It wouldn't happen. There's a reason we don't already do it.
The rejection of euthanasia is illogical
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
It wouldn't happen. There's a reason we don't already do it.
indeed i would do time for my children. the urge to protect is really high and we shouldnt be told that our children should be killed because of somthing?
what next kill a child if it writes with its left hand? blue eyes?
The aspect that renders those things predictable is culture; and although we can study psychology in order to gain greater insight into human behavior, ultimately choice is unpredictable.
No, it isn't. As we are illogical, emotional creatures, we will all form our different opinions. Thus nobody is more right than anybody else unless we're talking about something like science.
We do not base our cultures on logic, is my point. So we can't apply logic to culture, because culture is not based on logic, it's based on human emotion.
As of yet science fiction? Haven't you kept up with the latest tech developments?
yes i know, i wasnt saying for an instant that we should NO WAY
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
But we do do it. We cannot discover all that is wrong with a fetus but there are ways to know if a child will have down syndrome and other diseases and women abort based on this information all the time. They also abandon children like this all the time.
Then we do it at 13.
You're using an appeal to compassion. We're discussing logic.
Yes.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Then you admit that your points are moot. This thread can be closed.
No. My point is that human beings are illogical.
As for eugenics, it's an objective good in the interest of the survival of the species. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
The fact that you care is illogical.
You said that people who are disabled contribute nothing, but I think Stephen Hawking would disagree...
You're speaking out of ignorance, once again. You've never studied phsychology, for one. And the rest of this paragraph is drivel. I could take you to any country in the world, and the murderer on the loose is almost certainly a male in his mid-30s.
Again, false. You've provided nothing to support this stance. This is just a passing thought you've had that's based on nothing except maybe what you've deduced from watching television. We are the most logical creatures on the planet.
More drivel. What do you base this on? Can you cite a source? Show me an example? Evidence? Anything more than the shit that seems to run out of your brain like brown water?
The site references "transhumans". There is no such thing. So don't give me "latest tech developments".
I'd agree; after all nihilism is the "most accurate' philosophy.......the philosophy of nothing
Although our desires, our premise, is simply a matter of choice.......the choices from there can be approached logically
If our premise is survival, we can approach this survival logically, in which case eugenics is an objective good
If Stephen Hawkings were also mentally disabled as well as physically, what would he contribute?
He contributes intellectually; although there are those that contribute literally nothing.
All the time? You have a gift for overstatement.
The vast, vast majority of parents do not abort their children. As do the vast majority of parents who know there is a distinct possibility that the child will be mentally retarded.
So again, my point stands: There is a reason we don't already do it. Society does not operate this way because the vast majority of people do not operate this way. Most parents will keep their child regardless of the deformation or retardation.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Yes, I definitely can. The only thing that's good for a species' survival is NOT to meddle in any way.
And 'good' is purely subjective. You're appealing to emotion again.
You act as if one must contribute a positive measure of growth for society as a whole to be measured as a human being. What exactly do you contribute to society other than being a consumer of resources. Have you invented anything or been a catalyst for social change? I doubt it.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Subjectivity is objective ?
You mean the stance that "we have different opinions"
I thought that was quite apparant; where have you been?:bugeye:
A source for the statement that culture is based heavily on emotion? Again, where have you been? Just look around you. There's all the evidence you need.
There was also no such thing as a vaccine for polio.
At any rate, it came to be; similarly these tech developments are bringing us one step closer to posthumanism, or the state of being post human, after human; organic evolution is inferior to technological evolution.
How is this good for the survival of the species?
This is a social darwinist world, then, that you propose...which I suppose is good for the survival of the species, although not for the survival of every individual.
Good is subjective; although it can be objective if it is taken from a specific stance, which is the subjective part
For instance, you might be on the stance that the survival of tomatoes is the ultimate priority; thus anything that threatens their survival is objectively bad from this position.
Measured as a human being? How do you measure human beings?
We can measure their productivity, if that is what you mean. And theirs' is next nothing,if not simply nothing.
See above, where I responded.