Advertisement
by Pensalum » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:38 pm
by Infected Mushroom » Thu Jul 19, 2018 11:46 pm
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:20 am
USS Monitor wrote:The Greater Low Countries wrote:I don't usually reply to comments, but gee whiz man, that is hurtful. "Defective"? I know quite a few people with neuromuscular conditions, autism (which btw can manifest itself in such a way that you couldn't even call it a disorder), and other such things. They are wonderful people and just because they can't do some things doesn't make them "defective". Would you change your mind if your kid got depressed when he was 13?
It makes me really sad that you think this
Autism is not something that can be screened for before birth. Even if you do use prenatal screenings and abort deformed or genetically-disordered fetuses, that would not eliminate autism from the population.LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:They're more likely to GET those services if they're less expensive to the taxpayer. They're known to be stingy about this sort of thing. (See also opposition to public healthcare.)
Also, taxpayers are more likely to sympathize with disabilities that are no one's fault than with disabilities that are the parents' fault for giving birth to them.
Taxpayers can get stuffed if they think it's fair to let a child suffer with substandard care because the mother didn't want an abortion.
Some people don't want to get an abortion. That isn't the kid's fault.
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Washington Resistance Army » Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:27 am
LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:USS Monitor wrote:
Autism is not something that can be screened for before birth. Even if you do use prenatal screenings and abort deformed or genetically-disordered fetuses, that would not eliminate autism from the population.
Taxpayers can get stuffed if they think it's fair to let a child suffer with substandard care because the mother didn't want an abortion.
Some people don't want to get an abortion. That isn't the kid's fault.
Well, how do you propose getting around the will of the taxpayers, then?
by UniversalCommons » Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:28 am
by Fortlion » Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:30 am
by Kernen » Fri Jul 20, 2018 4:59 am
UniversalCommons wrote:There is another aspect to this discussion. The problem of sociopaths or people who have problems with basic moral decisions. Being a sociopath is a form of extreme disability. It can lead to genocide, unjustified wars with ones neighbors. Quite often people choose groups to exterminate so they can seize power or do very violent things. This is far more dangerous than the usual individual who is disabled who can't do anything. We watch for sociopathic tendencies in our population. These people often appear perfectly normal and are often quite successful.
by Auze » Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:00 am
Godular wrote:Cappuccina wrote:Most pregnancies in 1st world nations are not immediately life threatening, potentially yes, but nowhere near the norm.
The risk of potentially debilitating/lethal complications remains nonzero, and as such the threat remains. I think you will also find that pregnancy related mortality rates in the US have been experiencing something of an uptick lately.
by Salandriagado » Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:02 am
Auze wrote:Godular wrote:
The risk of potentially debilitating/lethal complications remains nonzero, and as such the threat remains. I think you will also find that pregnancy related mortality rates in the US have been experiencing something of an uptick lately.
The odds of dying in a highway accident are non-zero, therefore you should be legally allowed to blow up the car behind you.
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:05 am
Kernen wrote:The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Ok let me rephrase:
They can't afford the child or they will die while giving childbirth should the only factors.
Why? Its the woman's body. Its the woman's choice. If she wants to abort a fetus because its Tuesday, so be it. Motivation is irrelevant.
The Alma Mater wrote:The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Is it okay to abort fetuses if they will have mental or physical disabilities?
No, that should not be a factor at all into why someone should or should not get an abortion.
They can't afford the child or they will die while giving childbirth are the only factors.
How about the other way around ? What if a deaf couple wants a baby through IVF. They would then have the choice of several embryos to implant.
should they be allowed to pick the embryo that will also be deaf "because they would better connect with it' ?
by Washington Resistance Army » Fri Jul 20, 2018 6:07 am
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Is it okay to abort fetuses if they will have mental or physical disabilities?
by LimaUniformNovemberAlpha » Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:45 am
Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:1. The PRC is not a Communist State, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
2. The CCP is not a Communist Party, as it has shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
3. Xi Jinping and his cronies are not Communists, as they have shown absolutely zero interest in achieving Communism.
How do we know this? Because the first step toward Communism is Socialism, and none of the aforementioned are even remotely Socialist in any way, shape, or form.
by Kernen » Fri Jul 20, 2018 7:49 am
by Herador » Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:01 am
by Luna Amore » Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:07 am
by Kernen » Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:10 am
Luna Amore wrote:Kernen wrote:
The fact that it's their body is all the reason anybody should ever need. People may invoke other rights for similar rationale. Abortion is no different.
Bodily sovereignty ceases to be a compelling argument when it involves a second body. Because you are then impacting that person's bodily sovereignty.
by Luna Amore » Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:15 am
Kernen wrote:Luna Amore wrote:Bodily sovereignty ceases to be a compelling argument when it involves a second body. Because you are then impacting that person's bodily sovereignty.
One should never have to subordinate one's bodily sovereignty to others. If my blood contains a rare chemical or genetic quirk that produces life saving properties, I should be under no obligation to give it up, regardless of the lives saved or the benefits derived.
by Kernen » Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:19 am
Luna Amore wrote:Kernen wrote:
One should never have to subordinate one's bodily sovereignty to others. If my blood contains a rare chemical or genetic quirk that produces life saving properties, I should be under no obligation to give it up, regardless of the lives saved or the benefits derived.
You should be obliged when it was you who created the person in the first place. It's basic personal responsibility.
You aren't killing another person in your example, you are refusing to save them/help them. They may or may not live without your intervention. With abortion, you are specifically ending the life.
by Luna Amore » Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:31 am
Kernen wrote:Luna Amore wrote:You should be obliged when it was you who created the person in the first place. It's basic personal responsibility.
You aren't killing another person in your example, you are refusing to save them/help them. They may or may not live without your intervention. With abortion, you are specifically ending the life.
I see the perception of life in the fetus utterly irrelevant. Life is not inherently valuable. Ones autonomy over their body and tissue ought to be absolute absent obvious intent to surrender or abandon that right.
The rationale, therefore, to exercising that autonomy is irrelevant. A woman should be able to abort to prevent a congenital defect as readily as to prevent stretch marks.
by Kernen » Fri Jul 20, 2018 8:33 am
Luna Amore wrote:Kernen wrote:
I see the perception of life in the fetus utterly irrelevant. Life is not inherently valuable. Ones autonomy over their body and tissue ought to be absolute absent obvious intent to surrender or abandon that right.
The rationale, therefore, to exercising that autonomy is irrelevant. A woman should be able to abort to prevent a congenital defect as readily as to prevent stretch marks.
So you would be for abortions right up until birth?
by Kernen » Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:26 am
Pope Joan wrote:This is part and parcel with eugenics.
I recommend a fine book by G.K. Chesterton. Eugenics and Other Evils.
by The Empire of Pretantia » Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:10 am
The Greater Low Countries wrote:What if an abortion discussion on NSG was actually competent?
Well, we aren't actually discussing if abortion is right, no no no. Today, we ask:
Is it okay to abort fetuses if they will have mental or physical disabilities?
by USS Monitor » Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:13 am
UniversalCommons wrote:There is another aspect to this discussion. The problem of sociopaths or people who have problems with basic moral decisions. Being a sociopath is a form of extreme disability. It can lead to genocide, unjustified wars with ones neighbors. Quite often people choose groups to exterminate so they can seize power or do very violent things. This is far more dangerous than the usual individual who is disabled who can't do anything. We watch for sociopathic tendencies in our population. These people often appear perfectly normal and are often quite successful.
by Page » Fri Jul 20, 2018 11:27 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Imperializt Russia, Lycom, Mad Jack Is Rejected, Minoa, The Two Jerseys, Tungstan
Advertisement