LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[Genivaria]

I like how you've completely dismissed any arguments I made as simply justifications for eugenics.

Amazing.

I don't know, saying that poor parents should abort their children so that they won't have to experience being poor absolutely sounds like a justification of eugenics.

.....how?
Not seeing the connection.

[Genivaria]

That does not seem accurate.

I don't know, since it only took that post to get people here to start writing justifications for eugenics.

Not seeing any justifications here.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

So...what do you think of the idea of a world where it's one society and one government and no religion. My uncle was just telling me that idea. Sound interesting, and It would help global unity.

What an awful idea.

[Torrocca]

I like how you've completely dismissed any arguments I made as simply justifications for eugenics.

Amazing.

I don't know, saying that poor parents should abort their children so that they won't have to experience being poor absolutely sounds like a justification of eugenics.

You're misinterpreting the argument there. Financial reasons for abortions for mothers/parents-to-be is a perfectly valid reason to not have a child. Do you understand how expensive caring for children is, by any chance? It's a huge drain on financial resources, especially seeing as how the kid's gonna completely be a dependent for nearly two decades, if not longer.

Like I've said multiple times now, I'd rather we address the root causes behind poverty and do something to completely and forever keep the half of humanity that's in poverty out of poverty.

[Genivaria]

I don't know, saying that poor parents should abort their children so that they won't have to experience being poor absolutely sounds like a justification of eugenics.

You're misinterpreting the argument there. Financial reasons for abortions for mothers/parents-to-be is a perfectly valid reason to not have a child. Do you understand how expensive caring for children is, by any chance? It's a huge drain on financial resources, especially seeing as how the kid's gonna completely be a dependent for nearly two decades, if not longer.

Like I've said multiple times now, I'd rather we address the root causes behind poverty and do something to completely and forever keep the half of humanity that's in poverty out of poverty.

This is a big factor why my gf and I are very careful, we simply cannot afford children, it would bankrupt us.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't know, saying that poor parents should abort their children so that they won't have to experience being poor absolutely sounds like a justification of eugenics.

.....how?
Not seeing the connection.

Because it's just another way of saying "poor people shouldn't have children."

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't know, saying that poor parents should abort their children so that they won't have to experience being poor absolutely sounds like a justification of eugenics.

You're misinterpreting the argument there. Financial reasons for abortions for mothers/parents-to-be is a perfectly valid reason to not have a child. Do you understand how expensive caring for children is, by any chance? It's a huge drain on financial resources, especially seeing as how the kid's gonna completely be a dependent for nearly two decades, if not longer.

Like I've said multiple times now, I'd rather we address the root causes behind poverty and do something to completely and forever keep the half of humanity that's in poverty out of poverty.

But it's not a perfectly valid reason for killing your child in the womb.

[Genivaria]

.....how?
Not seeing the connection.

Because it's just another way of saying "poor people shouldn't have children."

Except that no it's not.
If a couple don't feel like they can support children who are you to demand that they do?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because it's just another way of saying "poor people shouldn't have children."

Except that no it's not.
If a couple don't feel like they can support children who are you to demand that they do?

His reasoning went beyond that though, to saying that it was preferable for children who would suffer to be aborted, equating being poor with suffering, and thereby saying that it would be preferable for poor people to not have children.

[Genivaria]

Except that no it's not.
If a couple don't feel like they can support children who are you to demand that they do?

His reasoning went beyond that though, to saying that it was preferable for children who would suffer to be aborted, equating being poor with suffering, and thereby saying that it would be preferable for poor people to not have children.

That's for the couple to decide.

[United Muscovite Nations]

His reasoning went beyond that though, to saying that it was preferable for children who would suffer to be aborted, equating being poor with suffering, and thereby saying that it would be preferable for poor people to not have children.

That's for the couple to decide.

What if the results for couples individually deciding are the exact same as for a eugenics program? For example, Iceland bragged about how abortion had completely wiped out Down Syndrome in their country. Is that somehow not eugenics just because it was individuals doing it?

[Torrocca]

You're misinterpreting the argument there. Financial reasons for abortions for mothers/parents-to-be is a perfectly valid reason to not have a child. Do you understand how expensive caring for children is, by any chance? It's a huge drain on financial resources, especially seeing as how the kid's gonna completely be a dependent for nearly two decades, if not longer.

Like I've said multiple times now, I'd rather we address the root causes behind poverty and do something to completely and forever keep the half of humanity that's in poverty out of poverty.

But it's not a perfectly valid reason for killing your child in the womb.

If the parent(s)-to-be believe it is, then yes it is. Otherwise, you're just creating a situation of needless suffering for the kid on the basis of the parents not having the means to care for the child despite being forced to have said child.

His reasoning went beyond that though, to saying that it was preferable for children who would suffer to be aborted, equating being poor with suffering, and thereby saying that it would be preferable for poor people to not have children.

That's for the couple to decide.

^

MY POINT ENTIRELY, THANK YOU.

[United Muscovite Nations]

But it's not a perfectly valid reason for killing your child in the womb.

If the parent(s)-to-be believe it is, then yes it is. Otherwise, you're just creating a situation of needless suffering for the kid on the basis of the parents not having the means to care for the child despite being forced to have said child.

And I ask, again, why doesn't this reasoning apply to people who have already been born?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

That's for the couple to decide.

What if the results for couples individually deciding are the exact same as for a eugenics program? For example, Iceland bragged about how abortion had completely wiped out Down Syndrome in their country. Is that somehow not eugenics just because it was individuals doing it?

So what? "What if people giving away their money had the exact same effect for them as getting their money stolen?" "What if this voluntary thing had the exact same effect as this involuntary thing? It must be bad!"

[Genivaria]

If the parent(s)-to-be believe it is, then yes it is. Otherwise, you're just creating a situation of needless suffering for the kid on the basis of the parents not having the means to care for the child despite being forced to have said child.

And I ask, again, why doesn't this reasoning apply to people who have already been born?

I...don't understand how it could.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What if the results for couples individually deciding are the exact same as for a eugenics program? For example, Iceland bragged about how abortion had completely wiped out Down Syndrome in their country. Is that somehow not eugenics just because it was individuals doing it?

So what? "What if people giving away their money had the exact same effect for them as getting their money stolen?" "What if this voluntary thing had the exact same effect as this involuntary thing? It must be bad!"

That's not even comparable. One is giving away money, the other is individuals killing their children.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And I ask, again, why doesn't this reasoning apply to people who have already been born?

I...don't understand how it could.

The justification is that a parent has the right to kill a child in the womb to prevent it from having a life of suffering. It's the exact same reasoning the Nazis used to justify killing disabled people.

[Genivaria]

I...don't understand how it could.

The justification is that a parent has the right to kill a child in the womb to prevent it from having a life of suffering. It's the exact same reasoning the Nazis used to justify killing disabled people.

Woooow so this is where your position on abortion takes you. What a ride.

[Torrocca]

If the parent(s)-to-be believe it is, then yes it is. Otherwise, you're just creating a situation of needless suffering for the kid on the basis of the parents not having the means to care for the child despite being forced to have said child.

And I ask, again, why doesn't this reasoning apply to people who have already been born?

Because A) the parent(s) already decided it was better to have the child than not, despite their own socioeconomic conditions, B) the child is medically and scientifically considered conscious and alive, compared to the first-trimester fetus which wouldn't be considered those things, C) they were forced to have the child because the state dictates that or jail for an illegal abortion, or D) any combination of those things.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

So what? "What if people giving away their money had the exact same effect for them as getting their money stolen?" "What if this voluntary thing had the exact same effect as this involuntary thing? It must be bad!"

That's not even comparable. One is giving away money, the other is individuals killing their children.

You can't kill something that isn't yet alive.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's not even comparable. One is giving away money, the other is individuals killing their children.

You can't kill something that isn't yet alive.

Fetuses are undeniably alive.

[Genivaria]

That's not even comparable. One is giving away money, the other is individuals killing their children.

You can't kill something that isn't yet alive.

Yeah I mean trying to equate abortion to actually murdering children will fall flat until they demonstrate how abortion is actually murder.
I've yet to see it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And I ask, again, why doesn't this reasoning apply to people who have already been born?

Because A) the parent(s) already decided it was better to have the child than not, despite their own socioeconomic conditions, B) the child is medically and scientifically considered conscious and alive, compared to the first-trimester fetus which wouldn't be considered those things, C) they were forced to have the child because the state dictates that or jail for an illegal abortion, or D) any combination of those things.

Question: Do you believe a fetus has value as a person?

[Torrocca]

You can't kill something that isn't yet alive.

Fetuses are undeniably alive.

And a great many would disagree with that, especially around the first-trimester.

[Genivaria]

You can't kill something that isn't yet alive.

Fetuses are undeniably alive.

'Alive' in the sense that it is an organism? Like a blade of grass is alive?