Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If someone is going to die a painful excruciating death, and that is set in stone, I have no problem with euthanasia.
In other words, you're against euthanasia in 99% of the cases where it is actually applied in the real world. That's progress and common ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twinArmageddons
A fetus that literally cannot survive if detatched from the womb is techically not a person yet..
Say who? You?
I disagree. I say your criteria that personhood is possible only when an infant can survive while physically "detached" from the mother is completely arbitrary with no moral standing whatsoever. Now what?
Dependency is dependency. Many children and adults cannot "go from source to source" for their sustenance: the source must come to them. Just like a fetus, they have zero choice in the matter and their lives depend 100% on another human being.
This is what those in the academia world are bantering about. The slippery slope has been crossed. So you have a baby and don't want it just cut it's throat it appears. Of course they will do it the "humane" way I'm sure.
This was published in the journal of medical ethics. What kind of monsters are running this ship???
"Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue 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. "
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? -- Giubilini and Minerva -- Journal of Medical Ethics (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full#aff - broken link)
And next we will have pre-death killings. Old people not of use to society anymore. My FIL predicted this. He said---'first the babies, then the old people."
This experiment was done ages ago in Rome, wasn't it?
If a person accepts the murder of unborn children in the womb, then it is a small step further to accepting murder of a newborn child. It is another small step further to killing old people who have lost their "value" to society. And then another small step to eliminate cripples, homosexuals, Gypsys, Jews, political dissidents, etc. Step by step is all it takes. On the boiling frog scale we are already about medium well.
And next we will have pre-death killings. Old people not of use to society anymore. My FIL predicted this. He said---'first the babies, then the old people."
This experiment was done ages ago in Rome, wasn't it?
Part of the agenda of the New World Order is eugenics and a total world population of 500 million. That means that six out of every seven of us would have to cease to exist.
yes anotehr "what if" academic paper, being blown out of proportion by the NJ's on CD
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
