As someone with family members who have mental illnesses, I will say that no matter how difficult things get, I would never wish for those family members to have never been born. There is always light and happiness to be had, even with mental illnesses.

If you had a child...and it turned out mentally handicapped after birth... would you feel the same way?

Maybe in your country they leave their family in debt.

It is sort of up to you who lives and dies. If people voted for a country to stop doing healthcare for people, then they would have those people's blood on their hands.

Individual life is the only thing I would value as priceless. It is the only thing in the world that is irreplacable.

I agree with Sam Harris about morality. If we define morality as actions that reduce suffering and death and increase happiness and well-being, and if we were somehow able to plot them on a 3D graph, then suddenly we have a landscape of right and wrong actions were some lead to peaks (maximum well being for as many as possible) and others lead to valleys (the opposite).

A. When I was in the womb, I was only a hypothetical person. There were so such thing as 'me' until my conciousness got going. There is no point in comparing imaginary people to real people. Every sperm that is lost when people masturbate could have been a human, do you feel bad for them (or are you one of the three guys that doesn't masturbate?) How about when couples freeze fertilized eggs for later use but ends up not using them?

B. You're comparing hypothetical people to real people here. Once they cease to be hypothetical, they become invaluable. But while they are still hypothetical, they are not.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with your final point. When women have the option to have abortions, it leads to children being born in more planned, and more thought through circumstances, and thus with a better chance of a happy life.

Again, are you assuming I exist in that question (conciousness) or are you talking about me being a hypothetical person.

I'll counter with a question. Isn't not aborting an accidental/severely handikapped child the same as killing your future planned, healthy baby, in favour of another with less chance of a good life?

I think difference here is that when you say "When women have the option to have abortions, it leads to children being born in more planned, thought-through circumstances", my one and only thought is: You have no business having sexual intercourse if you're too young or immature to handle what naturally results from intercourse...i.e.: procreation.  The whole reason sex exists in the first place.

And a sperm is not a life, a sperm in a fertizilized egg is a life.  Once that process has begun taking place, it is something that should not be interfered with or disturbed.  From that point on you must let nature take it's course.

If a woman is pregnant, beyond a reasonable doubt...from that point on, you have a responsibility to see it through and take care of it.

What I meant by fertilized egg was an egg with a sperm in it. Say a guy is getting a vasectomy, but just in case he and his wife want another kid, they store some eggs with sperms in them in a freezer. They late decide they're happy with the kids they have, and end up never using the stored eggs. Would you feel sory for those eggs?

Okay. Couples usually decide to have children in their thirties and forties, (at least where I live) because that is when their incomes are the most stable, they are mature but not too old, they can afford to get that house etc etc. Are you saying people should hold their sexual urges (that are genetically programmed to appear during the teen years) until then? Or are you okay with people having kids earlier, in more unstable circumstances, because there is only so long people can delay their exual debut. Also, don't forget that since sexuality is a powerful urge, mistakes are going to happen, even with mature people.

Sure, sex exists because of the genetical advantages of sexual reproduction, and that is why it exists. But we humans have learned how to bypass the reproduction and do it simply for pleasure. I think that is one of the most amazing things about being human. The biological reward system for reproduction (which is our most powerful reward system) can be used to simply make people happy together. And when the circumstances are the best, they can decide when they want to have children. I wouldn't want to change that for anything in the world.

To the last statement. Why? If it has no brain activity yet, and is going to be born under less than optimal circumstances, and/or is severely damaged. Why not get rid of it before it becomes a person and then later have a child that you can make sure has the best upbringing possible? What is that reasonable point onwards you mentioned?

Another question. If stem cell research from cloned human fetuses could save millions of real consious people by experimenting with early stage fetuses from cloned humans (before the brain starts forming), why should we not do that and save actual people who actually exist?

Without a second thought. I have seen enough death in my time to know it is just part of the life cycle, and I have learned that we are all equal, family or not. People come and go, some we can help, others we could help, and some nothing can be do for. So wether it be my mom, my brother, my grandfather, or my wife I would feel the same. In return I wish they would handle the situation the same  if it was me. 

I grew up with an extended family member that was mentally ill, and saw the strugles she went through, and the pain it cause the family. For 9 years it was a constant up and down emotional roller coaster. She is doing really well, then she might die, then she might live. After her passing I have been able to look at the broad picture and see what it did to our family. It was very emotional to see her pass, but the road beyond has been much less chaotic. Sometimes it is easier to let go than to hold on.

well from my observations it seems everyone who is pro-abortion has already been born.

Well apparently nobody wanted to have a go at my statements before. The guy who I responded to chose to ignore my message. Oh well.

First off, KungKras, you're awesome for having read Sam Harris Landscape book. It is quite well done. I kind of agree with you on the invaluability of human "mentally capable" life, except when compared to other human "mentally capable" lives. Of course, all other things being equal, the lives of two people are better than the life of one.

I reply once more to talk about KBG29's point of view, which is quite interesting. However, I must believe it wrong.

1. Dying people with enough of their mental functions can still contribute a lot to society in a real way, I'm not trying to sound like those apologists who say everyone is invaluable to everyone and that kind of bs, but take for example, Frederic Chopin, genius pianist. He was sick all his life and died at 35 years old. However he gave us great music, which is much more than many very healthy people achieve. I do agree though, that for example people in long term comas that have no chance of "reviving" should be let go immediately, no matter the family's feelings.

2. I really hope that by "sick" you meant "mentally very sick". Otherwise there is a huge problem with what you said since everyone is sick at some point.

3. "Mentally very sick" may not even be proper enough, since there do exist savants who have very, very rare skills but are otherwise retarded. Though in my model no "mentally incapable" person is allowed to exist from the beginning, therefore these kinds of savants would not exist either. However, it might not be the best idea to get rid of the ones that are still alive, as they may prove useful under their domain, and so they can overall increase everyone's happiness whether or not they understand such concept (i.e. even if they can't feel happy or sad in the same way we can).

What's disheartening is you making these kind of unwarranted insults. Believe what you want, but don't attack others for not agreeing with you.