- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The veil is beginning to slip on The Left's desire to normalize infanticide
Posted on 7/20/17 at 12:52 pm
Posted on 7/20/17 at 12:52 pm
quote:
Jerry Coyne, a professor in the department of ecology and human evolution at the University of Chicago, recently posted a defense of killing disabled infants on his Why Evolution Is True blog:
If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born?
After all, newborn babies aren’t aware of death, aren’t nearly as sentient as an older child or adult, and have no rational faculties to make judgments (and if there’s severe mental disability, would never develop such faculties). It makes little sense to keep alive a suffering child who is doomed to die or suffer life in a vegetative or horribly painful state.
LINK
Jerry Coyne's blog contains posts with the following titles:
quote:
Like a petulant child, Trump gives up on healthcare reform, exculpating himself and saying “Let Obamacare fail”
quote:
Trump bowed in prayer in Oval Office
quote:
Just when you think Trump couldn’t get any worse. . .
quote:
Is this the end for Trump?
There's tons more, but you get the idea. A University of Chicago professor not enough? How about from a Cornell Law Professor published in Newsweek?
quote:
As a moral matter, some might want to argue that the lives of infants may be so compromised by defects, as would be the case for many of these babies, that killing them painlessly at birth would be a kindness rather than a harm.
At this point in time, though, laws in the U.S. do not recognize euthanasia as a legitimate approach to an infant (or an adult) whose life might not be considered worthwhile, due to impairments or pain or some other index of value….
But though this might work legally, the issue of euthanasia nonetheless lurks and beckons to us to answer the question: might some lives be better off ended than permitted to continue, given what is in store for them? The woman who terminates at 32 weeks for Zika-caused birth defects may thus have indirectly made a case for euthanasia, while allowing us to pretend that what she has had was just another abortion.
LINK
For the record, the author of the Newsweek piece also authored articles with the following titles:
quote:
Donald Trump’s Woman Problem
quote:
Trump Inadvertently Highlights Restroom Inequality
quote:
The Logic of Trump’s Comment Endorsing Punishment for Abortion
Why does The Left want to normalize eugenics?
16
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:02 pm to Damone
quote:
Why does The Left want to normalize eugenics?
They already have. IT's called Abortion. Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, was a huge proponent of Eugenics and would make even Hitler blush.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:03 pm to Damone
I pray he answers for these ideals when he meets his maker.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:07 pm to Damone
It's almost as if people have different world views. I enjoy philosophical conversations/posts where taboo topics are explored, personally. What would you respond with to the questions posed about euthanasia for genetic defects?
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:08 pm to rbWarEagle
That it is murder. It's not taboo. It's murder. If you want to bang your sister and support that...that is taboo. Killing a baby isn't taboo....it's murder. Do you support it?
This post was edited on 7/20/17 at 1:10 pm
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:08 pm to Damone
Then the Jews - there should be a solution for the Jews...
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:13 pm to Damone
Ironically as the left bloviates about MUH Russians the more Soviet style practices they support.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:17 pm to Errerrerrwere
Supreme Being won't be wasting time on that soul, no upward travel to the heavens. Straight shot downward to be disposed of and consumed. Rotten to core, burns in the Core.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:18 pm to Errerrerrwere
quote:
when he meets his maker.
What if there isn't one?
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:26 pm to Damone
quote:
If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born?
Already made the arrangements for my 2 year old. If he begins displaying a severe mental handicap and demanding that the government seize the means of production after college, I've already got the abortion order signed.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:27 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:
It's almost as if people have different world views. I enjoy philosophical conversations/posts where taboo topics are explored, personally. What would you respond with to the questions posed about euthanasia for genetic defects?
I'll oblige.
First off, the arguments that these men are making in form of euthanizing these children are based on the assumption of "might." The Cornell professor says as much:
quote:
whose life might not be considered worthwhile,
Who are we to judge whose lives may or may not be worth living? Of course, you're certainly entitled to your opinion about what makes life worth living. But I don't feel so eager to project my opinion and override another human's life who is not able to defend themselves.
Also, I'm not a big fan of slippery slope arguments, but there's definitely a valid one to be made here...How "defective" do infants have to be to justify killing them? What qualifies as a defect which makes life not worth living? What arbitrary line in the sand do you draw for an acceptable cut-off for their demise? 6 months? 12 months? 2 years? Hell, why not 8 years? After all, we do have ways to make death quick and painless, so the "they can feel pain" argument is moot.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:40 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
That it is murder. It's not taboo.
Well, it is a taboo topic.
quote:
Do you support it?
Euthanasia for a born child? Nah. Abortion is a much more difficult subject for me. I'm not very supportive for it from a moral perspective (with some exceptions). Legal issues are a different ballgame, too.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:41 pm to Damone
quote:
Why does The Left want to normalize eugenics?
When I personally contacted those TWO people you quoted and authorized them to speak for me in all matters, I certainly did not say they could give my support to murdering disabled babies. I don't know what's gotten into those two guys who are obviously the duly appointed representatives of the millions of people of "the left", but at the meeting next week, I am definitely making a motion to appoint another spokesperson for the entire political ideology of millions of Americans and billions of people worldwide.
By the way, the excerpt you quoted from the law professor doesn't indicate anything about what he thinks of euthanasia. He is making a legal point about abortion, it seems to me. I didn't click on your link because it is no doubt some moronic alt-right fake news site like Breitbart or Infowars.
This post was edited on 7/20/17 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:48 pm to Nuts4LSU
I guess I kinda get what he's saying and it's not a totally out of bounds premise but it certainly leads to a slippery slope.
Are humans allowed to be killed by their guardians up until the point that they're self aware?
Are humans allowed to be killed by their guardians up until the point that they're self aware?
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:50 pm to Damone
quote:
quote: As a moral matter, some might want to argue that the lives of infants may be so compromised by defects, as would be the case for many of these babies, that killing them painlessly at birth would be a kindness rather than a harm. At this point in time, though, laws in the U.S. do not recognize euthanasia as a legitimate approach to an infant (or an adult) whose life might not be considered worthwhile, due to impairments or pain or some other index of value…. But though this might work legally, the issue of euthanasia nonetheless lurks and beckons to us to answer the question: might some lives be better off ended than permitted to continue, given what is in store for them? The woman who terminates at 32 weeks for Zika-caused birth defects may thus have indirectly made a case for euthanasia, while allowing us to pretend that what she has had was just another abortion.
When the intellectual "elites" of society are openly talking/writing about this shite you know "Logan's Run" is closer than we can imagine.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:51 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
When the intellectual "elites" of society are openly talking/writing about this shite you know "Logan's Run" is closer than we can imagine.
Or you know that we live in a free society where the free exchange of ideas is still possible.
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:52 pm to Damone
if they kill all the children, who will the elite have sex with?
Posted on 7/20/17 at 1:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
:coco2:
Posted on 7/20/17 at 2:05 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:it used to be. Try having a conservative speaker at UC Berkeley and tell me where the exchange of free ideals are
Or you know that we live in a free society where the free exchange of ideas is still possible.
This post was edited on 7/20/17 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 7/20/17 at 2:10 pm to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
quote:
it used to be. Try having a conservative speaker at UC Berkeley and tell me where the exchange of free ideals are
Blog post vs. speaker at a university... not exactly an ideal comparison. Also, that's an exception and, from what I read, not really about blocking the speaker (at least directly).
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News