I think he’s like the man in Plato’s cave. He sees the world as shadows flickering across his dorm room wall(or is that his computer monitor). Someday he will ge hit with a revelation “I think therefore I am part of the Gini coefficient”It could be worse…we could be questioned about who is the friend, the lover or the beloved…
Point well taken.
In my previous post, I said he was a classical utilitarian. Classical utilitarianism is an offshoot of hedonism, and generally regards pleasure and pain to be opposites on a single spectrum. Classical utilitarianism says that we should maximize happiness (Bentham’s formulation involves invoking the “felific calculus”), and presumably, people who are in pain are unlikely to be happy. Negative utilitarianism instead focuses on reducing suffering while placing a little emphasis on happiness. I will acknowledge that the definition of utility is rather ambiguous; for example, the notion that utility is simply synonymous with pleasure was assailed by Mill. However, I believe it is easier to say what utility is NOT by formulating a negative definition of utility. It seems intuitive that suffering is not conducive to utility.I see…
You are one of those special people that gets to define their terms.
A hardly believe a single quote adequetly describes the mans viewpoint. But you are more then welcome to believe otherwise.
I simply will stand on the knowledge that what the man is known for, and what you are claiming ar two entirely different things.
When a horse breaks its leg, usually the compassionate thing to do is to shoot it. If you were to break your leg, what would be the compassionate thing to do?
Utilitarianism totally ignores the harm that is done to society when the unborn are exterminated, and that is one of its fatal flaws among others.
How is society harmed when the unborn are aborted? I do not see any harm being done.
Why not give it morphine and allow the horse’s leg to heal?
Hey, it’s logical! You gotta admit that!You sound more like John Galt than Peter Singer. Why should those people take away John Galt’s right to be happy, and those people should respect John Galt’s right not to live for the sake of another man. Taking away resources from John Galt violates his rights.
Parents don’t grant human rights. People either have human rights or they don’t. That is as ignorant as saying human rights can be taken away. Obviously if parents granted people human rights, they can also ungrant them. Therefore they can make people human and later decide they are not human. Sorry, try again.
And this applies only to babies why? Does it emnate from a hatred of babies, or because you see them as unable to defend themselves against you, you would then take advantage of that fact?
If they wanted a goat, they should have bought one. If they didn’t want a baby, they shouldn’t have cooperated with God in creating one.
So a 2 year old with red hair and no clear desires for the future can be killed for those reasons?
If they answer to the previous question was no, then lets see if you adjust your criteria for what defines a human person now. You are going to have to keep adjusting it if it is anything but truth, because truth doesn’t bend nor does it need to be modified. Also didn’t you just say a baby becomes a human person when the parents say so? What with the capacity for a clear desire for the future now?
Did you know that the whole is made up of the sum of its parts? I don’t really care what you think of my individual desires nor your evaluation of them nor how you deem they will or will not benefit you. You may evaluate all you like. Makes no difference to me.
Why do you limit it to prolonged illness (which can mean just about anything) or disability (which can mean just about anything)? Perhaps you should modify your criteria a bit more. Does it resemble truth? Obviously not, because it is open to modification when absurdities are pointed out.
Should everyone who chooses to remain unemployed be corraled and shot? Perhaps you may like to modify your criteria a bit until it resembles truth.
Sorry, it is the epitome of illogical thinking.
Actually it was a rather well written satire of where the “logic” of the pro-abortion crowd world lead us if it werem uniformly applied.Parents don’t grant human rights. People either have human rights or they don’t. That is as ignorant as saying human rights can be taken away. Obviously if parents granted people human rights, they can also ungrant them. Therefore they can make people human and later decide they are not human. Sorry, try again.
And this applies only to babies why? Does it emnate from a hatred of babies, or because you see them as unable to defend themselves against you, you would then take advantage of that fact?
If they wanted a goat, they should have bought one. If they didn’t want a baby, they shouldn’t have cooperated with God in creating one.
So a 2 year old with red hair and no clear desires for the future can be killed for those reasons?
If they answer to the previous question was no, then lets see if you adjust your criteria for what defines a human person now. You are going to have to keep adjusting it if it is anything but truth, because truth doesn’t bend nor does it need to be modified. Also didn’t you just say a baby becomes a human person when the parents say so? What with the capacity for a clear desire for the future now?
Did you know that the whole is made up of the sum of its parts? I don’t really care what you think of my individual desires nor your evaluation of them nor how you deem they will or will not benefit you. You may evaluate all you like. Makes no difference to me.
Why do you limit it to prolonged illness (which can mean just about anything) or disability (which can mean just about anything)? Perhaps you should modify your criteria a bit more. Does it resemble truth? Obviously not, because it is open to modification when absurdities are pointed out.
Should everyone who chooses to remain unemployed be corraled and shot? Perhaps you may like to modify your criteria a bit until it resembles truth.
Sorry, it is the epitome of illogical thinking.
But that is just the point. The “logic” constantly has to be adjusted, and hope nobody notices.
Seems obvious, even at my “pay grade.”
I suspect that the appropriateness of aborting a downs syndrome baby is going to come front and center in the abortion debate in this country for the next few months. With today’s news it seems almost certain that for the first time in a long time abortion will become a hot topic in a presidential campaign.
Notice how the thread I started regarding insulting peoples intelligence, more specifically women, is relatively silent. Its a truth too hard to admit by pro-abortionists.
And the newly born child? Does it have a sense of self? Did the “concept of self, or any concepts whatsoever” suddenly manifest themselves upon leaving it’s mother’s womb? At what point does a child manifest these abilities? And it is permissible to terminate such a “group of cells, and some DNA with a human” prior to this?
You state that a human gets human rights when the parents grants them. SO what if a a parent decides that his child who is 14 teen and OMG is acting like at 14 year old, he can take away that right to human rights! At what age does this right of the parents not eligible? You state that if the child has read hair or a deformity they cannot choose to invoke this right. So what if the child is born healthy but later on at about the age of 3 becomes mentally handicapped due to many many reasons, does the parent than get to re invoke this stance?A baby should get human rights when and if the parents decide to grant them. If the baby is deformed or red-haired or the wrong gender, then of course it can be discarded. This frees up the time and resources of the parents to some better end - perhaps another attempt at offspring or, well, anything they’d prefer to raising a baby they don’t love. At some point, a human infant becomes truly self-aware, with memories and clear desires for a future. At that point, the infant becomes a person and can then be said to have certain rights independent of the wishes of their guardians.
Up to a point, at any rate. In a world of limited resources, the individual’s desires needs to be evaluated against their utility to the society as a whole. It would be irresponsible to insist on being supported by society if you are unable to be a productive, contributing member of it due to prolonged illness or disability. To do so would rob others of their potential happiness. Should others decide that the resources consumed by the nonproductive person would be better allocated elsewhere, then that takes precedence over any notions of inherent human rights.
So what of the person who is in a coma or in a drunken stuper? Is he not a person? When in your opinion does one have a full awareness of self. Because I know of a lot of teens and adults for that matter who do not.
We saw last Sunday how incapable pro-abortion supporters are of defending the act when pushed beyond this being a matter of a woman’s choice. They are incapable of answering basic questions about when does life begin and when does the child deserve full protection of the law.
