Iceland Eliminates People with Down Syndrome

[Cathoholic]

so in this case I’d probably agree with Peter Singer

Which Peter Singer proposal?

He used to say killing babies was OK till age 2 years.

Now he says about 2 months old.

Which Peter Singer position? Why?

What do you think makes a person “a person”?

 

[Shredderbeam]

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.

“As long as they don’t suffer” is technically correct, but doesn’t include children sleeping, for example. My major criterion is that they’re not capable of experiencing suffering, in the sense that an amoeba cannot (they don’t have the required neural circuitry), but 10 year can.

Which Peter Singer proposal?

He used to say killing babies was OK till age 2 years.

Now he says about 2 months old.

Which Peter Singer position? Why?

What do you think makes a person “a person”?

Sorry - I meant agreeing with Singer in terms of what consciousness means. I don’t know for sure when the required neural circuitry is in place, whether it’s a month before birth, a month after birth, or even 2 years of age. I’d have to defer to neuroscience on that.

I would define a person a someone/something that has both subjective experience and intelligence. So by that definition, a brain-dead human wouldn’t be a person, nor would a cow, but an alien visitor who could speak with us and showed awareness of its own existence would be.

 

[Rau]

“As long as they don’t suffer” is technically correct, but doesn’t include children sleeping, for example. My major criterion is that they’re not capable of experiencing suffering, in the sense that an amoeba cannot (they don’t have the required neural circuitry), but 10 year can.

Doesn’t make sense. You give no compelling reason why it would be wrong to kill painlessly a 1 week old child. They’ll feel nothing. The fact that they would feel the pain under varied circumstances does not seem relevant - simply arbitary. Age and the accompanying maturity of the body simply do not seem a basis to draw a distinction - at least if we have eliminated any pain in the process of killing. Why does a mature nervous system deserve more respect than an immature (younger) nervous system, if the act contemplated will cause pain to neither?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Doesn’t make sense. You give no compelling reason why it would be wrong to kill painlessly a 1 week old child. They’ll feel nothing. The fact that they would feel the pain under varied circumstances does not seem relevant - simply arbitary. Age and the accompanying maturity of the body simply do not seem a basis to draw a distinction - at least if we have eliminated any pain in the process of killing. Why does a mature nervous system deserve more respect than an immature (younger) nervous system, if the act contemplated will cause pain to neither?

A sleeping adult is currently unconscious, yes - but you can wake them with a shake. Regardless of the fact that their consciousness is reduced, they’re still beings that have conscious experience - they have dreams, fond memories, hobbies, etc. You can imagine what it’s like to be them. You cannot do the same for an amoeba, or a rock, or a glass of water - those things have no conscious experience, and they have no past history of conscious experience. My view is the difference between killing a sleeping adult and cutting a blade of grass.

 

[Rau]

A sleeping adult is currently unconscious, yes - but you can wake them with a shake. Regardless of the fact that their consciousness is reduced, they’re still beings that have conscious experience - they have dreams, fond memories, hobbies, etc.

So…what? Previously, your concern was not to cause pain. Now, it’s a somewhat arbitrary respect for maturity of nervous system. The youngest of your offspring that you are prepared to kill transitions to what you say is sacrosanct (wrong to kill) - in the blink of an eye. It’s just that you don’t know when that is. The “cause no pain” theory made more sense.

 

[Cathoholic]

Shredderbeam:

I don’t know for sure when the required neural circuitry is in place . . .

Then WHY . . . . even using your own subjective pronouncements . . . . WHY would you think its OK to kill babies?

And WHY NOT kill adults who HAVE consciousness (I agree they should not be killed, but I might not agree with your “why not”)??

Why should “consciousness” define a person?

You gotta come up with better reasons than this Shredderbeam.

You are OK with killing innocent people, and so far I have not heard any valid reasoning for this other than your own opinion.

Why should I give that any more gravitas than a person who wants to kill adults indiscriminately?

Why should I give your opinion any more weight than the Pro-lifers who say ALL human life is sacred and is worthy of protection? . . . Most especially the innocent and most vulnerable?

---

Shredderbeam:

I don’t know for sure when the required neural circuitry is in place . . .

You said you are OK with murdering babies that are 2 months to 2 YEARS OLD (at least if you are going to stay with the Singer proposal).

Have you ever seen a circumcision done without a local anesthetic on a 1 day old boy?

Why in the world would you compare these babies (even using YOUR reasoning) to an amoeba?

they’re not capable of experiencing suffering, in the sense that an amoeba cannot

---

How about baby puppies? Do you think its OK to dismember them too?

But it’s OK to dismember human babies up to 2 months old (or two years old – depending on which position you want to take)?

 

[Shredderbeam]

So…what? Previously, your concern was not to cause pain. Now, it’s a somewhat arbitrary respect for maturity of nervous system. The youngest of your offspring that you are prepared to kill transitions to what you say is sacrosanct (wrong to kill) - in the blink of an eye. It’s just that you don’t know when that is. The “cause no pain” theory made more sense.

No, my first post when I went into detail was this:

Yes, before any sort of consciousness develops.

I may have misinterpreted your response to this, but what I meant was that it’s wrong to cause suffering to something capable of subjectively experiencing things. “Feeling” pain doesn’t quite count, as amoebas will react to damage, but there’s nobody home, nobody’s actually suffering. In my mind, it’s the equivalent of kicking a robot programmed to respond to kicks with “that hurts”. It doesn’t actually mean anything. When you kick a human, you can be reasonably confident that they’re not just mechanically responding to what you say, they actually experience suffering. That’s where I draw the line.

Shredderbeam:

Then WHY . . . . even using your own subjective pronouncements . . . . WHY would you think its OK to kill babies?

I don’t know when it occurs from 2 months to 2 years, but that doesn’t mean we’re completely clueless. We do know that the required circuitry only develops after several months.

And WHY NOT kill adults who HAVE consciousness (I agree they should not be killed, but I might not agree with your “why not”)??

Because they’re complete persons who suffer like I can suffer. I don’t want to hurt those who can suffer.

Why should “consciousness” define a person?

You gotta come up with better reasons than this Shredderbeam.

You are OK with killing innocent people, and so far I have not heard any valid reasoning for this other than your own opinion.

Why should I give that any more gravitas than a person who wants to kill adults indiscriminately?

Why should I give your opinion any more weight than the Pro-lifers who say ALL human life is sacred and is worthy of protection? . . . Most especially the innocent and most vulnerable?

We know that the brain is the source of all consciousness. Therefore, if your brain isn’t developed, or if you don’t have one, it follows that you’re not a being capable of subjective experience. A human without a brain is literally a breathing biological machine - if you hurt it, there’s “no one home” to feel the pain. How is that different from a newly fertilized zygote?

You said you are OK with murdering babies that are 2 months to 2 YEARS OLD (at least if you are going to stay with the Singer proposal).

I misspoke. I agree with Singer in terms of what consciousness means. I don’t know for sure when the required neural circuitry is in place, whether it’s a month before birth, a month after birth, or even 2 years of age. I’d have to defer to neuroscience on that.

Have you ever seen a circumcision done without a local anesthetic on a 1 day old boy?

Thankfully not - I fully agree that it’s creepy, barbaric, disgusting, and just plain weird.

Why in the world would you compare these babies (even using YOUR reasoning) to an amoeba?

I don’t think babies are equivalent to amoebas, the parallel I was drawing was that of capability of subjective experience. As in, it’s not wrong to harm a being that is not, and has never been, capable of experience. This goes for amoebas, brain dead humans, newly fertilized egg cells, etc.

How about baby puppies? Do you think its OK to dismember them too?

But it’s OK to dismember human babies up to 2 months old (or two years old – depending on which position you want to take)?

If human babies don’t have conscious experience, and if puppies don’t either, then I would think it to be OK to dismember them both. Obviously it would horrify me to see killing of newborn babies/puppies, but humans have emotional reactions built in.

 

[Rau]

…I may have misinterpreted your response to this, but what I meant was that it’s wrong to cause suffering to something capable of subjectively experiencing things. “Feeling” pain doesn’t quite count, as amoebas will react to damage, but there’s nobody home, nobody’s actually suffering. In my mind, it’s the equivalent of kicking a robot programmed to respond to kicks with “that hurts”. It doesn’t actually mean anything. When you kick a human, you can be reasonably confident that they’re not just mechanically responding to what you say, they actually experience suffering. That’s where I draw the line.

You still make an arbitrary distinction. The presence of “circuitry” does not itself mean much for the significance of an act of killing if the killed entity knows nothing about its demise.

I don’t want to hurt those who can suffer.

Why not? So long as they do not actually suffer - what’s the difference? I can understand why you would attach significance to actual suffering, but why would you attach meaning to something like “potential to suffer” ?? The entity is still jut a composite of cells.

 

[Shredderbeam]

You still make an arbitrary distinction. The presence of “circuitry” does not itself mean much for the significance of an act of killing if the killed entity knows nothing about its demise.

Why not? So long as they do not actually suffer - what’s the difference? I can understand why you would attach significance to actual suffering, but why would you attach meaning to something like “potential to suffer” ?? The entity is still jut a composite of cells.

As a being with conscious experience capable of suffering, I wouldn’t like if somebody killed me while in a coma. It would be killing an already existing person, rather than a potential one.

 

[Rau]

As a being with conscious experience capable of suffering, I wouldn’t like if somebody killed me while in a coma.

You’d know nothing about it! As the one killed would not suffer in the least, not prior to, at the time of the killing, or subsequently - I am yet to see a substantive basis for your objection.

It would be killing an already existing person, rather than a potential one.

We go round in circles here. You have not demonstrated that the maturity of nervous system change the materiality of killing when the one killed feels no pain? Calling up the label “person” - and saying it applies once the one killed is “old enough” - adds nothing to the substance of the issue.

 

[Shredderbeam]

You’d know nothing about it! As the one killed would not suffer in the least, not prior to, at the time of the killing, or subsequently - I am yet to see a substantive basis for your objection.

Yes, and that’s how I’d prefer to die - 100% unaware of my own death.

However, I have no wish to die yet, and I have an emotional barrier against killing people who are already, well, people.

We go round in circles here. You have not demonstrated that the maturity of nervous system change the materiality of killing when the one killed feels no pain? Calling up the label “person” - and saying it applies once the one killed is “old enough” - adds nothing to the substance of the issue.

“Person” applies when a being is capable of subjective experience. I’m not seeking to convince anybody, I’m just explaining my opinion. I find it repulsive to kill a being who is usually capable of conscious experience, and not repulsive to kill a being who isn’t capable of conscious experience. To me, it’s the difference between burning grass or killing your sleeping mother.

 

[Rau]

… I have an emotional barrier against killing…

That progresses the matter. It is an emotional question for you as to the age barrier above which killing (including killing one’s own offspring) becomes unacceptable.

“Person” applies when a being is capable of subjective experience.

That is your usage of the word, fine. Another way of looking at it is this: human beings - our offspring - start off very young, and then get older.

I find it repulsive to kill a being who is **usually capable **of conscious experience, and not repulsive to kill a being who isn’t capable of conscious experience. To me, it’s the difference between burning grass or killing your sleeping mother

Though to continue your analogy, either can be someone’s offspring. It’s just a matter of age.

As discussed, your “**usually capable **of conscious experience” is quite an arbitrary threshold; “**currently **capable of conscious experience” would appear to be equally satisfactory. According to how one feels emotionally?

 

[Cathoholic]

Shredderbeam (from here):

I don’t know when it occurs from 2 months to 2 years, but that doesn’t mean we’re completely clueless. We do know that the required circuitry only develops after several months.

WHAT “circuitry” are you basing your definition of “personhood” on?

WHERE are you getting this definition from? (Are you just making it up?)

---

Do people have personhood at conception?

I say they do.

You would say they do not.

WHAT material thing is “added” to them that makes them a “person”?

It’s not pixie dust. So what materially, gets “added” to a uh hem . . . a person . . . that makes them a “person”?

(Or do people already HAVE personhood from the time of their conception from something immaterial–their soul?)

---

I asked . . . .

Why should “consciousness” define a person?

You replied . . . .

We know that the brain is the source of all consciousness.

So what? (That wasn’t really an answer to my question).

**The question is WHY should “consciousness” define a person? **

(And by the way, babies CLEARLY have “consciousness”.

Babies are **not **“unconscious”. Parents don’t get woken up at night by beings that are “unconscious”. So even using YOUR definition, it seems to me you should want to PROTECT babies. Not be “free” to dismember them and kill them.)

---

Cathoholic:

Have you ever seen a circumcision done without a local anesthetic on a 1 day old boy?

Shredderbeam :

Thankfully not . . . . it’s creepy, barbaric, disgusting, and just plain weird.

From talking with physicians who do circumcisions, I am telling you newborn babies DO feel pain.

It is evident from their reactions to the circumcision (reactions that they don’t have with physician use of a local anesthetic).

Yet you are OK with dismembering and killing babies on the pretext that they are at least in some sense, comparable to amoebas (according to you)!

If you have this level of disdain about mere circumcision, **WHY are you “OK” with dismembering and killing babies?
**

---

Obviously it would horrify me to see killing of newborn babies/puppies . . .

(bold mine)

Actually Shredderbeam, its not “obvious” to me because of some of the other things you have said here.

 

[pensmama87]

Shredderbeam, even if you are correct about fetal and infant development, logically speaking, wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of “we don’t kill humans” rather than, “killing humans is probably okay up until this hard to define point?”

On one side, you don’t have to defend anything that you admit is seriously repulsive.

 

[Shredderbeam]

That progresses the matter. It is an emotional question for you as to the age barrier above which killing (including killing one’s own offspring) becomes unacceptable.

Of course. In my worldview, all barriers to killing are emotional. Since I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in any universal objective moral truths.

That is your usage of the word, fine. Another way of looking at it is this: human beings - our offspring - start off very young, and then get older.

Absolutely - that is 100% my own personal definition of a controversial word.

Though to continue your analogy, either can be someone’s offspring. It’s just a matter of age.

As discussed, your “**usually capable **of conscious experience” is quite an arbitrary threshold; “**currently **capable of conscious experience” would appear to be equally satisfactory. According to how one feels emotionally?

Sure, but “conception” is arbitrary too.

Shredderbeam (from here):

WHAT “circuitry” are you basing your definition of “personhood” on?

WHERE are you getting this definition from? (Are you just making it up?)

Well I’m not making it up, I’m basing it on brain “circuitry” that’s required for a person to have self-awareness.

Do people have personhood at conception?

I say they do.

You would say they do not.

WHAT material thing is “added” to them that makes them a “person”?

It’s not pixie dust. So what materially, gets “added” to a uh hem . . . a person . . . that makes them a “person”?

(Or do people already HAVE personhood from the time of their conception from something immaterial–their soul?)

In my worldview, nothing gets added. Their brain develops enough to the point that they become capable of subjective experience.

I asked . . . .

Why should “consciousness” define a person?

You replied . . . .

So what? (That wasn’t really an answer to my question).

**The question is WHY should “consciousness” define a person? **

That’s my mistake, sorry.

I believe that consciousness should define a person because without consciousness, if you hurt someone, there’s no harm done. Hurting a person without brain activity is, in my book, the same as kicking a rock.

(And by the way, babies CLEARLY have “consciousness”.

Babies are **not **“unconscious”. Parents don’t get woken up at night by beings that are “unconscious”. So even using YOUR definition, it seems to me you should want to PROTECT babies. Not be “free” to dismember them and kill them.)

Well hang on, I don’t mean that babies are “unconscious” in the sense that you or I are when we sleep, I only capable of subjective experience. To use a (really, really, really) silly example, imagine a robot baby that was designed to emulate an actual baby, but there was “nobody home”, so to speak.

I do agree, though, that instinctively, I want to protect babies.

From talking with physicians who do circumcisions, I am telling you newborn babies DO feel pain.

It is evident from their reactions to the circumcision (reactions that they don’t have with physician use of a local anesthetic).

Yet you are OK with dismembering and killing babies on the pretext that they are at least in some sense, comparable to amoebas (according to you)!

If you have this level of disdain about mere circumcision, **WHY are you “OK” with dismembering and killing babies?
**

In my view, they certainly react to pain, but that doesn’t mean that they experience it. An amoeba will react to a stimulus, but that doesn’t mean that there’s anybody upstairs.

My primary disdain with circumcision is that it’s incredibly creepy (seriously, mothers, why do you have a preference as to how your child’s penis looks?), and I’ve heard that it can cause psychological damage.

(bold mine)

Actually Shredderbeam, its not “obvious” to me because of some of the other things you have said here.

I understand where you’re coming from. I think, anyway.

I have gut, visceral, responses to things. If I see a 100% brain-dead person being killed, it makes me sick to my stomach, even though I know nobody’s home. I hope you understand that I’m not the stereotypical atheist who has no empathy for suffering/pain.

Shredderbeam, even if you are correct about fetal and infant development, logically speaking, wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of “we don’t kill humans” rather than, “killing humans is probably okay up until this hard to define point?”

On one side, you don’t have to defend anything that you admit is seriously repulsive.

What you’re saying makes sense, the limit is very hard to define. However, in my view, things that are clearly on one side of the fence or the other aren’t controversial for me. Using an extreme example, it doesn’t bother me to kill 4 fetal cells, but it does bother me to kill a 25 year old.

 

[Cathoholic]

Shredderbeam (emphasis mine):

If I see a 100% brain-dead PERSON being killed, it makes me sick to my stomach . . .

It’s inescapable Shredderbeam. This IS a “person” you are alluding to here.

You also said (again emphasis mine) . . .

If I see a 100% brain-dead person being killed,** it makes me sick **to my stomach

There’s reasons for this reaction Shredderbeam. Good reasons. Don’t fight your interior self trying to give you the truth about this issue.

 

[pensmama87]

What you’re saying makes sense, the limit is very hard to define. However, in my view, things that are clearly on one side of the fence or the other aren’t controversial for me. Using an extreme example, it doesn’t bother me to kill 4 fetal cells, but it does bother me to kill a 25 year old.

From what I can make of your argument, the only thing that puts it on one side of the fence or the other is your feelings. “Four fetal cells” (not an actual thing, but I know what you mean) is fine by you, because it doesn’t repulse you. 25 year old, not fine, because it does.

You’ve admitted that there’s a logical consistency with positions like Singer’s: If abortion is morally permissible, then so is killing newborn babies or even children up to a certain point (hm, where is that exactly?) But many, many people find that repulsive. Still, some people think murder is perfectly permissible in any circumstance, if a person is viewed as a threat to some goal, or can be used as an end. So whose feelings get to count?

Isn’t there a logical consistency to those who say, “Yes, these four cells may not “look” human to you, but it is a unique individual, not the same as skin that sloughs off through the course of a day.” We know that many, many miraculous things are happening that the naked eye cannot see. Should I deny they exist because I don’t have access to high powered microscopes? That seems curiously anti-logic and anti-scientific inquiry.

 

[jesu1983]

Lord Jesus.

I pray to you so that you give Wisdom to the law makers in Iceland, so that they stop this action of theirs which kills people with Down syndrome. Lord send your angel to the resuce of people with Down syndrome. Amen.

 

[Clevus]

How is this not the same as what Hittler was doing and the world was against him?

Not to forget China and female fetuses.

 

[esieffe]

A counselor at an Iceland hospital sees the issue even more starkly. “We don’t look at abortion as a murder,” she said. “We look at it as a thing that we ended.

Straight out of the 3rd Reich handbook.