By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sperrico87 on 15 October 2012
Edit Thread
TheLivingShadow said:
sperrico87 said:
curl-6 said:
sperrico87 said:
curl-6 said:
menx64 said:
siavm said:

 

 

 

A clump of cells?  When do you make the distinction between a "clump of cells" and a human being?  Do you just pick a day on the calendar and BAM it's a human at that point?  The mother is only responsible for half of the pregnancy, so I don't think all men should be forever cast off from having a say.  Last I checked, two lesbians cannot conceive a baby.  It takes a man and a woman.

By the way, as I said before... people with disabilities need love and care.  I'm sorry you think they don't deserve the chance to live, but I think that is just abominable.  If a girl is born with Downe's sydrome, and she loved and cared for by her family and friends, she shouldn't have been allowed to be born?  Are we just playing God now?  Only the healthy ones get to live?  I think that way of thinking is the end of civilization.

We have fundamentally different viewpoints on the morality of this situation. Though in general I don't support abortion, I do agree and support the abortion of individuals with significant mental problems. However, we must first make sure that the individual actually has the disease. In some cases, the practice leads to inaccurate diagnoses, which can have tragic consequences. But even recognizing the non-zero chance that inaccurate diagnoses would be made, I still believe that, in general, this should be done.

I need you to tell me what you (or any other person with your same opinions) think about these few statements though to see exactly where we differ. You either disagree or agree with these statements, since they're given as true/false.

1. There's nothing special about life in general.

2. The consumption and use of animals and plants, but especially animals, by humans is not morally wrong.

3. All life dies and there is nothing after life (i.e. no Heaven, Hell, or anything)

I believe from saying True to all these three statements, through reasonable logic you arrive at:

4. There's nothing wrong with pre-selection of humans under the condition that it's only done on consideration of mental ability.

 

This mindset needs to be true, especially if we think into the future. Realistically, in the next century, we should be able to play with the genetic make-up of new-born people. I believe it would not be immoral to require people to have their children be much more intelligent than they would otherwise probably be if we were capable of doing that. In fact, it would be immoral not to allow this, in my opinion.

That's my opinion anyways. Please try to keep it civil and don't call me "sick" or "abominable" for this, even though in your mindset it will appear to be that case.

Human life is different than other life.  We are sentient.  We are able to have subjective experiences.  We have created philosophy and literature...written languages, economies, religions, etc, etc.  So comparing us to other animals is impossible.

In the next century, as you say, we may well have the ability to play with genetic make-up of new-borns.  This is wrong.  We are imperfect beings, and we will never be perfect.  People need to accept that.  There is something beyond tragic at the thought of changing and altering unborn children to make them "better".  At that point, individuality, what makes us human, is lost.