Not with illuminati and monsanto at play making kids dumber. George Bush, their leader, passed rules to make kids dumber. FDA allows preservatives and hydrogenated oils in foods.
Illuminati doesnt make sense. How can they be for “higher culture” etc. if they promote the massive breeding of retards and environmental destruction by monsanto. Doesnt make sense.
It is this simple:
Imagine 2 societies. One society aborts downies. The other doesn’t. Other than that, they are pretty much equal in everything else.
If it comes to conflict between these societies, guess which one will win?
Of course, the one which isn’t weakened by downies.
Preserving weakness, pacifism, liberalism, and similar positions hinge on all other groups (nations) being as weak, stupid, and degenerate as they are so that their own weakness, degeneracy, and stupidity cannot be exploited.
In other words, it is dependent on lack of conflict.
And since LIFE itself is conflict, such positions are essentially life-negating.
Unless you are fine with weakening of the society and making it more vulnerable to extermination, and are a life-hater, the choice is clear.
And if you are fine with weakening the society and making it more vulnerable to extermination, and hate-life, why would others have to respect it, if it is in direct conflict with their own values, which is a powerful society and life-loving.
Why would others in the society give additional valuable resources and attention to artificially preserve weakness, especially if such preservations of weakness ultimately increases the chances of their own demise, because if the society gets attacked by another one, downies will be useless even though they drain the same amount of resources/attention to preserve as all others, or even more.
There is no such thing as a natural right to life, all rights are artificial human constructs that can be one way or another.
Killing is immoral? Eating the flesh of animals after killing them is immoral?
Of course nobody bothers looking at the changes of human civilization and society that has necessitated the demand for abortion or the reasoning behind it.
Also, nations have been condoning mass killings for millenniums.
Um, no. The one that has better tanks, generals, and airplane pilots will win.
All other factors equal, Trixie.
Thought this was a discussion based on reality. I was laughing so hard at this I almost choked (no, litterally, on my chewable multivitamins.)
Is that a response to me?
If yes, are you saying that in reality having downies in the society doesn’t weaken it, or are you saying that in reality it doesn’t matter if society is weakened and exterminated?
Downies rarely breed with non-downies, so yes, the situation is by and large irrelevant.
It’s not only about breeding, it’s about downies requiring at least as much resources and attention to sustain as ordinary children, when they don’t have the ability to give back the same way.
And even if you invest MORE resources and attention on downies than on ordinary children, you are just wasting your time and resources.
Let’s not forget the social awkwardness this creates.
Scenario
1: If people are honest, they would treat and consider downies as inferior, because they are inferior, and downies would be unhappy and perhaps even become subversive to the society, wanting to avenge themselves, maybe even desiring not to be born.
2:If people decide to lie for the sake of ‘feelings’ and pretend downies are equal to them, then they are perpetuating a dangerous and harmful lie, and risking the social degradation by retardations spreading even more rapidly, since they wouldn’t even be considered retardations.
Finally, every downie is taking up the place of a potentially healthy child in a society.
Yes, let’s abort and kill disabled people of all kinds. Let’s make it illegal for them to reproduce.
We must create the most perfect and pure specimen of homosapiens to meet the new transhumanist era.
It’s the moral thing to do…
Resources in = resources out. That being said, since cows have sacrificed their lives to the human race, we should give back to the cows, we owe them a life debt of servitude, just as downies owe us a life debt of servitutude.
Immortals crave socially awkwardness. Genetic deformities don’t bother daemons. Being bothered by such things is a sign of weakish girlishness.
Discussing it? No. Proposing a moral “mandate” said to resolve it “scientifically”, “rationally”, “deontologically”? I suspect not.
Consider this:
reason.com/archives/2011/01/26/a … nd-science
It is written from the perspective of a libertarian. The author concludes:
[b]Then again, I’m under no illusion that the debate is going to change in my lifetime. The Roe v. Wade decision—made without considering evolving science or new facts—ensures that the debate is purely academic for now. I’m certainly not under the delusion that every problem has an answer. But if the pro-life movement is going to win the hearts and minds of the rest of the nation, it’s not going to need more God. It’s going to need more reason.[/b]
He also notes this:
[b]Most people, not very ideological to begin with, are probably too squeamish to reach decisive conclusions on abortion. They balance their views somewhere in the middle as they weigh societal costs and realities. Most, though, oppose late-term abortion.[/b]
But, really, how “decisive” are his own assertions/assumptions here? Has he really established – established rationally, morally, ethically – that his own conclusions reflect the optimal [most reasonable] point of view?
That, in other words, the assumptions from “the other side” are necessarily wrong because his own are necessarily right?
Or does it still come down [as I suspect] to conflicting goods rooted in dasein embedded in a world where the power to enforce ones own political prejudices remains the one true constant over the decades.
And, given that he is a champion of Reason rather than God, what of the individual who argues that, sans God, morality revolves solely around that which he or she perceives to be in their own best interest? How has he made that assumption go away? The fierce narcissist after all can even rationalize infanticide. Or the rape and the murder of a child.
How “on earth” is either science or philosophy going to make this particular assumption go away in a godless universe? This is the argument that I am ever in search of.
Instead, from my own subjective perspective [here and now], the least unpalatable point of view still seems to revolve around democracy and the rule of law. At least in this [entirely political] context nothing [regarding abortion or all other conflicting goods that have impaled the species down through the centuries] is set in stone.
Do you believe that in regard to issues like abortion there is no limit to reason — re either science or philosophy — in broaching/resolving it morally? That, in fact, the optimal argument can in fact be “thought up” by a scientist or a philosopher and then made to fit seamlessly out in the world empirically, phenomenally?
My argument instead is that as a “purely academic” debate in a venue such as this, the issue is often “resolved” merely by presuming [syllogistically] that ones conclusion is in sync with ones premises which is then asserted to by sync with what is then said to be true objectively of the “world”.
On the other hand, don’t folks from both sides – from all sides – lay claim to that point of view in turn?
What then is really resolved out in the world of actual flesh and blood abortions? What then [in terms of actual conflicted human behaviors here] can be “mandated” morally?
while being pro-life, I will not fight abortion because I am aware that many women died before it was legalized because they couldnt afford being pregnant for whatever reasons. But in the big picture as long as wars are not deem immoral and abolished, people cannot behave ethically. They turn on their TV and when seeing so much legalized violence, why should they really care. Not my stance but that of many.
honestly, somebody like Dawkin has made its agenda to stir up the pot and provoke just for the sake of getting attention. he knows the game dualism.
Thinkers like Khrisnamurti are my cup of tea.
Not to mention his conclusion is based on observations of people living with DS. At the very least, he is admitting that the majority of those living with DS should have been aborted in retrospect.
I don’t take the argument to be that killing a fetus is OK because it doesn’t feel, but because it isn’t a person for the purpose of moral calculus. The same can’t be said of the person under anesthesia; I take them to remain a person for moral purposes despite being temporarily numb.
A fetus may be human, but so is a tumor and so is a limb. A fetus isn’t a moral person.
I still prefer to reject this, for rigorous-ish reasons. Moral rights aren’t assigned randomly. When a society grants moral rights to peat moss, one can ask why, and the answer is likely to invoke ostensibly objective claims (“Because God loves peat moss and we love God!”). Systems have to be consistent on their own terms, and they have to be consistent with observed reality. To the extent claims about well-being are based on observable events (e.g. we conclude X gives more well-being than Y because people always choose X over Y if able), we can base utilitarian calculus on objective grounds.
I agree with this. Dawkins’ is making a distinction between saying based on expectation, “this pregnancy should be aborted”, and saying based on observation, “that pregnancy should have been aborted”. But if Dawkin’s expectation is statistically accurate, then the majority of observations should result in statements like the second. Dawkins doesn’t say that that’s the case, but it does seem he’d need to accept it to remain consistent.
EDIT: Statik makes the same point.
Again, I find this to say too much. There are plenty of experiences that will do very little to inform a position. I’ve never killed anyone and I don’t know anyone who has, but I don’t think that disqualifies me from recommending policies about what to do with people who have.
Unless you mean to say that no one is ever qualified to propose rationally justified moral mandates. In that case, I’d point you to my response to Faust. I get the skepticism, I acknowledge that a lot of the reasoning is self-deluded and motivated, but I don’t think that in itself refutes the claim that there are answers dictated by reason. The answer doesn’t have to be tidy for there to be an answer.
Only the pure thoroughbreds are allowed to exist…cause muh god, government, and morality says so…
Carleas
That is a categorical error imho. A tumour is a suffix ~ ‘an addition to’ [to the whole being/creature], a foetus is not that but the whole thing/person yet simply less developed. It has the potential to grow [and cures to be found] into the person under anaesthesia. I had thought Dawkins had used the argument that they don’t feel pain?
I am pro life only because I am pro family and the equilibrium of sexes which I view to be out of sync now. My beliefs have more to do with function than a moral argumentation which I care nothing about. It comes to my subjective preference.
I understand abortion if a woman is raped or whose life is threatened but eighty five percent of abortions today have nothing to do with either.
If morality and ethics were objective or biologically hardwired most of human malice would never take place where because it takes place frequently everywhere is more of an illustration of its absence all the more.
I think the first place to challenge Dawkins is on his universalizing the moral choice. IOW he is not saying it is OK to abort such a fetus, he is saying any parent in that situation should abort. This means regardless of one’s proclivities, income, goals, ideas about love and family, sense of what is important in a person/loved one, one should do this. I don’t think this is defensible. It might be for some people who would demand abortions for a vast range of pregnancies, but I find it unlikely that Dawkins would be consistant here. If the cost issue is argued, then there are all sorts of choices people with means make that could be precluded. If it is the fullness of life issue, then this presumes some of the issues you point out, but also that parents as a group cannot choose to experience something he would find not worth it, but they would. He is universalizing his preferences.
Government- Consisting of a small minority of individuals that universalize their preferences into law which they force on everybody else. They describe their preferences being that they view themselves as superior to everybody else as objective morality even amongst the complete absence of such.