Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: [split] The Good and Evil of Abortion

  1. #21
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Leofric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Monday, June 25th, 2018 @ 03:15 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Zodiac Sign
    Aquarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Telecommunications
    Politics
    Libertarian/Neo-Imperialist
    Religion
    Heathen
    Posts
    1,200
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    10
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Re: [split] The Good and Evil of Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    Can you give a few examples of such cases?
    Sure. My wife and I were talking about it just a week ago, actually.

    I think that if a child is so seriously deformed, either before or after birth, that it will be stuck in one of those special wheelchairs drooling on itself all its life, it'd be better to kill it. Though that kind of life is great for a dog, I think a dog's life is no good for a man. I think children that are that deformed probably only get born because of our advancing medical technology and the Hippocratic philosophy underpinning our medical industry — I think it's a case where our technology has given us the ability to do things we were never meant to do.

    If a child had some defect that left it healthy for now but that would kill it within a few years in some horribly long and painful way and there were no cure for the defect, then it also seems to me it would be better to kill it, either through abortion or infanticide. It would only have a few years to live anyway, and you could see to it that it dies relatively quickly and painlessly.

    If a child has some serious weakness that would let it live, but would keep it from having a normal life (like a girl I once saw on a documentary who would burn up and die if she were exposed to sunlight), then I think infanticide or abortion would be understandable and justifiable from a eugenic perspective (rather than the euthanasiac perspectives I've just treated). Personally, I wouldn't choose to do that to a person, but I also wouldn't feel right calling someone a criminal who did do that.

    In all these cases, the choice between abortion and infanticide should be based, I think, on the health of the mother. If the mother would have better chances of survival and of staying fertile through one method rather than the other, then I think that's the method that should be chosen. A fertile adult woman is the most important human life in any situation, I think. A child — especially an infant — has potential to grow up and contribute to society, but is largely an unknown quantity. A fertile adult woman is a known quantity, and is known to be good for the survival of our species. So the choice between infanticide and abortion should be made based on the effects either would have on the mother, which I suspect would vary from case to case.

    Of course, our laws as currently constituted don't allow infanticide, so I don't think we should practice it at all unless we get the law changed first.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, December 11th, 2006 @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,313
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: [split] The Good and Evil of Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Leofric View Post
    Sure. My wife and I were talking about it just a week ago, actually.

    I think that if a child is so seriously deformed, either before or after birth, that it will be stuck in one of those special wheelchairs drooling on itself all its life, it'd be better to kill it. Though that kind of life is great for a dog, I think a dog's life is no good for a man. I think children that are that deformed probably only get born because of our advancing medical technology and the Hippocratic philosophy underpinning our medical industry — I think it's a case where our technology has given us the ability to do things we were never meant to do.
    Such kind of wheelchairs?



    Are we talking about physical deformations only, with no extraordinary, unbearable amount of pain involved? Would it in such cases not be better to wait at least the 16 to 21 years, until the affected person can make her own mature decision whether she considers her life worth living?

    I'm not sure if there isn't a certain amount of danger involved that we project our ideas of life quality onto others. There was this case of a sportswoman who had a bad accident causing a severe neck injury; thereafter, she was paralyzed from the neck downwards. She didn't consider her life worthwhile living anymore, but as she could neither use her arms nor her feet it was difficult to commit suicide. Finally, her mother, having been advised by her doctor, prepared a poisonous drink for her daughter which the latter drank with a straw, setting an end to her own life. Her mother was sentenced for aiding and abetting suicide what raised the question in the media and amongst politicians once more, whether euthanasia under certain conditions should be permissible.

    In any case, having lost the ability to move every limb on her body was a major catastrophe for this physically active woman, but would it be for everyone? Losing our eyesight would probably also be a catastrophe for me or you, but for those who are born blind, it's not that much of a big deal. They grow accustomed to it and don't really understand what they are actually missing, even when they are told later that there is such a sense as "seeing." They compensate for it to a large extent by focusing significantly more on their remaining senses, in particular hearing and touching, and it might be difficult for us to envision, how much we actually neglect the training and conscious use of these senses in our eye-centered world.

    In their daily routine, those who are blind since birth don't miss seeing all that much, because seeing never entered their world and they never grew accustomed to it. If they miss it, then to a large extent because we construct most of our environment and infrastructure for people who are able to see. To express it somewhat exaggeratedly, they might miss it as much, as we miss the bat's ultrasonic sense in the dark. It would be cool to have it, but we manage without.

    Closing the analogy, my point thus is that somebody that sits in a wheelchair since birth will miss moving not as much as the sportswoman I mentioned above. Surely, once the child sees his fellow same-age companions running and playing football, there will be sadness, but nobody ever claimed that life is fair and without distress. And this is not to say that such a life is necessarily not worth to be lived. Most people sitting in such chairs do not choose to end their lives, and probably not exclusively because of lack of opportunity. There's always a way if there is a will. Given all this, do we maybe not owe them at least the decency that they can make their own decision about their own life, instead of deciding for them that the life they will have to live is not worth living?

    If a child had some defect that left it healthy for now but that would kill it within a few years in some horribly long and painful way and there were no cure for the defect, then it also seems to me it would be better to kill it, either through abortion or infanticide. It would only have a few years to live anyway, and you could see to it that it dies relatively quickly and painlessly.
    What if the diagnosis was wrong? What if, because of a specific gene the child is carrying, unknown at that time, the defect would never break out and affect said child? What if medical research coincidentally finds a cure within a few years?

    In general, given the graduality of the assumption: why not let the child enjoy the relatively healthy and pain-free time it has got, until death becomes preferrable to life? Would you put your dog to sleep now if you learned it had a defect that will kill it within a few years?

    Aren't we disposing of human life far too quick here?

    If a child has some serious weakness that would let it live, but would keep it from having a normal life (like a girl I once saw on a documentary who would burn up and die if she were exposed to sunlight), then I think infanticide or abortion would be understandable and justifiable from a eugenic perspective (rather than the euthanasiac perspectives I've just treated). Personally, I wouldn't choose to do that to a person, but I also wouldn't feel right calling someone a criminal who did do that.
    How can infanticide in this case be justifiable from an eugenic perspective at all given the principle of proportionality (choosing the mildest means that still reach a certain aim)? Legal (sufficiently deterring laws) or medical methods (sterilization) to avoid procreation would be sufficient.

    In all these cases, the choice between abortion and infanticide should be based, I think, on the health of the mother. If the mother would have better chances of survival and of staying fertile through one method rather than the other, then I think that's the method that should be chosen. A fertile adult woman is the most important human life in any situation, I think. A child — especially an infant — has potential to grow up and contribute to society, but is largely an unknown quantity. A fertile adult woman is a known quantity, and is known to be good for the survival of our species. So the choice between infanticide and abortion should be made based on the effects either would have on the mother, which I suspect would vary from case to case.
    I probably agree with the thesis behind these words, but in none of the examples you gave about infanticide the life of the mother, or, given the possibility of putting the child up for adoption, her potential of staying fertile and having more (healthy) children was endangered.
    .

  3. #23
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,379
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    66
    Thanked in
    37 Posts

    Re: [split] The Good and Evil of Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    Are we talking about physical deformations only, with no extraordinary, unbearable amount of pain involved? Would it in such cases not be better to wait at least the 16 to 21 years, until the affected person can make her own mature decision whether she considers her life worth living?

    I'm not sure if there isn't a certain amount of danger involved that we project our ideas of life quality onto others.
    You are switching responisbilities here, even implying that there would be no decision by the parents at all.
    New born children, healthy or not, can't live without an active decision by someone else to support it, thus choosing child abortion is not projecting ideas on others, these ideas are simply justifications for people who need to put their mind at ease.
    The decision must be made. If a child is handicapped, deciding against it ( rather than supporting it for 16 or 21 years, and all goes down the drain when it kills itself ) means a new chance for the couple to put their focus on another attempt for a healthy child.

    It's about the parents, or any society who decides to raise a child, not the child itslef with its individual demands.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, December 11th, 2006 @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,313
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: [split] The Good and Evil of Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    You are switching responisbilities here, even implying that there would be no decision by the parents at all.
    New born children, healthy or not, can't live without an active decision by someone else to support it, thus choosing child abortion is not projecting ideas on others, these ideas are simply justifications for people who need to put their mind at ease.
    Firstly, I did not address abortion cases at all, but solely Leofric's examples of in his view justifiable infanticide: children that were born and are able to live given parental plus optional medical support. Like Leofric I would extend this to those unborn that are able to live with the same support if premature delivery would be initiated. So we are talking about born infants and fetuses after about the 28th to 30th week.

    Secondly: If you, the parents, the doctors, the state, or someone else decide that it is justified to kill a certain child because of particular diseases or physical or mental defects, these persons are of course projecting their opinions or ideas which lives are worth to be lived onto the child. The child can at this time not yet form an opinion and also can't be asked.

    That no child can live without support by someone is obvious but irrelevant, as it is here about a decision to withdraw this very support and to kill an infant based on the evaluation of its future life quality by others. Legal and societal consent in most Germanic nations is that premeditated neglect of a child by legal wards (e. g. parents and doctors) which leads to a child's death is homicide. Children, the weakest members of our society, are entitled to our support and protection.

    Unlocking the door to the broom closet to withdraw this support and protection under certain circumstances would revitalize the long rejected idea that the lives of innocents may to be taken without their consent. Currently, all Germanic societies but the Netherlands (which allows voluntary euthanasia under very stringent material and formal requirements) don't even permit to take an innocent's life with his consent. I would be uncomfortable to see this gate opened even a foot again, as the spirits of abuse will do their best to push it wide open with the result that the principle will be applied to many other cases than those initially desired and foreseen.

    The decision must be made. If a child is handicapped, deciding against it ( rather than supporting it for 16 or 21 years, and all goes down the drain when it kills itself )
    I would presume that the suicide rate is higher amongst the handicapped than amongst the others and that the same would hold true for applications to voluntary euthanasia, but when it comes to Germanic lives, the right to live and the most important principles of self-determination, I prefer to leave the pocket calculator locked in the bottom drawer.

    the means a new chance for the couple to put their focus on another attempt for a healthy child.
    ... which is never in question, as it is free to put the child up for adoption. You might be surprised but there are actually quite a few couples and women who explicitly wish to look after handicapped children.
    .

  5. #25
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,379
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    66
    Thanked in
    37 Posts

    Re: [split] The Good and Evil of Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    I did not address abortion cases at all, but solely Leofric's examples of in his view justifiable infanticide...
    What I said goes for everyone who is not able to life on his own, be it a newly born infant or a 40 year old handicapped man.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    If you, the parents, the doctors, the state, or someone else decide that it is justified to kill a certain child because of particular diseases or physical or mental defects, these persons are of course projecting their opinions or ideas which lives are worth to be lived onto the child.

    That no child can live without support by someone is obvious but irrelevant, as it is here about a decision to withdraw this very support and to kill an infant based on the evaluation of its future life quality by others.
    A decision, by definition, has at least two options to choose, so if one would decide to support the newly born child, then it is the same projection of ideas, what's worth living, onto it. It's a tautalogy, if someone needs help from others to live, of course, only they can decide if it is worth or not, frankly, I don't even see why anyone should want to ask the child.
    The parents decide it is worth of being supported, since as you already said, the child cannot say anything in this regard it is at the mercy of its guardians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    Unlocking the door to the broom closet to withdraw it under certain circumstances would revitalize the long rejected idea that the lives of innocents may to be taken without their consent.
    Not innocents, weaklings! In Germanic society murder was kept in check by the prospect of a hard revange, those who were not able to pose a threat of vengance, were at the mrecy of others.
    Thus, the abandonment of crippeld infants in Germanic times is documented. If someone can, or simply wants to, afford such children then be it, but I would not make it illegal to decide in favour of strength rather than weakness. (I wouldn't make a law that requires all parents to kill their handicapped infants either.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    ... but when it comes to Germanic lives, the right to live and the most important principles of self-determination, I prefer to leave the pocket calculator locked in the bottom drawer.
    People who can't live on their own, have no self-determination, it is a contradiction in terms, at least in German "Selbsbestimmtes Leben" ( And this includes the physical ability too!)
    In this case, it is about the self-determination of the guardians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    ... which is never in question, as it is free to put the child up for adoption. You might be surprised but there are actually quite a few couples and women who explicitly wish to look after handicapped children.
    Fine, but still I wouldn't outlaw the other side of the medal. Especially, when this would relay on a more or less similar mind set we have today, when strenght will be praised again, rather than weakness, the families who want to adopt handicapped children might become less.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, December 11th, 2006 @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,313
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: [split] The Good and Evil of Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    What I said goes for everyone who is not able to life on his own, be it a newly born infant or a 40 year old handicapped man.
    So they should, in your view, all be killed?

    In our post-industrialist age of urbanization and division of labor, there are actually few people, even young and healthy people, who would be able to live entirely on their own. Man is a social animal, we no longer have the conditions for that, and we are all dependent on complex human organization, and exchange of services and products. Most of us depend on social and medical care in our lives; some of us chronically. Below the line, many people give in less, than they get out. Kill them, too?

    [sarcasm mode]I mean, honestly, we are all living so bad already, in particular compared to previous times; we can't afford them anymore.[/sarcasm mode]

    A decision, by definition, has at least two options to choose, so if one would decide to support the newly born child, then it is the same projection of ideas, what's worth living, onto it. It's a tautalogy, if someone needs help from others to live, of course, only they can decide if it is worth or not, frankly, I don't even see why anyone should want to ask the child.
    The parents decide it is worth of being supported, since as you already said, the child cannot say anything in this regard it is at the mercy of its guardians.
    In our civilized societies, the subordinate idea is that every infant deserves support and protection. The right of parents to decide arbitrarily about the life and death of their children has - so it ever existed in this form - fortunately long been withdrawn.

    Not innocents, weaklings! In Germanic society murder was kept in check by the prospect of a hard revange, those who were not able to pose a threat of vengance, were at the mrecy of others.
    Thus, the abandonment of crippeld infants in Germanic times is documented. If someone can, or simply wants to, afford such children then be it, but I would not make it illegal to decide in favour of strength rather than weakness. (I wouldn't make a law that requires all parents to kill their handicapped infants either.)
    Jäger, I don't know when you last looked at a calender, but the last time I looked, it read 2007. We have made much educational, social, technological, philosophical (ethical) and economical progress since then.

    While in early medieval times it was, indeed, partly medically and socially impossible to support the severely handicapped, and one had to leave them to their fate and at the mercy of the gods and benefactors, these arguments do hardly apply to the rich Western welfare societies. Their share in the total social budget is negligible. Unemployment, pensions and increasingly the care for the old are the big cost factors. And thanks to new professions beyond traditional agriculture, many handicapped people succeed to contribute their share and some manage to provide entirely for themselves.

    So while I'm all for eugenics and a strong and healthy genetic pool, I don't think that disproportional and asocial measures need to be introduced. The society in a 100 years from now will not be stronger if we kill people with genetic defects. It suffices to prevent their procreation, to correct these defects in the inseminated ovum, or to select the right sperm or ovum that don't carry the defect respectively. Technology will make traditional eugenics a dead horse within the next decades.

    People who can't live on their own, have no self-determination, it is a contradiction in terms, at least in German "Selbsbestimmtes Leben".
    In this case, it is about the self-determination of the guardians.
    We were talking about self-determination in the context of deciding whether one prefers to live or to die. That's a decision every mature person should have the right to make; and it shouldn't be denied to anybody with the potential to reach maturity.

    Fine, but still I wouldn't outlaw the other side of the medal.
    Because of the reasons I had mentioned already, and because such defects typically can be detected long before birth, I see no need for arbitrary slaughter of infants. No society ever created fame for itself by unnecessarily killing the weak and defenseless.
    .

  7. #27
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,379
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    66
    Thanked in
    37 Posts

    Re: [split] The Good and Evil of Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    So they should, in your view, all be killed?
    No, I wouldn't make it a legal obligation to help them though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    In our post-industrialist age of urbanization and division of labor, there are actually few people, even young and healthy people, who would be able to live entirely on their own.
    I see my mistake, "living on your own" was a wrong expresion, to actually go conform with your term, to be able to live self-determined is way better put.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    [sarcasm mode]I mean, honestly, we are all living so bad already, in particular compared to previous times; we can't afford them anymore.[/sarcasm mode]
    The question I raise is, whether this has to be compulsory or not, I say it must not. Everything else would be a praise of weakness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    In our civilized societies, the subordinate idea is that every infant deserves support and protection. The right of parents to decide arbitrarily about the life and death of their children has - so it ever existed in this form - fortunately long been withdrawn.
    To kill a healthy child should be considered a crime against the society and thus made illegal.
    However, with an unhealthy kid it becomes more than just guess work whether it will ever be of benefit to the society or live at their expense. It lacks many foundations to become advantagous, and the fraction of crippeld great men speak for itslef. (compare to Negroes )

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    And thanks to new professions beyond traditional agriculture, many handicapped people succeed to contribute their share and some manage to provide entirely for themselves.
    Yes, so? Maybe I wrote it to far at the end of my post, so that you haven't read this when you answered this, but I don't advocate to compulsory kill them all.
    If someone can make a living out of it, I don't mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    So while I'm all for eugenics and a strong and healthy genetic pool, I don't think that disproportional and asocial measures need to be introduced.
    Again, I would not kill them by governmental oder, I would simply pass the responisbilites to the guardians, be it state or parents, thus this can't be asocial by definition.
    Do you really think that making it not illegal to kill a crippled child [best compulsory adviced by an doctor] would make infanticide go up by the millions?
    It is more of a signal that weakness has no governmental support in a strong state.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    We were talking about self-determination in the context of deciding whether one prefers to live or to die. That's a decision every mature person should have the right to make; and it shouldn't be denied to anybody with the potential to reach maturity.
    There certainly is only a very restricted self-determination to the question if someone wants to live or die, or else I would want to determine that I never die

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    Because of the reasons I had mentioned already, and because such defects typically can be detected long before birth, I see no need for arbitrary slaughter of infants.
    Yes, even better when this will be the norm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    No society ever created fame for itself by unnecessarily killing the weak and defenseless.
    Spartans? Anyway, mabye they didn't create fame, but strength.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, December 11th, 2006 @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,313
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: [split] The Good and Evil of Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    No, I wouldn't make it a legal obligation to help them though.
    I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Let's say a 40-year-old handicapped man is involved in a traffic accident or needs emergency treatment because of appendicitis -- then in your view the doctors and the hospital should not be obliged to help him?

    I see my mistake, "living on your own" was a wrong expresion, to actually go conform with your term, to be able to live self-determined is way better put.
    Everybody, including the handicapped, can live a self-determined life, and everybody, including the handicapped, will experience certain limits to it, depending on external factors and restraints. Being handicapped is really a gradient and so is self-determination. You might be missing a finger, a leg, or be unable to walk. The only people who can't are the unconscious and the mentally severely inhibited.

    To kill a healthy child should be considered a crime against the society and thus made illegal.
    However, with an unhealthy kid it becomes more than just guess work whether it will ever be of benefit to the society or live at their expense. It lacks many foundations to become advantagous, and the fraction of crippeld great men speak for itslef. (compare to Negroes )
    You are right in that it is guess work and thus such a decision is impractical and immoral. I, for my part, refuse to kill people based on what somebody thinks on how they might turn out in 20 years. It's just too weak an assumption to deprive people of their life. There have been a great number of handicapped people that made to presidents (Roosevelt), ministers (Goebbels), or top physicists (Hawking), but even if that were not so, it would be impudent to argue that only "great men" are useful to society. It's further questionable whether everybody must be advantageous to society in order to sustain his right to live, and whether advantageous should only be measured in terms of economical value. Something that's a bit too materialistic for me, and which I would definitely oppose.

    If someone can make a living out of it, I don't mind.
    The problem then is that a handicapped child might turn into an excellent computer programmer or scientist, but we will never know if it is killed or deprived of medical support right away.

    Do you really think that making it not illegal to kill a crippled child [best compulsory adviced by an doctor] would make infanticide go up by the millions?
    No, and that's exactly my point. It's not that we are flooded by a swarm of crippled children which we are unable to sustain. It's statistically a minor to non-issue. They are no big burden on society, thus, there is no reason, in my view, to use extreme measures such as killing them or depriving them of medical support, if milder means (prevention that genetic defects are passed on to the next generation) fulfill the same eugenic purpose. There will always be a certain segment of the population who has the misfortune to be burdened with certain defects by birth. Others will gain them through their lives (workplace accidents, war veterans, etc.). I think it is a noble effort to try to reduce those numbers by eugenic measures, accident prevention, better protective equipment, etc.

    I think that people should have the right to voluntary euthanasia, if they consider their suffering or fate unbearable, but if not, our societies should be social and warm enough to care about their basic needs (if they give their best but are still unable to provide completely for themselves), and to give them the same access to available and affordable medical support than everybody else. It sets a sign of social greatness.

    It is more of a signal that weakness has no governmental support in a strong state.
    Only the weak need support. The strong don't need a government (to support them) in the first place.

    There certainly is only a very restricted self-determination to the question if someone wants to live or die, or else I would want to determine that I never die
    Right, but you can still decide whether you wish to die right now or not.
    .

  9. #29
    Bloodhound
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,379
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    66
    Thanked in
    37 Posts

    Re: [split] The Good and Evil of Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Let's say a 40-year-old handicapped man is involved in a traffic accident or needs emergency treatment because of appendicitis -- then in your view the doctors and the hospital should not be obliged to help him?
    This would be out of legislation anyways, if the state pays the docotr to help, he, of course, has to help. The question is interesting when it comes to by-standers. The state has a strong interest in keeping people's self-determined lifes, thus first aid should be mandatory, since I wouldn't trust by-standers to decide whether a life can be put "back on track", or not.
    So first aid is something different. Even more so:

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    Everybody, including the handicapped, can live a self-determined life, and everybody, including the handicapped, will experience certain limits to it, depending on external factors and restraints. Being handicapped is really a gradient and so is self-determination. You might be missing a finger, a leg, or be unable to walk. The only people who can't are the unconscious and the mentally severely inhibited.
    It seems I have problems expressing myself in english, but I didn't mean all handicapped man, but exactly the extreme cases where no self-determination is possible anymore, e.g. heavily mentally retarded or even infants
    Everything which can help to make a man/woman live a self-determined life again should be supported, e.g. a man with problems with his eye sight certainly should be able to use glasses
    There are cases where hop and malt are lost. So it should be clear now, that I actually speak only about a small fraction of handicapped people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    I, for my part, refuse to kill people based on what somebody thinks on how they might turn out in 20 years.
    I wouldn't want to force people to support a life for 20years with a very likely prospect that they won't get anything back, or that they don't even give anytihng to societey, while this cripple then occupies the place for another attempt with a healthy child.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    It's further questionable whether everybody must be advantageous to society in order to sustain his right to live, and whether advantageous should only be measured in terms of economical value.
    1) Not the right to live, but the right to be helped 2) certainly not pure economically, a healthy man could be e.g. a soldier, or whatever, you can't deny that for a healthy man there are certainly more options than for a handicapped one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    The problem then is that a handicapped child might turn into an excellent computer programmer or scientist, but we will never know if it is killed or deprived of medical support right away.
    Yes, indeed, whoever wants to take this risk, should do that, I simply don't force them to do so, nor do I expect that from "them".

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    It's not that we are flooded by a swarm of crippled children which we are unable to sustain. It's statistically a minor to non-issue.
    My argument is a change of the spirit, this is just consequential.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    Others will gain them through their lives (workplace accidents, war veterans, etc.).
    Well, as I said, if theere is a likely possibility to get them back on track, we must help them of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    I think it is a noble effort to try to reduce those numbers by eugenic measures, accident prevention, better protective equipment, etc.
    Indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    Only the weak need support. The strong don't need a government (to support them) in the first place.
    Yes, but of course these is ideally thought, in reality everyone has strengths and weaknesses.
    For instance when I was in the military, we had this wall where we were supposed to jump over, many failed here, so I had to pull one up, help him, I did this within a heartbeat, he was weak in this regard, but I knew he has strength too, maybe he can shoot good (he don't even has to shoot that good), and me with him means two more eyes, two more ears, etc. there are literally tons of reasons why I would help this man in his moment of weakness, if I would have considered him totally incapable of doing anything, which is the case with heavily handicapped people, I wouldn't have pulled him up. But I don't have high expectations, someone with two working legs, arms, and ears and eyes and a working motor function, already is pretty high on the list

    Quote Originally Posted by Tryggvi View Post
    Right, but you can still decide whether you wish to die right now or not.
    Let's say one can decide if he wants to die, but certainly not, not to die
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Monday, December 11th, 2006 @ 03:51 AM
    Gender
    Posts
    2,313
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Re: [split] The Good and Evil of Abortion

    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    This would be out of legislation anyways, if the state pays the docotr to help, he, of course, has to help. The question is interesting when it comes to by-standers. The state has a strong interest in keeping people's self-determined lifes, thus first aid should be mandatory, since I wouldn't trust by-standers to decide whether a life can be put "back on track", or not.
    So first aid is something different.
    Okay, in many jurisdictions failure to render assistance is a criminal offense in any case.

    It seems I have problems expressing myself in english, but I didn't mean all handicapped man, but exactly the extreme cases where no self-determination is possible anymore, e.g. heavily mentally retarded or even infants
    Everything which can help to make a man/woman live a self-determined life again should be supported, e.g. a man with problems with his eye sight certainly should be able to use glasses
    There are cases where hop and malt are lost. So it should be clear now, that I actually speak only about a small fraction of handicapped people.
    Okay, thanks for your clarification. It seems that our positions aren't that far apart after all. Personally, I don't think I would be able to raise a mentally severely handicapped child, for example. I neither would have the strength, nor the time, nor the will and commitment. This would leave abortion or putting it up for adoption.

    In think in such cases, euthanasia could also be discussed. If a child would be mentally so handicapped, that it is basically lacking self-consciousness, and there is no potential to reach it, the question is legitimate whether it is of any value to sustain the life at all.

    Would I like to vegetate like this? Maybe even in a state struck by terror, nightmares and pain? Surely not. Life has much value -- but it needn't be sustained at any price. Our current societies rather moved into an extreme. They don't permit the old to die in dignity either.

    I wouldn't want to force people to support a life for 20years with a very likely prospect that they won't get anything back, or that they don't even give anytihng to societey, while this cripple then occupies the place for another attempt with a healthy child.
    Surely.
    .

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Deciding Over Abortion
    By Nachtengel in forum Parenthood & Family
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Sunday, March 22nd, 2009, 09:37 AM
  2. Abortion in the Third Reich
    By cosmocreator in forum Law, Ethics, & Morals
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 12:30 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •