If having children is selfish isn't growing old selfish

[deb1]

On another thread on this section of the forum there is some talk about a woman who chose to abort her unborn baby because it was selfish to bring her child into the world. She loved the environment instead of her own child.

That got me thinking…older people put a drain on this society. We have a social security system that is said to be about to collapse. So if a person believes that a baby is selfish to have then why not kill off older people?

Think of the drain that older people put on health care. We could kill everyone over say retirement age in a humane and non painful manner. It could even be considered a noble thing for an older person to take their own life.

Before anyone banns me from the forum, I am not serious. I look forward to be a grandmother one day after all.

But I would like to know why this isn’t a logical step for people who think that having children is selfish. So, here is your mental exercises for today. Prove to me how it is possible to think that having children is selfish but growing old isn’t

 

[rboo124]

I’m never amazed at the ‘excuses’ people will use to justify killing an unborn child.

Abortion is one of the most selfish acts a person can commit, imo. And, to me, selfishness is the root of all evils, not money.

The argument that ‘It’s not a child, it can’t survive outside of the mother’s womb, etc.’ drives me crazy to hear.

My rebuttal is: If you take your newborn child home from the hospital, place him/her in their crib and don’t touch them, talk to them, feed them or clean them, they won’t survive, either. So how does that make them any less human than inside of the mother? In addition, atleast when the child IS inside the mother, it is automatically cared for thru the umbilical cord, not so once the child is born.

By that logic, wouldn’t it be fine to kill any child that is too young to feed, clean and care for itself? I mean, if it can’t survive without Mom and Dad’s cooking, cleaning, shelter and paycheck, then it’s not a human yet, right?

With that said, I feel badly for every woman who has had an abortion. I feel our society today helps contribute to these murders with misinformation, leaving many scared, poor, young, helpless women to take the ‘easy’ way out and justify their actions based on the poor advice they were given by their peers and role models. It’s just sad, because 20 years later, when they have a change of heart on the topic, they can’t undo the murder of their unborn child.

You also make an excellent rebuttal, in comparing the ‘selfishness’ to that of our senior citizens. Of course, using that type of analogy will probably get you the same ‘dirty’ looks that I get when I use my ‘child can’t care for itself’ analogy. It’s funny, I come off as the bad guy for saying something so callous, yet, they are the one’s justifying a child’s murder! Go figure!

 

[deb1]

I’m never amazed at the ‘excuses’ people will use to justify killing an unborn child.

Abortion is one of the most selfish acts a person can commit, imo. And, to me, selfishness is the root of all evils, not money.

The argument that ‘It’s not a child, it can’t survive outside of the mother’s womb, etc.’ drives me crazy to hear.

My rebuttal is: If you take your newborn child home from the hospital, place him/her in their crib and don’t touch them, talk to them, feed them or clean them, they won’t survive, either. So how does that make them any less human than inside of the mother? In addition, at least when the child IS inside the mother, it is automatically cared for thru the umbilical cord, not so once the child is born.

By that logic, wouldn’t it be fine to kill any child that is too young to feed, clean and care for itself? I mean, if it can’t survive without Mom and Dad’s cooking, cleaning, shelter and paycheck, then it’s not a human yet, right?

With that said, I feel badly for every woman who has had an abortion. I feel our society today helps contribute to these murders with misinformation, leaving many scared, poor, young, helpless women to take the ‘easy’ way out and justify their actions based on the poor advice they were given by their peers and role models. It’s just sad, because 20 years later, when they have a change of heart on the topic, they can’t undo the murder of their unborn child.

You also make an excellent rebuttal, in comparing the ‘selfishness’ to that of our senior citizens. Of course, using that type of analogy will probably get you the same ‘dirty’ looks that I get when I use my ‘child can’t care for itself’ analogy. It’s funny, I come off as the bad guy for saying something so callous, yet, they are the one’s justifying a child’s murder! Go figure!

I think that you are right. What worries me is that it seems that the legalization of abortion has led to a gradual disrespect for life. I am frightened that one day we will get to the point in which we do kill off our elderly. Frankly, I am surprised that no one suggest doing this now.

 

[rboo124]

I think that you are right. What worries me is that it seems that the legalization of abortion has led to a gradual disrespect for life. I am frightened that one day we will get to the point in which we do kill off our elderly. Frankly, I am surprised that no one suggest doing this now.

I would HOPE that the lawmakers won’t want to go there because the elderly are considered ‘people’…from my perspective, the whole ‘rationalization’ for abortion is that the embryo/fetus is not considered a ‘person’ during the gestation period that abortion is allowed.

One never knows, though…if Satan can blind people into believing that a baby in the early stages of a woman’s pregnancy isn’t yet a ‘person’, then I guess anything is possible. Perhaps we stop existing as a ‘person’ when our annual tax contributions reduce to a certain level, or we reach an age that a law deems unproductive?

 

[deb1]

I would HOPE that the lawmakers won’t want to go there because the elderly are considered ‘people’…from my perspective, the whole ‘rationalization’ for abortion is that the embryo/fetus is not considered a ‘person’ during the gestation period that abortion is allowed.

One never knows, though…if Satan can blind people into believing that a baby in the early stages of a woman’s pregnancy isn’t yet a ‘person’, then I guess anything is possible. Perhaps we stop existing as a ‘person’ when our annual tax contributions reduce to a certain level, or we reach an age that a law deems unproductive?

Or worse yet, perhaps killing people past a certain age will be considered a kindness. The proponents could talk about how compassionate they are and they could hit those of us who are against such atrocities with lines like, “So, You are for the elderly suffering?” Let’s pray this doesn’t happen but lately I’ve seen a lot of stupidity masquerading as compassion.

 

[Biblioassistant]

Richard Lamm former Governor of Colorado: from Wikipedia:

In 1984, his outspoken statements in support of physician-assisted suicide generated some controversy, specifically over his use of the phrase “we have a duty to die.” Lamm later explained that he “was essentially raising a general statement about the human condition, not beating up on the elderly,” and that the exact phrasing in the speech was “We’ve got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts and everything else like that and let the other society, our kids, build a reasonable life.”

 

[rboo124]

Or worse yet, perhaps killing people past a certain age will be considered a kindness. The proponents could talk about how compassionate they are and they could hit those of us who are against such atrocities with lines like, **“So, You are for the elderly suffering?” **Let’s pray this doesn’t happen but lately I’ve seen a lot of stupidity masquerading as compassion.

Can you imagine? I hear people using the same type of word manipulation when they justify abortion.

‘Well, why shouldn’t a woman be able to prevent her child with birth defects from living a horrible life in disfigurement?’
(Because, it’s a human. How many of us have our own struggles and handicaps in life? Does this mean we weren’t worthy of ‘life’? I see terminally ill people all the time with a much better outlook on life than I posess myself. God bless them!)

‘It should be a woman’s choice whether she decides to bring a child into such a corrupt world.’
And who speaks for the unborn child? We were all born into a corrupt world and seem to be getting by ok with God on our side.

I’ve never thought about this manipulation being turned onto our elderly…you’re honestly blowing my mind a bit, because I can actually visualize people using the same rationale towards the elderly as they do towards unborn babies. And, the motive is CERTAINLY there…selfishness. Social Security, high insurance costs, oh what a terrible inconvenience the elderly are to us, especially when money is the focal point. (I’m being sarcastic, of course).

You’ve given me something new to pray for. Our luxuries today are due very much to the hard work and dedication that our elderly performed yesterday. How selfish we can be when we make life more about ‘us’ instead of ‘them’. This just makes Jesus’ teachings of doing for others that much more meaningful.

I’m a struggling Catholic, so this has been very valuable…thanks!

 

[ribozyme]

On another thread on this section of the forum there is some talk about a woman who chose to abort her unborn baby because it was selfish to bring her child into the world. She loved the environment instead of her own child.

That got me thinking…older people put a drain on this society. We have a social security system that is said to be about to collapse. So if a person believes that a baby is selfish to have then why not kill off older people?

I have a better idea, but it will be met with extreme antipathy by the Republicans here:

De Grey, the guy with the beard, called for higher taxes and research funding to “end the slaughter” of human aging. He argued, incoherently, that our failure to do everything possible to stop aging this instant was tantamount to mass murder. He also floated the creepy idea that overpopulation might not become a problem because once we’re immortal, we might realize children are no fun. Even so, he asked the kind of penetrating question only a big-thinking oddball would come up with. Are we stuck in a “trance” of fatalism about aging? If we realize it can be slowed or stopped, “will aging become repugnant,” like any other disease?

slate.com/id/2142987/

If we are worried about aging, why not divert money for research to help end it? The money used on the Iraq war would have better used to defray for anti-aging research. I suppose that would be one aspect of the culture of life. Why should Homo sapiens undergo a process of decrepitude?

 

[deb1]

I have a better idea, but it will be met with extreme antipathy by the Republicans here:

slate.com/id/2142987/

If we are worried about aging, why not divert money for research to help end it? The money used on the Iraq war would have better used to defray for anti-aging research. I suppose that would be one aspect of the culture of life. Why should Homo sapiens undergo a process of decrepitude?

I am all for ending some of the discomforts of age-I am over forty after all. But I seriously doubt that we will ever be able to end the aging process itself. There would probably be a lot of money spent on developing a process that only the very rich could afford anyway, even if they could develop a way to make it work.

We could throw money into curing diseases like Multiple Sclerosis-my Mil has that- or ending world poverty or any number of things.

 

[ribozyme]

I am all for ending some of the discomforts of age-I am over forty after all. But I seriously doubt that we will ever be able to end the aging process itself. There would probably be a lot of money spent on developing a process that only the very rich could afford anyway, even if they could develop a way to make it work.

We could throw money into curing diseases like Multiple Sclerosis-my Mil has that- or ending world poverty or any number of things.

Social justice most certainly has to be stressed… we need equality of access.

Also, it might be justifiable given that it might prevent expensive operations and costly prescription drug regiments.

 

[deb1]

Social justice most certainly has to be stressed… we need equality of access.

Also, it might be justifiable given that it might prevent expensive operations and costly prescription drug regiments.

or we could just convince everyone-through a well orchestrated propaganda program-that the kindest and most financially sound option would be to humanely euthanize Grandma and Grandpa. We should do it before they become a burden to us but more importantly before they have to suffer needlessly. then all that money would be freed up for social justice programs.

I am just playing devil’s advocate.I don’t want anyone to actually believe that I am ready to kill off everyone over a certain age.

 

[ribozyme]

or we could just convince everyone-through a well orchestrated propaganda program-that the kindest and most financially sound option would be to humanely euthanize Grandma and Grandpa. We should do it before they become a burden to us but more importantly before they have to suffer needlessly. then all that money would be freed up for social justice programs.

I am just playing devil’s advocate.I don’t want anyone to actually believe that I am ready to kill off everyone over a certain age.

The whole point of anti-aging therapies is to save lives, not to kill them… personally, I want to live long enough to see the eradication of poverty and other maladies of humanity.

No, it is best that they should be given anti-aging therapies instead of euthanized.

it will evade the* Logan’s Run *scenario that is expressed in this thread.

 

[deb1]

The whole point of anti-aging therapies is to save lives, not to kill them… personally, I want to live long enough to see the eradication of poverty and other maladies of humanity.

No, it is best that they should be given anti-aging therapies instead of euthanized.

it will evade the* Logan’s Run *scenario that is expressed in this thread.

Too much money spent on a aging person that could be spent on the young. We don’t have endless wealth in the world after all. Unless you believe all those scientists would work for free? Again I am not actually trying to get anyone to murder elderly people.

But can you justify* not* killing the aging or handicapped while at the same time justifying aborting fetus’ to protect the environment? That is my point and the point of this thread. The same type of reasoning could be applied in both situations. It is very possible that I didn’t make my object clear so I apologize. I really do have a very short attention span(Add, I think) and sometimes my mind jumps around so much that I end up getting lost in my own threads thereby confusing everyone. Sorry.

I think that everyone has to be aware of how susceptible many people are to propaganda. It is something that we need to be on guard against.

It has been a long time since I saw Logan’s Run. I wonder if I would still enjoy it. I am not talking about killing off thirty year olds, though. They still have enough energy to work for the betterment of mankind. I am thinking more along the lines of forty or fifty years olds.:ehh:

 

[ribozyme]

Too much money spent on a aging person that could be spent on the young. We don’t have endless wealth in the world after all. Unless you believe all those scientists would work for free? Again I am not actually trying to get anyone to murder elderly people.

Well, Aubrey de Grey actually proposed that everyone should be sterilized when aging is cured…

I suppose being sterilized and immune from the effects of aging is better than dying of aging.

I do not think scientists work primarily for money though, but to cure aging, the people would actually be consider young. They would not become old and decrepit.

 

[Naztakuan]

actually many people who are pro-choice “for the environment” believe the same thing about aging people unless they’re
“really important” of course. They think that elderly ppl should be euthanized. So yeah…they’ve got their bases covered.

 

[deb1]

I do not think scientists work primarily for money though, but to cure aging, the people would actually be consider young. They would not become old and decrepit.

Just to be on the record saying this, I think that for the most part you are probably correct. I’ve listened to interviews in which scientists showed a lot of passion for curing various diseases. So, yes I believe that most scientists are good. I don’t think that they would be happy to be made to work on something like aging, that not everyone agrees is a problem though. NOt without some financial reward, especially if they really wanted to cure cancer or help the paralyzed to walk. There might be some rebellion there. Even if they were unpaid, there would still have to be a lot of resources into stopping a natural process of life.

 

[deb1]

actually many people who are pro-choice “for the environment” believe the same thing about aging people unless they’re
“really important” of course. They think that elderly ppl should be euthanized. So yeah…they’ve got their bases covered.

This is what I am worried about. The woman in the article who aborted her baby expressed grief over the death of her child. So, she believed that her baby was a baby, not just a mass of cells. Yet, she still killed the baby for what she thought was the greater good. It is the same type of thinking that I have outlined in my op