Iceland Eliminates People with Down Syndrome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Shredderbeam said:
Sort of. I understand that if performed early enough, it’s something like that, but of course in a later stage of pregnancy it gets a bit bloodier.

I feel a bit sick. I have a strong stomach, but it’s obviously extremely gruesome.

Hitler killed millions of living, conscious people. There are plenty of accounts of the suffering and horror they experienced. A fetus doesn’t even begin to develop consciousness until somewhere around 6-7 months.

It’s probably a good idea not to ask that question around people who have been directly affected by Hitler.

Either induced labor, or physically destroying the fetus and extracting it. There may be other methods that I’m not aware of, of course.
Click to expand...
So - the goal is to kill the parent’s offspring while still very young?
 
The problem with eugenics for the non-Christian will be where to draw the line. With greater understanding of the genome, what will come after Down Syndrome? I guess a woman can get pregnant, abort and repeat until the most genetically pure baby is in her womb. Or, for that matter, kill the baby after it is born and can be properly tested for genetic purity. This is the natural conclusion of an amoral approach to human life.
 
pnewton said:
The problem with eugenics for the non-Christian will be where to draw the line. With greater understanding of the genome, what will come after Down Syndrome? I guess a woman can get pregnant, abort and repeat until the most genetically pure baby is in her womb. Or, for that matter, kill the baby after it is born and can be properly tested for genetic purity. This is the natural conclusion of an amoral approach to human life.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about killing the baby after birth, since that’s illegal, but we’re already at the point where a woman can repeatedly abort until she has a “perfect” baby. Practically speaking, I don’t think it’s much of an issue, as I’ve never heard of repeat abortions to get a genetically desirable baby (unless the baby has some defect/disease).
 
Shredderbeam said:
I don’t know about killing the baby after birth, since that’s illegal, but we’re already at the point where a woman can repeatedly abort until she has a “perfect” baby. Practically speaking, I don’t think it’s much of an issue, as I’ve never heard of repeat abortions to get a genetically desirable baby (unless the baby has some defect/disease).
Click to expand...
I suspect you have had of abortions because the parents want a boy?
 
Shredderbeam said:
I don’t know about killing the baby after birth, since that’s illegal, but we’re already at the point where a woman can repeatedly abort until she has a “perfect” baby. Practically speaking, I don’t think it’s much of an issue, as I’ve never heard of repeat abortions to get a genetically desirable baby (unless the baby has some defect/disease).
Click to expand...
Things change. At one killing a baby just before birth was illegal, or during birth in some states. If the only difference is a clip of a chord, that is something the law could easily change on.
 
pnewton said:
The problem with eugenics for the non-Christian will be where to draw the line. With greater understanding of the genome, what will come after Down Syndrome? I guess a woman can get pregnant, abort and repeat until the most genetically pure baby is in her womb. Or, for that matter, kill the baby after it is born and can be properly tested for genetic purity. This is the natural conclusion of an amoral approach to human life.
Click to expand...
Maybe like this:
Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
Click to expand...
“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
Click to expand...
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
Click to expand...
The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
Click to expand...
They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.
Click to expand...
Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.
Click to expand...
“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
Click to expand...
telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
 
Shredderbeam said:
Yes, before any sort of consciousness develops.
Click to expand...
It’s an interesting view you hold - that killing of the sufficiently young is fine, because they are sufficiently young. The only “wrong” seen in the killing is causing “pain” to the killed (or perhaps to their loved ones). Though presumably, even that could be overruled by some other consideration in the weigh up. I appreciate that for an atheist, this could well appear entirely reasonable.
 
Rau said:
It’s an interesting view you hold - that killing of the sufficiently young is fine, because they are sufficiently young. The only “wrong” seen in the killing is causing “pain” to the killed (or perhaps to their loved ones). Though presumably, even that could be overruled by some other consideration in the weigh up. I appreciate that for an atheist, this could well appear entirely reasonable.
Click to expand...
Thanks! I appreciate your feedback, which is what I come here for. 🙂
 
Shredderbeam.
Yes, before any sort of consciousness develops.
Click to expand...
So you are OK with dismembering and thus killing innocent humans as long as they are not conscious? (Because someone undergoing surgery frequently loses consciousness with their anesthesia depending upon the type of anesthesia).

Or is it just until consciousness “develops”? (What if someone says a baby one week old isn’t REALLY “conscious”? Is dismembering and killing her OK too?)

Is it OK to bust up California Condor eggs? Why or why not?
 
Cathoholic said:
Shredderbeam.

So you are OK with dismembering and thus killing innocent humans as long as they are not conscious? (Because someone undergoing surgery frequently loses consciousness with their anesthesia depending upon the type of anesthesia).

Or is it just until consciousness “develops”? (What if someone says a baby one week old isn’t REALLY “conscious”? Is dismembering and killing her OK too?)
Click to expand...
It’s only until consciousness develops. I don’t condone killing somebody who has been anesthetized.

IF a one week old baby isn’t conscious and has no subjective experience (and that’s a big if), then I suppose by my own logic it wouldn’t be an evil act. I’d probably be disgusted and repulsed by it, though.
Cathoholic said:
Is it OK to bust up California Condor eggs? Why or why not?
Click to expand...
That’s a good question. From the point of view of harming a being that can experience pain subjectively, I would say that there’s nothing wrong with that. However, I would still protest that act, since it pushes the species another step towards extinction, and it would be a shame to lose such a majestic species.
 
Shredderbeam:
I don’t condone killing somebody who has been anesthetized.
Click to expand...
Why not? (I agree with not “condoning” it but I might not agree with the “why”)

You being OK with killing innocent humans extends to . . . .
It’s only until consciousness develops.
Click to expand...
When is that? What is that?

(Peter Singer says it’s two months to two years after they are born. He says “consciousness” in the sense you seem to be talking about means “being able to tell your story”.)
 
Cathoholic said:
Shredderbeam:

Why not? (I agree with not “condoning” it but I might not agree with the “why”)
Click to expand...
They’re a person that can experience life and have subjective experiences. The fact that they’re knocked out doesn’t change that.
Cathoholic said:
You being OK with killing innocent humans extends to . . . .

When is that? What is that?

(Peter Singer says it’s two months to two years after they are born. He says “consciousness” in the sense you seem to be talking about means “being able to tell your story”.)
Click to expand...
Consciousness doesn’t appear suddenly, it’s more of a continuum, so in this case I’d probably agree with Peter Singer, barring a new scientific discovery changing our knowledge.

When I say consciousness, I mean the subjective sense of experiencing life. I can reflect upon myself, I experience the taste of my food, I have feelings - in the sense that an amoeba wouldn’t.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Children feel pain well before the sixth month of pregnancy…
Click to expand...
They react to pain, as an amoeba might react to an outside stimulus, but they don’t experience it as they don’t have the neurological equipment to do so.
 
Shredderbeam said:
They react to pain, as an amoeba might react to an outside stimulus, but they don’t experience it as they don’t have the neurological equipment to do so.
Click to expand...
An amoeba is a single cell. For a human, the brain and spine start to develop the first month. I do not know how anyone could possibly know the level of consciousness capable of the baby at this point.

If how interactive the baby is, then we could simply kill a newborn in their sleep. If memory is the criteria, then those with Alzheimer’s would cease to be human.

I ask because I have never heard of a good argument for abortion in the latter stages, say half way through a pregnancy, that would not equally serve for infanticide. So I will no be surprised to see the legal clubbing to death of Down Syndrome children some day.
 
pnewton said:
An amoeba is a single cell. For a human, the brain and spine start to develop the first month. I do not know how anyone could possibly know the level of consciousness capable of the baby at this point.
Click to expand...
Consciousness originates in the brain - that much is clear. We know the rate of fetal brain development, therefore we can know whether a being is capable of subjective experience.
pnewton said:
If how interactive the baby is, then we could simply kill a newborn in their sleep. If memory is the criteria, then those with Alzheimer’s would cease to be human.
Click to expand...
It’s neither of those things. The criteria is that there be a consciousness in the brain, one capable of experiencing experience. For example, I am aware of myself as a conscious being, whereas an amoeba isn’t.
pnewton said:
I ask because I have never heard of a good argument for abortion in the latter stages, say half way through a pregnancy, that would not equally serve for infanticide.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that’s the dark side of my worldview. I don’t know of a way to exclude infants from my argument.
 
Shredderbeam said:
IF a one week old baby isn’t conscious and has no subjective experience (and that’s a big if), then I suppose by my own logic it wouldn’t be an evil act. I’d probably be disgusted and repulsed by it, though.
Click to expand...
Leaving the law aside, I think your reasoning ought to be that so long as the child does not suffer, killing him at any stage should be OK. I can’t see what else would prevent you killing. The feelings you express might be telling you something though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top