And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[Diogenes]

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html

[KitemanSA]

And you guys thought *I* was nuts.
Yup, and still do.
This kind of nuttyness is the mirror image of your kind.

What is needed is a valid science of morality and ethics.

=============
I wrote the above in a bit of a fit of pique. After calmer review, I decided not to change it, but to say, just pokin fun... sort of. The message remains; the tone should be somewhat ignored.

[Diogenes]

And you guys thought *I* was nuts.
Yup, and still do.
This kind of nuttyness is the mirror image of your kind.

What is needed is a valid science of morality and ethics.

=============
I wrote the above in a bit of a fit of pique. After calmer review, I decided not to change it, but to say, just pokin fun... sort of. The message remains; the tone should be somewhat ignored.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I think the article makes a valid point. I see a trivial distinction between killing a born child over that of killing an unborn child.

Indeed, the late term abortionists use a legal trick to prevent themselves from being charged with murder. They pull all but the head out, then kill the head, then pull it out, having committed the killing while it was still inside and therefore legally protecting them.

Had they pulled the head all the way out before killing it, the law would call it murder.

What I find astonishing is that anyone on earth regards this "trick" as an acceptable dodge around the law.


Apart from that, don't worry about hurting my feelings, I have pretty thick skin and I don't take you (et al) seriously anyway!

[ladajo]

So if you shoot a woman with a hollow point through an ovary, should that count as a multiple homicide, even if she lives?

[ladajo]

What if you take a ball peen hammer to an attached testicle? Should that count as genocide?

[Diogenes]

So if you shoot a woman with a hollow point through an ovary, should that count as a multiple homicide, even if she lives?

Sure. Just as soon as unfertilized eggs develop a unique DNA and can grow into human beings.

Each parent contributes a portion of their own DNA. It is the combination of both that sets the process in motion. Think of it as a sort of binary epoxy. It doesn't work until you mix it.

[Diogenes]

What if you take a ball peen hammer to an attached testicle? Should that count as genocide?

I do hope you are joking. You don't strike me as the sort that would lack knowledge on basic reproductive biology.


A human is made up of borrowed matter arranged in accordance with the blueprint stored in their DNA. It is the unique pattern which is the valuable part. The matter has been here for ~14 billion years, and is generic, but the compressed file that is a human being is unique and is the product of a fusion between the cells of two other human beings.

You are old enough to remember when expensive programs (Such as Autocad) came on series of disks as one large compressed file.

It wasn't the media which it was stored on that made it valuable, it was the compressed information which you were paying for.

Human beings are exactly like that. They are created by the fusion of two chunks of code from different people and the process of decompression takes 9 months. The program is stored in molecular matter, and what makes it valuable is how it is arranged. Without the "program" arranging it just so, it's nothing but a bunch of chemicals, mostly carbon.


We are all evolved sentient computer programs stored in matter and running on the mainframe of the Universe.

We favor our children because they share our pattern.

[KitemanSA]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I think the article makes a valid point. I see a trivial distinction between killing a born child over that of killing an unborn child.

Indeed, the late term abortionists use a legal trick to prevent themselves from being charged with murder. They pull all but the head out, then kill the head, then pull it out, having committed the killing while it was still inside and therefore legally protecting them.

Had they pulled the head all the way out before killing it, the law would call it murder.

What I find astonishing is that anyone on earth regards this "trick" as an acceptable dodge around the law.

It may surprise you to know that on this I agree with you. I suspect we DISAGREE on when the fetus indeed becomes a sapient being (a child) and attains the rights thereof.

[choff]

Its more of the slippery slope, I've heard they're teaching eugenics in English classrooms.

[ladajo]

What if you take a ball peen hammer to an attached testicle? Should that count as genocide?

I do hope you are joking. You don't strike me as the sort that would lack knowledge on basic reproductive biology.


A human is made up of borrowed matter arranged in accordance with the blueprint stored in their DNA. It is the unique pattern which is the valuable part. The matter has been here for ~14 billion years, and is generic, but the compressed file that is a human being is unique and is the product of a fusion between the cells of two other human beings.

You are old enough to remember when expensive programs (Such as Autocad) came on series of disks as one large compressed file.

It wasn't the media which it was stored on that made it valuable, it was the compressed information which you were paying for.

Human beings are exactly like that. They are created by the fusion of two chunks of code from different people and the process of decompression takes 9 months. The program is stored in molecular matter, and what makes it valuable is how it is arranged. Without the "program" arranging it just so, it's nothing but a bunch of chemicals, mostly carbon.


We are all evolved sentient computer programs stored in matter and running on the mainframe of the Universe.

We favor our children because they share our pattern.

You hit around my point without actually seeing it. I was pointing to the question of where you draw the line. Which is the fundamental argument in supporting abortion. The ever popular, "at what point is it murder?"

My comments were based on the idea that if you are going to get silly and push the line to the right, why not get silly and push it left?

Some would argue that as soon as you mix in a test tube that, subsequently droppnig the tube is abortion...or murder.

[KitemanSA]

What if you take a ball peen hammer to an attached testicle? Should that count as genocide?

Gene-ocide maybe.

[Skipjack]

Its more of the slippery slope, I've heard they're teaching eugenics in English classrooms.

I guess it is under the same premise as the teaching of "intelligent design" in american classrooms...

[Skipjack]

Great quote and very applicable to some people here:

Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f***ed.

[Diogenes]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I think the article makes a valid point. I see a trivial distinction between killing a born child over that of killing an unborn child.

Indeed, the late term abortionists use a legal trick to prevent themselves from being charged with murder. They pull all but the head out, then kill the head, then pull it out, having committed the killing while it was still inside and therefore legally protecting them.

Had they pulled the head all the way out before killing it, the law would call it murder.

What I find astonishing is that anyone on earth regards this "trick" as an acceptable dodge around the law.

It may surprise you to know that on this I agree with you. I suspect we DISAGREE on when the fetus indeed becomes a sapient being (a child) and attains the rights thereof.

I like to draw lines where nature draws them. A river or coast forms a border, the Triple point of water defines a standard temperature, charge are quanta, Axis of rotation defines a pole, and so forth.

When does a star begin? The instant the first two hydrogen atoms fuse.

The word "fusion" came from biology, physics adopted it. (What do you suppose it means in Biology?)

The quantum probability function of "life" is a transitional asymptote. It looks like this.



It is a clear and distinct point that is easily defined and does not require a complicated subjective description to define it. It is a natural transition boundary between one condition and a subsequent condition.

Do you have a clearer place to put a boundary?

[Diogenes]

Great quote and very applicable to some people here:

Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're f***ed.

F*ck you up your @ss Skipjack. I've listened to that intentional misrepresentation of the Pro-Life position all my life, and I consider people who suggest it disgusting and unworthy of respect. Were you within reach of me I would now proceed to beat the shit out of you for saying it. I personally follow the John Brown school of thought on this subject and feel that there has always been insufficient violence directed at those who support the disgusting practice.


The belief that people ought not be KILLED because they are inconvenient does not imply that those who oppose their murder should be obligated to thereafter take all responsibility for them.


The obligation to feed and shelter one's children resides with the parents, and this is a moral point no different from slavery. Indeed, the notion that people ought to have others take responsibility for their "mistakes" is built from the same moral foundation as slavery.


I notice that no one ever suggests that those who oppose the death penalty for Criminals ought to have to pay for the expense of keeping this sort of vermin in prison for life. Oh no! Everybody seems to think that it is perfectly reasonable to burden taxpayers in society with the upkeep of these worthless bastards.


You have a twisted way of looking at the world.