I don't think anyone in this thread is in favor of killing. If you can't see that, then maybe you shouldn't debate this topic.

Wait. Isn't this different from the general abortion debate argument/scenario? Normally the reason there is a difference between killing and aborting is that the mother can choose not to carry a child and shouldn't be made to. In this case the carrying is not part of the reason to end things. She wants that baby not to live and it is just coincidental that she has a convenient legal way to get that done. The fact that she has to carry it is not part of the argument in this case.

In other words if aborting very late term in these situations should be OK then so should killing shortly after birth be OK too. (I think doctors already kill in some cases via sins of omission in the real bad cases.)

An already born baby does not carry the same risk for the mother as a pregnancy.

That's exactly the point. You can't use that argument if it isn't part of the reason you choose to abort. (Especially if you admit you would get pregnant again to try for a healthier baby but wouldn't if this one was healthy).

If you claim that two different actions should be weighed the same, it's really on you to show why - not for me to defend your unspoken premises which I don't even necessarily agree with.

I also suspect this equating of "killing" with "abortion" is mostly a cultural thing, given how often its crops up in debate when Americans are involved. In my country it's something we would only hear from a very small minority, and one which would be viewed by the vast majority as extremists. Not up there with a Saudi imam sentencing someone to death, but a recognizable relative at least.

Lastly, I think it is very insulting to state that the mother "wants that baby not to live" and even throw in a word like "convenient", it shows a lack of respect for what I suspect is a very difficult decision for many.

What? All I am saying is that if the justification for a late term abortion has nothing to do with the fact that a woman is carrying it that justification remains once the baby is outside the mother, assuming it is equally cognizant.

To make this point clearer suppose two mothers are pregnant with a child whom they think should not be born. Before a decision has been made one is born prematurely after 7 months and the other is 8 months in the womb. If the argument to end them is not related to the fact that they are inside vs outside the womb. than why should the first one be allowed to live (rather than quickly killing it) if it is ethical to abort the second one? Or vice versa.

do you even know what a non sequitur is?

do you even know what a sentence is?

if they come up with 2 + 2 = 5, they're not going to get very far

your turn

"That you seem to think that by use of non sequitur that you are somehow making a meaningful statement that advances an argument in some way."

setting aside all the thats and the poor grammar, what argument are you referring to and what non sequitur?

what are the premise(s) and conclusion?

The "risk to mother" is a joke argument and incredibly disingenuous. Abortions would be as legal and "moral" as they are today even if carrying the baby involved zero risk to the mother. How many pro-choice people would change their stance if the risk went to zero? Very, very few. It's a nonsense argument.

Abortion is purely about privileging the whims of a dominant privileged group (adult females) over the life of the unborn.

I know my points make you uncomfortable, but they're correct.

Let me give you an analogy so you can what it looks like with something you do actually believe is wrong and should be illegal.

Children up to 3 or so are a big burden on people. You're required to wipe up their poop, care for them 24/7, not leave them alone, work to feed them, etc. In many ways, it's far worse and more burdensome than being pregnant.

Consequently, the law allows mothers to kill their children before they're 3. To protect the sanctity of female choice, mothers are not required to give a reason. They're allowed to murder their kids because they're inconvenient, because they get a new boyfriend, because they're bored with them.

Anyone who tries to stop them killing their kids even for these frivolous reasons is restrained by the full power of the state.

How important would you think the life of the child is considered in such a scenario? How "immoral" do you think society believes this activity is, given that society fully legally supports the killing of children and restrains anyone who tried to stop it?

Think about it. Of course pro-choice people are morally fine with abortion. They require no test, no punishment, and actively restrain anyone - even the father - from interfering. How is this different to the above?

Let me make this even more clear to you.

In America in 2040, husbands are allowed to kill their wives. Wives represent a significant burden on a husband's freedom, and even if they become an ex, he still has to think about them, pay them money, etc.

Husbands are allowed to kill their wives without giving a reason. There are no legal penalties and anyone who tries to stop them, including the woman's parents or siblings, can be charged with a crime.

How much do think the life of women is valued in this society? A society that has this law clearly tacitly supports the killing of women, and thinks it's morally ok, and less important than the whims of men (since men can kill on whims with no legal recourse) or why would this law exist?

If you can't see this implied morality, then maybe you shouldn't participate in this debate.

Parents are not forced to raise their children, they can of course put them up for adoption or otherwise release them to the guardianship of the state.

This has been pointed out to you before and yet you continue to ignore it.

No, you certainly don't make me feel uncomfortable. I've debated far worse than you, many face to face. I understand that to them (and you) I'm probably immoral, but I have no problem with that. A society where women lose ownership of their bodies upon impregnation is untenable to me.

As for your new case here, it simply can't be taken seriously. Your basic premise is basically to ignore moral scale. Allowing doctors to do kidney transplants would be morally equivalent to stealing a kidney from a non-sedated and unwilling patient. That is simply absurd. It is also a logic that is self-defeating, as it goes both ways.

I don't think you're immoral on this topic, as I share the same morality. I do however think it's hilariously inconsistent to have the set of beliefs you do.

You're misunderstanding. In the passage you quoted, I'm trying to get you to see that if someone:

a) believes it is immoral for a person to harm something else, yet
b) permits that act to happen
c) permits it even for the flimsiest, most trivial or most evil of reasons imaginable
d) blanket permits it with zero consequences under any circumstances
d) actively stops others from preventing the immoral action or creating consequences

They don't really believe (a).
I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm saying your beliefs are inconsistent. You think it's fine to kill unborn babies on a mother's whim, but "dangerously close to what [you] would call "evil"" to claim that it's immoral not the kill an unborn baby that's badly damaged and unable to live even close to a normal life.

The end result is the same (the death of unborn babies). In fact, under your reality, far more unborn babies will get killed - abortions kill over 1,000,000 a year (most healthy and with normal potential to think, feel, live and contribute), whereas down syndrome aborting would kill 6000 unborn babies per year.

One should be legally protected, and the other is "close to evil".

Seems weird, no? A claim that's immoral not to abort 6,000 is far, far worse than the actual abortion of 1,000,000.

The only way you get to your position is to draw a really long bow and say "but eugenics slippery slope!!!" for which there is no evidence; it seems like hysteria rather than reality.

You've changed your position again now you are actually talking about mandating abortions in the case of Down Syndrome. Your line during this thread is either incredibly inconsistent or deliberately dishonest.

I don't really recognize a, b, c, d or e, so I see no point in replying to that.

As for eugenics, it based on the unfounded assertion that the strongest populations are composed of members with the strongest possible individual traits. There exists no scientific evidence that this is true, but there exists bountiful evidence that genetic diversity makes a population more resilient.

Eugenics can (and should) of course be refuted on this basis.

Um, b,c,d,e are our current laws which are required for a standard pro choice position? Are you intentionally being daft?
This is nonsense. Eugenics can draw from lots of principles, including decreasing (without eliminating) population incidence of particular traits, and increasing population incidence of particular traits.

Your claim that this is bad in any way (apart from the moral arguments) for the long term survival or diversity of the species is utter nonsense and indefensible. Your claim is only an argument against the weakest cases (eradiction of all schizophrenia, for example, or all white people).

Killing down syndrome fetuses isn't even eugenics, since it's chromosonal and not genetic, and they're not going to breed enough anyway to sustain a population. It's a total red herring which you've brought up.

We could kill 4/5ths of all Asians, and the world would still be as genetically diverse. We could kill all African Americans, and the world still be as genetically diverse. We could kill 90% of people with the bottom 20% of IQs in each ethnic group, and the world would still be as genetically diverse.

You are hilariously wrong on this. It's a horrible argument that a) will only be true for a time, meaning the arguments you have against something you find morally abhorrent are flimsy and b) is unconvincing.

Did you just write all these, but in the very same post state that a chromosomal disorder is not genetic?

I mean, have you seriously debated this entire topic without knowing what a chromosome is!? Chromosomal aberrations are the main cause of genetic disorders.

Your knowledge on this subject is obviously minimal, and at this point this is dangerously close to a compliment.

This isn't about them "going far." This is about your assertion that they would have to come up with mathematics that matches ours. Who said that they would even have "addition" in the same concept as we do? Show me your extraterrestrial civilization.

I don't think it's so much "premise-conclusion" though I suppose you could force that framework if you insist on it.

Premise: "The two arguments are very similar."
Conclusion: "I wonder if there would have been the same fuss if dawkins had said it's immoral to have children you can't afford to support." Implicitly, you believe he would have not had the same fuss.

The second half of the sentence has little to do with the first. So what if the two arguments (immoral to abort down syndrome babies/immoral to have children you can't afford to support) are very similar? What moves forward in the conversation?

Recall that the line of conversation began from my response to VeeDDzz:

What is the connection between this your speculation about the level of push-back Dawkins would have had if he had made a different argument?

You do understand that down syndrome is is a disorder of an excessive chromosome (unlike other genetic traits/disorders, which are nearly all bad combinations of harmful alleles where there isn't faulty machinery), and therefore, if you were to kill all down syndrome people, you would have no effect whatsoever on the diversity of traits, since the excessive chromosome is merely a copy of an existing one?

If we killed all XYYs for example, it would similarly have no effect on genetic diversity, which is the argument you're making against eugenics. Thus, the arguments you put forward against eugenics are deeply faulty. Which is precisely my point, man. Way to have it go wooshing right over your head.

Your personal attack is bizarre. It's obvious I understand what a gene and chromosome is. I guess I'm wiping the floor with you, so the only you can do is strawman an idiot who doesn't know what a gene and chromosome is?
This is a pure personal attack to avoid answering anything of substance, and the fact that you're getting owned. It's kind of sad. Everyone here can see you're desperately trying to attack and straw man.

a) Adultery is typically immoral
b) The government should permit adultery.
c) The government should permit adultery for the flimsiest, most trivial or most evil of reasons imaginable.
d) The government permits adultery with zero consequences under any circumstances.
e) The government should actively stop others from preventing a person from committing adultery.

I accept (a) through (e) (more or less, I would phrase it differently and I dropped the part about the government stopping others from creating negative consequences). Tell me why you think my acceptance of (b) through (e) means I don't actually accept (a)?

I know this makes you uncomfortable, but I don't believe that government should try to prevent all immoral actions. You've asserted that this viewpoint is inconsistent, however, you've not even tried to show this inconsistency. Instead, you've just keep presenting these premises again, or use some other example and then just say that agreeing with all of them is "just a little nuts" "a little bizarre" "ridiculous" "a tad unbalanced" and "seems weird." That is not actually an argument. That is just you telling us that it is emotionally straining for you to think about this combination of views.

Toothsayer is crushing this thread. That is coming from someone who is pro-choice.

What is the overarching moral foundation, that leads you to the conclusion that the government should permit adultery?

Importance of personal liberty?
or
All is fair in love and war?
or
Utilitarian reasons?
or
A combination of the above?

Personal liberty, although I think liberal views of the importance of freedom are justified on utilitarian grounds as well.