder of PP Margaret Sanger.
Man, you missed a big chunk of history around the WW2 era. Go study your eugenics idols and join a racism group.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Absolutely not.
I have imperfect genes. I am nearsighted. I do not deserve death for that.
And abortion doesn't remove someone from the gene pool before they become a person, because they already ARE a person. The only way to do that would be to examine your sperm and eggs and remove the ones with undesirable traits. I still wouldn't approve of that; I think making babies should be as natural as possible.
Strangely enough you make a logical point. One disease that is considered deadly and crippling is Sickle Cell Anemia. A fully afflicted victim dies in childhood. However, if they are just a carrier, they are afflicted but can make it to sexuall maturity. The advantage is that sickle cells are immune to malaria. So what seems like a horrid disease is actually an adaptation to survive malaria.
Now in a truly natural world, people with severe genetic disorders would die long before they could reproduce themselves. But these days that's just not as important. They died because we couldn't help them. Now that we CAN, we have no excuse to let them die OR to murder them in the womb.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Only the "perfect" should live? Last one out, turn off the lights.
Nope. It is up to the parents who will have to contend with the child for life.

reply from: Rhiannontex

Then you admit it, a baby without downs syndrome is better than one with it.
The earlier exercise was to get you to admit that it is worse to have a downs syndrome baby.
Who are you to declare that a fetus has the right to life?
JRH, it would be more DIFFICULT to have a child with Down's syndrome, but it would not be worse. And you quite clearly can't see the difference between a child never being conceived and a child being aborted (or maybe you just don't care). Would I prefer to have a child without Down's syndrome? Yes. Would I abort my child because of Down's syndrome, or a cleft palate, or some other defect? No.

reply from: bakon2

Sounds a lot like what Hitler was trying to do with the Aryan Race...

reply from: JRH

What child? I'm talking about fetuses.
Clearly, we disargee.
Not normal. "Better for mankind as a whole".

reply from: JRH

/there is no such thing as higher or lower evolution. Evolution merely causes certain traits to be genetically selected for. It has nothing to say about what is higher or lower..
So what? We will have plenty of high IQ people even if we aborted all such fetuses.
They can. They are less likely to.
Ideas can not pollute a gene pool. Fetuses are not "people".
I'm not racist .

reply from: JRH

Thats not the sort of disorder I meant,and you should have known that by what I mentioned as an example.
Strongly disagree.
Using science to determine things is not unnatural . Everything made by science operates natural principles.
Did you forget that it kills people for no reason because we have a way to treat that disease?
Its not murder to kill non persons. See Roe V Wade.

reply from: JRH

Then you admit it, a baby without downs syndrome is better than one with it.
The earlier exercise was to get you to admit that it is worse to have a downs syndrome baby.
Who are you to declare that a fetus has the right to life?
JRH, it would be more DIFFICULT to have a child with Down's syndrome, but it would not be worse.That would make it worse alone because it could breed resentment. It could also cause parents no end of sadness to see their child grow older and never do the things others do. Never to fall in love or go to college.......sad....
Your choice

reply from: RiverMoonLady

"You should love your child NO MATTER what kind of problems the doctors tell you you are going to face. Of course if you have no idea and you give birth to a child with down syndrome your life may be a little more challenging but that does not mean that you should love that child any less or let alone ABORT IT!!!!"
You have obviously no idea whatsoever of the range of problems seen in Down syndrom. "Challenging" is not the word for parents who are getting up there in years and trying to care for a full-grown adult who cannot for himself or herself.
"...Developmental delay -- All kids with Down syndrome are normally developmentally delayed, aka mentally retarded, although this may not be apparent until the kid is beyond infancy. IQ scores range from 20 (severe mental retardation) to 85 (low normal). Overall learning abilities are usually equivalent to a 6 to 8 year old kid without Down syndrome..." Source: The Heart Center Encyclopedia
"...Most kids with Down syndrome have mild to moderate mental retardation (IQ 30 to 60). Persons with Down syndrome at the upper end of the IQ range might attain 4th to 6th grade reading skills. Persons with Down syndrome can provide for basic self-help needs, and have varying degrees of educational achievement and social and occupational skills. They need special education, training facilities, and frequently sheltered living and work situations." Source: EncyMaster
"...Moderate-to-severe mental retardation occurs, with an IQ range of 20-85 (mean IQ is approximately 50)..." Source: emedicine. One point here: To have an IQ range with a mean of 50, means that 50% of those have an IQ of 50 and above, which in turn means that half have IQ's intelligence scores in the Mild developmental disability range."
Do you have ANY CLUE AT ALL what a person with an IQ of 20-50 CANNOT do? Have you ever "pottied" a 250-poung, 6-foot-tall person on a DAILY basis???
Learn. Study. You need to know.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

And not a single thing above gives you the right to kill them.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Thats not the sort of disorder I meant,and you should have known that by what I mentioned as an example.
No disorder gives you the right to kill someone.
Strongly disagree.
Too bad. The constitution guarantees life to all people; it does not make a statement as to when personhood begins. It only states when citizenship begins.

Using science to determine things is not unnatural . Everything made by science operates natural principles.
That's an interesting statement, in so that it assumes that all human creations are natural because humans are natural. Why I specifically meant by natural was "without human intervention". I do not think humans should be messing around with the process of reproduction to the extent that you change what is born. It would create the genetically elite, and a world much like that in Gattaca, where the genetically "inferior" are a subclass of humans.
Did you forget that it kills people for no reason because we have a way to treat that disease?
What kills, malaria or sickle cell anemia? We have treatments for both, but neither treatments are widely available for the people that need it most: Africans. And malarial treatments are slowly becoming ineffective. We are not winning that war. Some forms of malaria are becoming immunie to quinine, our long-standing defense.
Its not murder to kill non persons. See Roe V Wade.
That's not what Roe V. Wade was about, so I don't need to go look at it. I've seen it before.

reply from: JRH

I don't think fetuses are people, remember?
Right, but the SCOTUS ruled in Roe that a fetus was not a person who gets protection. From a legal standpoint, you have no leg to stand on.
I think it might lead to some problems during the transition, but the race as a whole would be better off with entire generation of genius athletes .
Quinine

reply from: Draiocht

A child with a defect is not garbage and giving birth is not selfish. By your logic you should have been aborted as you are not genetically perfect, really none of us are. By eugenics standards I should have been aborted because I suffer a serious mental disorder, arthritis and, scoliosis in the lower back. I'm near sighted and have a stigmatism in both eyes, my family is prone to heart disease and high blood pressure, alcohol and drug use yet I am a productive member of society and a good mother to healthy children.
My eldest sister refused to abort her son who has achondroplasiac dwarfism, he too has scoliosis, breathing problems and, learning and speech impediments but he is a happy child who brings joy to his family. By your standards my nephew should have been aborted.
But I'm not deliberately perpetuating any of that, am I? My parents had no way of knowing they were screwing up when they chose to create me. If they had, I would have hoped that they would have refrained. They're both dead now and I have the tools and technology to know that there's more to life beyond marriage than reproducing to satisfy the social masses. It takes more than a desire to be a parent; it takes a certain amount of dedication that most people can't even spare for "healthy" children, these days.
I'm being honest with myself. I wish more people would do the same, rather than following an outdated life-script handed to them by sexist Christians.

reply from: ChristianLott2

there is no such thing as higher or lower evolution. Evolution merely causes certain traits to be genetically selected for. It has nothing to say about what is higher or lower..
Then you're not describing an evolution. And if the traits selected are not better or worse, why were they selected?
So what? We will have plenty of high IQ people even if we aborted all such fetuses.
Sure, high IQs are overrated anyway. Now a LOW IQ, that's something that will teach you. You can learn alot about just how wonderful and precious human life and love is.. or you can scorn them and rush off to your perfect land where everyone is the same kind of perfect that you and your eugenics friend decreed.
They can. They are less likely to.
Huh? Less likely? You are so completely narrow. Only experience will show you how wrong you are. Please study some history before you start your campaign of devaluing human life please. It's been done.
Ideas can not pollute a gene pool.
Sure they can. Reality is just an amorphous blob people hang names on, just like 'gene pool'.
An infant is a person. The greek word for infant is fetus. Stop with the pseudo-science bs.
I'm not racist .
You are an elitist willing to snuff lives to achieve your idea of perfection.
Many parents already screen for defects and get abortions. Maybe your next idea will be to force them to screen for defects and force them to abort when a defect is found so they don't 'pollute' .
Btw, abortion can cause subsequent miscarriages, barrenness, and a host of other consequences, including suicide. Does that sound like the 'perfect solution' ?
http://abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_24.asp

reply from: lukesmom

ANOTHER really stupid comment from you. There are many, many parents of perfectly "normal" children who are not saddened by the fact their child/ren never went to college or fell in love. As the parent of a child who died, I take find your statement not only illogical but stupid as well.
As the parent of 4 living children the only thing that would sadden me is if they didn't live up to their individual potential. So if they don't go to college or fall in love, I don't care as long as they are happy. Do you have children? "rolling eyes"

reply from: JRH

I am describing evolution, actually. The fetuses aborted would have traits which died out because they were selected not selected, in this case because they were aborted
The same only in that there would be no genetic disorders.
People will experience pain for the reasons I listed, and resentment at changing a 30 year olds diaper. Thats just reality.
A gene pool is the collective genetic traits of a certain species.
Do you not understand that language is subjective and so it the word "person". I consider those who can think to be persons, so even infants d not actually qualify, though I do not think infants should be killed. No need.
Sure
No forcing
Most abortions do not and are very safe. Especially early abortions.

reply from: JRH

And there are many who ARE, as they watch their 30 year old "children" stay the same mental age....
Are you an idiot? Your child died so it is does not apply to this situation.
I doubt that is true. Even if it is, most people do not think that way.
Nope.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't think fetuses are people, remember?
No disorder gives you the right to kill another human.

I think it might lead to some problems during the transition, but the race as a whole would be better off with entire generation of genius athletes .
You have got to be kidding me.
Quinine
Grammar fail on your part.

reply from: JRH

Really? Where do rights come from but our own subjective choices? There are no natural rights or immoral actions. My moral system says its ok so it is.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Really? Where do rights come from but our own subjective choices? There are no natural rights or immoral actions. My moral system says its ok so it is.
It's not right to kill humans. Just about every culture that has ever developed on this planet feels that way. Your moral system is clearly in the minority.

reply from: JRH

Really? Where do rights come from but our own subjective choices? There are no natural rights or immoral actions. My moral system says its ok so it is.
It's not right to kill humans. Just about every culture that has ever developed on this planet feels that way. Your moral system is clearly in the minority.
Slavery has been legal in almost all ancient cultures. So what? Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

reply from: carolemarie

I think rather than fetuses being killed, we should instead kill grown-ups who don't build up the race. At least then we can measure the life lived against a standard, where killing fetuses is a crap shot. May kill some potentially great humans that way.....my way means only the failed adults are executed.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Yes, war. That sounds like the honest thing. Kill people because they are wrong. That's the real way we can evolve.
What we really need in this world are good people. That's the only discrimination we need.

reply from: speakingout

How about we eliminate people who think like you from the race?

reply from: lukesmom

Good idea and I nominate JRH to be the first to go. Anyone want to second that?

reply from: JRH

People should not be killed. Fetuses are not people so they don't matter.

reply from: ProudDadX2

This is sick. I have a good friend that was hydrocephalic. We grew up together at church and roomed together our first year of college. His condition made one side of his body less fully formed than the other, so he walked with a limp.
It makes me ill to think that he would be killed in the womb be the automatons that make up the "pure genetics" set. You're talking about killing in the womb someone I grew up watching movies with, trading baseball cards with, having birthday parties with. He was every bit as human as me, he just couldn't use one side of his body as well.
Truly. Science for the sake of science is as evil as anything this world will see. When medical scientists go from helping and healing to deciding who is pure enough to live before birth...folks, that's problem. Seventy-five years ago those notions were being put into motion by the Nazi Party of Germany. Care to go down that "pure genetics" road again?
Someone show me were Christ killed instead of healed someone with a disease or deformity, then I'll get on board with "pure genetics." Until such proof is found, I'll stay on the side of believing that God is God and has a plan for everyone who is not "genetically perfect" (and their families).
This kind of stuff sickens me.

reply from: lukesmom

People should not be killed. Fetuses are not people so they don't matter.
Your opinion. My opinion is humans like you are really not people so killing you doesn't matter.

reply from: bakon2

People should not be killed. Fetuses are not people so they don't matter.
Hmm. What makes one human?

reply from: JRH

People should not be killed. Fetuses are not people so they don't matter.
Hmm. What makes one human?
DNA. Sentience makes one a PERSON.

reply from: JRH

Oh well, that does not address the rationality of wishing to remove genetic defects from our gene pool.
I never disputed that.
Science is neither good nor evil. It is a method for trying to understand hwow natural laws function.
Godwin's Law in action. Hitler was against abortion, though, so maybe you would like to have him in power?
BTW Fetus=/ Grown person
Someone show me some evidence there ever was a Christ.
What prof do you have for god? If you don't have any you certainly should not ask it from others.
Who....cares?

reply from: myasmommy713

People should not be killed. Fetuses are not people so they don't matter.
ARE YOU SERIOUS WITH YOURSELF RIGHT NOW?!?!?!?!?!
First off its not a fetus!!!!! Second off its a baby from the SECOND its conceived!!!!! YOU MAKE ME SICK!!!!
And to Lukesmom that says that you should be the first to go...... I SECOND YOU ON THAT!!!!

reply from: ChristianLott2

'Sentience', another scientific sounding word which means nothing.
Many of us are disputing your sentience and worth right here.
Aren't you the same guy who thinks we should clone people without brains so we can have cheap replacement organs and body parts? Sense a brainless body can't have sentience there would be nothing wrong with that, huh?
You're not a scientist, you're a loon.
Tell me something scientist, what causes the heart to beat and the blood to flow?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Then born babies are not people, since self-awareness does not instantly happen upon expulsion from the uterus. Sleeping people are not sentient, or comatose people.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

ARE YOU SERIOUS WITH YOURSELF RIGHT NOW?!?!?!?!?!
First off its not a fetus!!!!! Second off its a baby from the SECOND its conceived!!!!! YOU MAKE ME SICK!!!!
And to Lukesmom that says that you should be the first to go...... I SECOND YOU ON THAT!!!!
Um... yes, it is a fetus. "Fetus" is the scientific name for the baby after week ten and up to birth.

reply from: JRH

Then born babies are not people, since self-awareness does not instantly happen upon expulsion from the uterus. Yes, and if you know anything about my idol Singer you would know he makes the same argument.
They are, but their minds are not currently controlling their bodies.

reply from: JRH

Instructions in cells contained in DNA.

reply from: myasmommy713

ARE YOU SERIOUS WITH YOURSELF RIGHT NOW?!?!?!?!?!
First off its not a fetus!!!!! Second off its a baby from the SECOND its conceived!!!!! YOU MAKE ME SICK!!!!
And to Lukesmom that says that you should be the first to go...... I SECOND YOU ON THAT!!!!
Um... yes, it is a fetus. "Fetus" is the scientific name for the baby after week ten and up to birth.
No no sorry your WRONG!!!!!! ITS A BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ITS LIVING, SO THEREFORE ITS A BABY!!!! You people are so mis-informed its crazy to me! Guess what when i got a sonogram at 6 weeks my BABY had a heartbeat and tiny arms and legs....it formed and you tell me its not a BABY!!!! PLEASE!!!!
5"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

reply from: LiberalChiRo

ARE YOU SERIOUS WITH YOURSELF RIGHT NOW?!?!?!?!?!
First off its not a fetus!!!!! Second off its a baby from the SECOND its conceived!!!!! YOU MAKE ME SICK!!!!
And to Lukesmom that says that you should be the first to go...... I SECOND YOU ON THAT!!!!
Um... yes, it is a fetus. "Fetus" is the scientific name for the baby after week ten and up to birth.
No no sorry your WRONG!!!!!! ITS A BABY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ITS LIVING, SO THEREFORE ITS A BABY!!!! You people are so mis-informed its crazy to me! Guess what when i got a sonogram at 6 weeks my BABY had a heartbeat and tiny arms and legs....it formed and you tell me its not a BABY!!!! PLEASE!!!!
5"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you;
I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."
Darling, did you hear me say "It is not a baby"? No, you did not. In fact, I used the word baby in my post. I hate to tell you though, that fetus is a perfectly acceptable word to describe the baby when it is inside the uterus. It is the correct scientific terminology, just like zygote and embryo. I'm not saying it isn't a baby, I am simply saying that it is indeed also correct to call it a fetus.
So go take a chill pill.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Then born babies are not people, since self-awareness does not instantly happen upon expulsion from the uterus.
Yes, and if you know anything about my idol Singer you would know he makes the same argument.
I have no idea who you masturbate to. I think it's truly ridiculous to not consider a born baby a person, since by law it is a citizen. How can it be a citizen but not a person?
They are, but their minds are not currently controlling their bodies.
I'm sorry, but I don't even understand how that's correct or even relavent. Sleeping/comatose people are not self aware, which is another term for sentience. But their brains are indeed controlling their bodies; your heart and lungs cannot function without the primitive parts of your brain telling them to pump and breathe.

reply from: JRH

If law determines who is a person, then no fetus is as per the SCOTUS decision Roe v Wade. Q-E-Fukcing-D
Dreams....You are aware in your dream, and you will be aware of this world again after you awaken. You can be self aware and not know what is going on in this world. Heck, we might be in the matrix or dreaming right now but we are still self aware. Secondly, there is a key difference between someone who already has a mind, and one who *might* have one in the future such as a fetus.
Their bodily functions are regulated automatically and not be the choices the mind makes. My mind makes my body type this out. My body turns over in sleep of its own volition. There are some exceptions, such as sleep wlaking.
Thats not the mind...and those do not need the brain to work exactly. The brain is important but is possible that you could clone someone and design them such as the DNA could tell them to pump blood etc sans a brain.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

If law determines who is a person, then no fetus is as per the SCOTUS decision Roe v Wade. Q-E-Fukcing-D
Huh? DOES the law determine who is a person? Can you go find that law for me, since I've never seen it. Where is the line that says "the unborn are not people"?

Dreams....You are aware in your dream, and you will be aware of this world again after you awaken.
So? You are not aware of your actual body; the stuff of dreams is not "real" like your body is. Your body is in fact paralyzed by your brain while you sleep. The POTENTIAL to be aware does not matter to you when it applies to the unborn so it cannot matter in regards to sleepers.
Self aware means you are aware that you exist. Awareness of the rest of the word is not necessary and I never recal implying such.
Are you using the word "mind" and "brain" as two different things and not telling me? Rather devious don't you think?
Their bodily functions are regulated automatically and not be the choices the mind makes. My mind makes my body type this out. My body turns over in sleep of its own volition. There are some exceptions, such as sleep wlaking.
You are using mind and brain separately. As we have no idea what the "mind" really is or what it could possibly apply to, I think it's meaningless to include it in this debate.
Thats not the mind...and those do not need the brain to work exactly. The brain is important but is possible that you could clone someone and design them such as the DNA could tell them to pump blood etc sans a brain.
Firstly, I again state that disussing the "mind" is useless here. Secondly, that would be incredibly pointless and difficult since vertebrates have evolved to depend on the brain and the central nervous system. It's impossible with today's technology so why are you even bringing it up?
What does ANY of that have to do with abortion? Nothing.

reply from: JRH

You said " I think it's truly ridiculous to not consider a born baby a person, since by law it is a citizen. How can it be a citizen but not a person?"'
If it is truly ridiculously to claim it is not a person because of law, then clearly law must be what you use to define "person". Otherwise it would not matter what the law said. Following from that, the unborn are not persons as per Roe, so clearly they can not be persons under your system.
Really? Prove that this is real and not a dream . Secondly, you are still aware even if it is not of this world.
Potential? We are talking about who are aware. Just in their dreams. This is a form of awareness. HTH
I know I exist in dreams, therefore, I am self aware in dreams.
You do so above by implying that there is no awareness in dreams and only in the "real" world.
No, the mind is a function of the brain, but the brain also carries out automatic functions.
We have evidence that it is process of the brain
It is a central point of contention.
Wrong. And if it doesn't you brought up the issues anyway.

reply from: JRH

Irrelevant to my proposal. Selecting out genetic disorders is not bad and the traits that I am talking about are not present in a large enough % of the population to cause any serious problems, while these diseases if left unchecked could cause a problem.
Really? Please show me a scientific study which has proven this.
Are you divorced from reality. Traits do no appear out of nowhere. They would have to mutate before such a thing could happen-and there is no reason to think such a mutation would be caused by the negation of genetic disorders.
There will still be genetic diversity. ....You are clearly fear mongering here.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I don't respond to quote-fails, JRH.

reply from: JRH

You can't respond. I have seen you respond to such in the past. Don't worry though, you lost so run along now with a pathetic attempt to save face.

reply from: JRH

Of course you have no evidence for this. But I do advocate testing of course. I'm not saying run off half cocked on this. A few test runs will of course be necessary.
Why has this not been observed among groups of high intelligence who interbreed with each other, such as ivy league students, who are also quite fit. In any case, if we are genetically engineering people these trend could be reversed in a singe generation by using old genetic templates, so I don't really think it matters.

Look at hip dysplasia specific breeds of dogs. Larger dogs are more prone to it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_hip_dysplasia ). By selecting size as a desired trait in dogs (like german shepherds, great danes, etc) we have also exacerbated the problems with their hips.
The example is not so far fetched. If we breed successive generations for specific I never said to breed for genius athletes. I said to remove genetic disorders through breeding. Genetic engineering is the only method I would support using to create genius athletes.
Key point: Any society that has the ability to genetically engineer humans will be advanced enough to control such factors because out understanding of our own genome will have to advance to the a point which has not even been closed to reached. So the knowledge of what genes are linked to certain traits will be something such a society would have. Nano machines will almost certainly have advanced to the point where they will be able to destroy cancerous or otherwise cells when they form,anyway, and thats just one advancement off the top of my head which could deal with some of the problems you present. If, by some unforeseen circumstance, traits such as you suggest were to become prevalent than old genetic templates can be used for the next generation thus the race itself is in no danger.
I don't think you even read my exchange with the other poster which is why you assumed I was discussing breeding. This reflects badly on you.

reply from: JRH

You said " I think it's truly ridiculous to not consider a born baby a person, since by law it is a citizen. How can it be a citizen but not a person?"'
If it is truly ridiculously to claim it is not a person because of law, then clearly law must be what you use to define "person". Otherwise it would not matter what the law said. Following from that, the unborn are not persons as per Roe, so clearly they can not be persons under your system.
Really? Prove that this is real and not a dream . Secondly, you are still aware even if it is not of this world.
Potential? We are talking about who are aware. Just in their dreams. This is a form of awareness. HTH
I know I exist in dreams, therefore, I am self aware in dreams.
You do so above by implying that there is no awareness in dreams and only in the "real" world.
No, the mind is a function of the brain, but the brain also carries out automatic functions.
We have evidence that it is process of the brain
It is a central point of contention.
Wrong. And if it doesn't you brought up the issues anyway.
Fixed it. I am awaiting your stunning refutation.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Instructions in cells contained in DNA.
What causes the instructions to be written? Why do we exist? 'Help the race' do what?
You think you can cure unhappiness by suggesting parents murder their babies to fulfill some ideal of perfection. That's wrong. Even the suggestion of something like that is wrong.

reply from: ChristianLott2

What would be best is if you could detect these undesired traits before conception. Surely with your science and computers you could simulate something like this. AND, if that's too difficult I think it's safe to say we certainly shouldn't trust you with something far more complex like telling us what's acceptable and what is not for our collective gene pool.
I for one find dumb girls attractive sometimes.

reply from: Witness

Genetic disorders, etc. do not harm the gene pool. Rather, it's those who think their opinion of others should determine who lives or dies. Basically, the mind and the heart are what deplete us. Because those who would kill to advance themselves are already degenerated to the point of not being valuable to society.
Hitler would have annihilated the Jews. Sanger, basically the poor and all races not her own. And, yet, Hitler and Sanger were the ones we could have done without. Personally, I think your hero, Singer, is even more demented than they were.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

You said " I think it's truly ridiculous to not consider a born baby a person, since by law it is a citizen. How can it be a citizen but not a person?"'
If it is truly ridiculously to claim it is not a person because of law, then clearly law must be what you use to define "person". Otherwise it would not matter what the law said. Following from that, the unborn are not persons as per Roe, so clearly they can not be persons under your system.
Born baby = citizen. Do you think it is possible to be a citizen and not a person? You stated your "hero" does not consider born babies to be people, yet they are legally citizens. I am not saying anything at all about whether or not law dictates who is a person. That's not even the subject of my above comment.
Potential? We are talking about who are aware. Just in their dreams. This is a form of awareness. HTH
I do not consider it a form of awareness and you could find studies that support me. Dreams are unknown fluff; it is pointless to include them in this debate.
A comatose person is not self aware or conscious. They have the potential to be conscious and self-aware, but they are not. The unborn has the potential to be conscious and self aware, but is not. Where is the difference in these statements? Nothing. We are not talking about location, we are talking about potential self-awareness.
If potential self awareness means a comatose human is a person, then it means the unborn is also a person. By the way, I am not going to get into a philosophical debate with you over consciousness in dreams.

It is a central point of contention.
Not really. You just want to sidetrack the issue of killing children into a philosophical discussion over the dream-state and the mind.
Wrong. And if it doesn't you brought up the issues anyway.
I did not. I did not bring up switching vertebrates' brains around, or what the "mind" is. YOU brought all of that up. And I am not going to discuss it.

reply from: ProInformed

If we were to degress to a barbaric society that justified killing humans based on some sort of criteria determining their worth or right to live, you do realize that eventually all humans, whatever their age or stage of human devleopment, would become subject to such srutiny.
How would you fare if others could determine YOUR right to life based on THEIR measurement of what defines a life worth living?

reply from: ProInformed

http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=5332&enterthread=y

reply from: JRH

DUH. Just not the specific genetic linkage you mentioned. Nice red herring, though.
Wrong, but keep going.
Many families do just that.
You don't get it....it does not matter if you can alter the genetic makeup of the fetus an remake them on templates from our time. It does not matter how much time passes.
You ignored the context of what I said.
No, it really wasn't and I invite you to show me a place where I said that.
Because it wold? lol
Examine context. Either way, GAs could never be the majority without it.
We know we can genetically engineer things so you fail. Google "frankenfoolds".

It is viable already. While the science is new some nanotech already exists so it is viable.
I am well aware of theese potential dangers.
.....so does making a race of gas.
Why would it mean that? It would just be a safety measure. Do you think the fact we wear seat belts mean we should not drive cars? lol
Most likely robots. I think that automatizing will continue in the future and that eventually all non skilled workers will*****out of luck.
Second, don't assume we are classist.

reply from: JRH

I don't think a fetus has such a righ.
No, because most of us are sentient.

reply from: JRH

What would be best is if you could detect these undesired traits before conception./q]Sure, but we can't do it right now.
We can make predictions but they lack true accuracy.

reply from: JRH

Yes, since citizenship is determined by law which could make tress citizens.
Yes, it was for the reasons I stated and you did not refute.
Links me to one now.
I clearly remember my dreams. It is hard to convince me they are "unknown".
Dreams
....and has not developed a mind yet like the above person
LOL we will ignore dreams because you don't like them
They are aware. And they also already have a mind. A fetus does not have a mind nor has it had one in the past.
Because you know it refutes you perfectly
No, because the issue has to do with my definition of person as per awareness. This is important because my definition of person is what makes me pro choice.
You lose.....

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Yes, since citizenship is determined by law which could make tress citizens.
"Trees"? Trees are citizens? You're going to have to find proof of that for me. I think you're wacky here, since a Citizen is a person(!!) who is under the protection of our laws and who, if they are old enough, can vote and serve in our military. They have many other rights, one of which is the right to life.
Links me to one now.
What was I referencing again?
Dreams
Comatose people do not dream.
....and has not developed a mind yet like the above person
So?
LOL we will ignore dreams because you don't like them
My above statements did not include dreams, they included a comatose person (comatose people do not experience REM sleep, which is dreaming) and a fetus.
They are aware.
Who, the comatose person? You go talk to a doctor about that.
We are not discussing minds.
Because you know it refutes you perfectly
No, because it has nothing to do with this debate.
No, because the issue has to do with my definition of person as per awareness. This is important because my definition of person is what makes me pro choice.
So because someone can dream, they are a person? We can measure the brainwaves of the unborn; if they were shown to have minds, what would you say?
Basically, the unborn has sustained, bilaterally synchronous brainwaves at 26-27 weeks. It has a "mind", as you are fond of discussing. So any abortion past 27 weeks is killing a person, by your own definition.
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/anand/

reply from: JRH

All you did was say "so", "dreams don't count", and "I'm ignoring this argument because I don't like it"....derp a derp. Anyway, I will only respond to the one thing you did argue. Brainwave activity is not the same thing as awareness. Fish have brain waves. Sorry stupid try again.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Since you have now personally attacked me, this debate is over. Those brainwaves in the study were taken from born, premature children. Citizens, but not people by your own definitions. Your "mind" is so distorted by lies and justifications for death that I'm not going to be able to explain anything logical to you.

reply from: JRH

It was over the minute you said I could not use the example of dreams because they refuted you perfectly.
Yes
Name them
So far you have not been able to understand simple logic, much less explain it to others!

reply from: LiberalChiRo

No, it was over the moment you attacked me; because despite you adding in unrelated nonsense, I still stayed on topic without insulting you.
You have yet to explain WHY a full-term baby is not a person yet is a citizen. You have also failed to explain how a "tress" is a citizen without being a person. Heck, you haven't even explained what a "tress" is.
You declaring with no solid evidence that born babies are not people is a lie. They are people. I can't understand your logic behind that and I don't think most - if any - pro-choicers could either. Perhaps you need to go find a pro-abortion board to troll.

reply from: Banned Member

You do not destroy life to improve life.

reply from: JRH

I thought laws did not make someone a person? If being a citizen makes you a person, then a fetus is not as per the SCOTUS ruling in Roe vs Wade.
I did not say it was a citizen. I said that we could make laws making it one. We can make anything a legal citizen. Monkeys, a fishtank, candy apples, and anything else can be made one legally. This makes citizenship a bad way to determine personhood .
I don't need evidence for a subjective definition. Nothing subjective requires any evidence at all. A fetus is human. It is non sentient, and so I say it is not a person.
Not sentient = not a person in my book
Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I thought laws did not make someone a person? If being a citizen makes you a person, then a fetus is not as per the SCOTUS ruling in Roe vs Wade.
It doesn't. What I'm saying is that humans are people from the moment of conception. Birth simply makes you a citizen of a particular nation. No law can legislate personhood; all humans are people.
I did not say it was a citizen. I said that we could make laws making it one.
And why would we? As I said, laws are arbitrary, but personhood is INHERENT. Person is just another word for human being.
Which is why it's a good thing I didn't say that citizenship determines personhood.
I don't need evidence for a subjective definition. Nothing subjective requires any evidence at all. A fetus is human. It is non sentient, and so I say it is not a person.
But the point of all of this verbal nonsense is that it's not right to kill the unborn, no matter what you "subjectively" call it.
Not sentient = not a person in my book
I go back to my point that it makes no logical sense for something that isn't a person to be a citizen.

reply from: JRH

Only if the law says that. Law can make anyone a citizen
Only by your definition.
Then why did you bring up citizenship as a defense of pesonhood?
You clearly did. Stop lying as I like you and it is unbecoming.
All matters of right and wrong are just as subjective, so your statement is false.
Why?I don't see how this follows since anything can be made a citizen.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Only if the law says that. Law can make anyone a citizen
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Has the law ever made a non-person a citizen?
Only by your definition.
Not just me; a lot of people feel the same way.
Then why did you bring up citizenship as a defense of pesonhood?
I didn't. You did. I simply commented on the fact that IF someone is a citizen, it makes no sense at all that they are NOT also a person. I find it highly illogical to make non-persons citizens, and I'm still waiting for proof it has ever happened in the USA. The entire concept of what a citizen IS only works when applied to people, aka human beings.

You clearly did. Stop lying as I like you and it is unbecoming.
Go find where I said "the law makes you a person. Being a citizen makes you a person". You can't find it, because I didn't say it. You are the one lying. Now maybe you just misinterpreted what I was trying to say; and that's okay. But let's be clear on what I was trying to tell you:
All humans are people. Being born only gives you the title of citizen. The law cannot determine personhood, because it is inherent to all human beings. The law CAN dictate citizenship. Lastly, it makes no sense to label a non-person as a citizen. This clearly leads to the fact that IF you are a citizen, you must have already been a person in order to gain said title as citizen.
All matters of right and wrong are just as subjective, so your statement is false.
Not really; there are some laws that all sane humans can agree upon, such as not murdering innocents, and not stealing. You can call these inherent laws, ethics, morals, whatever you like, but ALL normal humans are social animals, and thus have an instinct to protect each other.
Why?I don't see how this follows since anything can be made a citizen.
You have yet to present any information regarding that. It is illogical, not impossible. I'm not denying that a tree COULD be made into a citizen; again, the laws of man are up to the whims of the leaders. I'm simply saying that it would be (quite franky) very silly.

reply from: ProInformed

When we all get to decided whether or not another's life is worthy of protection:
http://stblogustine.blogspot.com/2008/11/this-helps-assuage-sting.html


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics