You cannot eliminate emotion from the human equation, its what makes us human. :shrug:
The rejection of euthanasia is illogical
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
You cannot eliminate emotion from the human equation, its what makes us human. :shrug:
But it's more than that, Norse. You have to be able to back up your opinion with evidence, or your opinion is worthless.
Ah, so you indeed have no evidence whatsoever.
Just as I thought. Case closed on your pathetic nonsense.
And that's all well and good, but nobody said there was polio vaccine until there was one, did they? I'm obviously not contending that there could very well someday be a category called "posthuman" or "transhuman"; I'm contending your statement that this is somehow "current tech", which it clearly is not.
Yeah, and there was a time when jetpacks were going to be the preferred mode of transport for every Daddy on his way to the office, every Kiddo to the ballgame, and every Mamma to the grociery store.
This is where the predictability of humanity comes into play, Norse, so it's best that you pay attention.
Precisely my point.
Yes but this only applies to opinions that can have evidence
What evidence can you have for the opinion that green is the most beautiful color?
I certainly do. As I said, look at all the cultural details of each unique civilization. Very few of them are not based on a need for emotional stimulation; for instance, the very religious cultures.
That's not what I said, though. I didn't say we're already there; I said "aren't you keeping up with tech" to demonstrate that we're definitely making great progress to getting there.
?! HUH? :bugeye:
Then you are arguing something that you know cant possibly happen? Why even bother arguing the point then?
To show that humans are illogical and emotional beings; we might be the most logical, but we're still fairly illogical beings that act in the interest of emotional stimulation
This is important to consider when discussing things like culture and human society, for instance.
This is important to consider when discussing things like culture and human society, for instance.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Ok Dawg. I just love to comply
"For instance, pregnancy records released in October showed that a total of 156 babies with Down syndrome were born between 2002 and 2005 in the southwest portion of England. During the same period, doctors performed 194 abortions based on Down syndrome diagnoses in the same area.... Statistics released from that Anomaly Register for the Southwest also showed that 54 fetuses diagnosed with club feet, 26 with 'extra' or 'webbed' fingers or toes, and 37 with cleft lip or palate, were aborted during the same time period."
"In November of 2006, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists suggested that the deliberate killing of babies with disabilities should be considered as a treatment option. The RCOG suggested in a Sunday Times of London article that 'active euthanasia' should be considered for the overall good of families, and to keep parents from the emotional and economic hardship of raising a child with disabilities."
"Impact of prenatal diagnosis and elective termination on the prevalence of selected birth defects in Hawaii.
M B Forrester, R D Merz, P W Yoon
Hawaii Birth Defects Program, Honolulu 96813, USA.
This study examined the effect of prenatal diagnosis and elective termination on the prevalence of neural tube defects, oral clefts, abdominal wall defects, and chromosomal anomalies in Hawaii by using actively ascertained surveillance data collected between 1987 and 1996 by the Hawaii Birth Defects Program. Because the Program has nearly universal access to prenatal diagnostic information and to follow-up data on elective terminations, Hawaii is an ideal setting in which to study their effects on prevalence rates of birth defects. Except for oral clefts, a large proportion of the defects studied were prenatally diagnosed: anencephaly (87%), spina bifida (62%), encephalocele (83%), cleft palate ( %), cleft lip with or without cleft palate (14%), omphalocele (60%), gastroschisis (76%), Down syndrome (43%), trisomy 18 (61 %), and trisomy 13 (40%). The effect of elective terminations on the birth prevalence rates for most of these birth defects was significant. Including electively terminated cases in the calculations of birth prevalence rates increased the rates by more than 50% for five of the 10 birth defects studied."
http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:223016
"Prenatal screening and pregnant women's attitudes toward the abortion of defective fetuses.
R R Faden, A J Chwalow, K Quaid, G A Chase, C Lopes, C O Leonard and N A Holtzman
We studied the attitudes of 490 pregnant women toward the abortion of defective fetuses. Three hundred of these women were participating in a prenatal screening program for neural tube defects. Although theoretical accounts of the effects of behavior on attitude would suggest that participation in a screening program would affect abortion attitudes, evidence in support of such an association was weak. The overwhelming majority of women, regardless of whether they had participated in the screening program, believed that women are justified in having an abortion in the face of fetal abnormality. There was a sharp increase in the number of screening program participants who said they would have an abortion when the probability of the fetus being affected with a neural tube defect rose from 95 per cent to 100 per cent."
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/3/288
"DOWN SYNDROME AND ABORTION
By Susan W. Enouen, PE
If current trends continue, it may eventually become "unacceptable" for parents to continue a pregnancy knowing that their baby has Down syndrome. Recent US studies have indicated that when Down syndrome is diagnosed prenatally, 84% to 91% of those babies will be killed by abortion.1,2,3,4 This trend is not isolated to the United States. In England, a 2004 study showed that 94% of babies who were diagnosed prenatally with Down syndrome were subsequently aborted.5 When all Down syndrome babies are considered - those diagnosed prenatally as well as those only diagnosed with DS after birth - studies show that 26% to 37% of these tiny lives will be ended by abortion.6"
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1301/26/
Last edited:
But that's not the opinion you're putting forth here, Norse.
So after saying that this kind of opinion cannot have evidence, you try to provide some? OK.
No, that is not evidence. That's just you saying the first thing that comes to mind. "The very religious cultures" could mean anything. It could mean the United States, even. And what does "very few are not based on a need for emotional stimulation"? What do you mean by "emotional stimulation," and what cultures do you suppose don't?
First, it's what you implied. Second, we aren't making great progress towards it. We're simply making progress, period. Whether that leads to posthumanism or not remains to be seen.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
What Dawg no response to the information? :shrug:
I provided you with the proof. Isn't that how it works 'honey'?
I provided you with the proof. Isn't that how it works 'honey'?
The opinion I am putting forth is that sustaining unhealthy people is not a logical move.
The only kinds of opinions that cannot have evidence are opinions on beauty and morality, from what I can think of off the top of my head. At any rate opinions are opinions because they cannot be demonstrated to be true.
We center our cultures around notions and ideals that we crave emotionally; for instnace, "justice", which is based on revenge. We thus establish our justice system around this idea; this is why we practice the death penalty, although there are also nonemotional benefits for it as well, we primarily practice it because it makes us feel "good" to know that "justice" has been served
Or, for instance, the cleric in the other thread proposes the stoning of homosexuals on an emotional base: he desires the protection of his culture and he doesn't like homosexuals
It's the inevitable conclusion; people might choose not to be enhanced, but then there will be a great divide between the posthuman and the cattle
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Killing people you don't like isn't scientific progress.
Sorry, sweetheart, I missed it the first time through.
Interesting stuff. I've been enlightened!
It's cultural progress, but progress all the same
Note: from a certain perspective, not reflective of my own opinions
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What is progress but an opinion? I could view you as being the "warped" one for disagreeing with me
Although as I said that's from a certain perspective; I don't propose that we eliminate anybody. Not even the unhealthy; it's simply from a certain premise in order to demonstrate the illogic of human beings. I'm a libertarian.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Based on what? The child may still lead a happy and rewarding life, and the experience may very well reinforce the bond between the other members of the family in the process. Anyway, that's not the point I contending. I said that we are human, and we aren't robots, and not everything we do is based on rationale. Much of what we do is instinct. You, somehow, made the leap from "You're right! We're human!" to "Nobody's more right than anybody else!" I contested that nonsense.
Again, I disagree completely. I've stated why, and demonstrated why, and all you've done is said "Nuh-uh!" while you plug your ears and stomp your feet like a child.
You've never studied psychology for one class, and you're going to try this shit?
Go read a book, then come back.
But you see, you've already said elsewhere that gods are the result of rational thought; of logic. This is why I say you should educate yourself on the matter before you discuss them; you're so in the dark on this stuff that you're just winging it, and not even really sure what you believe. Because of that, you're contradicting yourself at a fundamental level without even realizing it. People who know what they're talking about don't do that.
Again, you're assuming that this will even be possible, and that a significant part of the population will want to do it, and that it won't be illegal, or any other number of factors. You've already jumped to the "Cattle vs Posthuman War'. Typical of a babbling child.
Yes. Precisely. If only you could understand your own point.
And I've demonstrated how too. What evidence can you have for something being moral? You can't have any.
Ok, then tell me why we execute people if not for emotional satisfaction? We do it for justice.
Huh? This is completely irrelevant to what I said.
There will be no such war; unmodified humans couldn't survive
Also I'm very sure it will be possible.
I never said otherwise. All I said is that some forms of cancer can be inheritable. That's all.
I'm not an advocate of eugenics so I have no clue whether they should have been culled or not. Probably would have depended on what kind of cancer their parents suffered from.
One thing though...I don't see why someone should be forced to live on with a severely dysfunctional body. You can set up rules for euthanasia...where euthanasia is only allowed in specific cases with strict rules.
That's cool and all. But just because we possess the technology to keep someone alive doesn't mean that we should make use of it. What's the point in keeping a person alive who is in coma for over..a few years? What's the point in keeping a person alive, who suffered terrible physical damages from an accident but is still capable of thinking clearly, when the only wish of his..is to die? Wouldn't the most humane and compassionate decision be to accept his decision and fulfil his last wish and make his end as painless and quick as possible? I don't understand why people have to keep someone alive at any cost, even when the individual is seriously suffering....there's nothing compassionate about that. Sometimes you have to face it. Death is part of life.
Cool
Word!
But don't call it "proof". It isn't proof. Proof is absolute--polls and surveys are not. Even medical records are not. What you provided was evidence. It wasn't completely conclusive, it just points out that I am likely incorrect about the "vast majority" of parents who learn of problems in the womb opt to keep the child.
But you done good, Lucy. And you'll notice that when presented with the evidence, I'm open to changing my mind.