Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Religion, God, and Theology Discussion of God, religion, faith, theology, and spirituality.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-28-2014, 05:43 PM   #151
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,634
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark32607 View Post
Actually they shouldn't be allowed to have children. You should have to get a permit from the government to have children. This means before anyone is even pregnant.
Clearly, the permitting process is an effective means of controlling behaviors.

Quote:
But this is population control and a whole other discussion.
Nobody has ever tried something like this before...
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 07:53 PM   #152
mrmr
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 653
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
The challenge I've raised is with the logic that is being applied. If it's true that the reason for aborting DS embryos is that the existing systems for dealing with it are inadequate, in what sense does their actually being born change that logic? Clearly, after they're born, the systems are still inadequate.

So what's the difference, in your view, between a pre-born child and a just-born child if the primary reason for ending the life of the child in the pre-born child is the inadequacy of various systems, and this logic in unchanged when the child reaches just-born status? What happens in that "birth moment" that changes the logic?
There is not a lot of difference. I can imagine a system that is not objectionable to me in which newborns can be killed by their parents and doctor. It seems tragic to do that in cases when the child could have been killed only weeks after conception - which I imagine is a simpler, less expensive, less dangerous procedure (but I could be wrong).
mrmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 08:00 PM   #153
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,695
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark32607 View Post
No, bringing unhealthy children into this world is sick disgusting. Kids born into poverty with crack head mothers who are on crack during the entire pregnancy is sick and disgusting. And that's just the tip of the ice berg, now stop being so closed minded.
In case you weren't aware, the whole "crack baby" thing is basically a myth.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 08:11 PM   #154
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,634
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmr View Post
There is not a lot of difference. I can imagine a system that is not objectionable to me in which newborns can be killed by their parents and doctor. It seems tragic to do that in cases when the child could have been killed only weeks after conception - which I imagine is a simpler, less expensive, less dangerous procedure (but I could be wrong).
As noted by Original Position, there are people who hold such a position. But to bite the bullet in that manner does start you down a different slippery slope, especially as you've crossed over to the other side of the birth moment. What prevents you from sliding down further beyond "just born"? What if the child develops a disease at 2 months? 6 months? 1 year? Do you hold to your justification?
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 08:18 PM   #155
mark32607
banned
 
mark32607's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,383
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
In case you weren't aware, the whole "crack baby" thing is basically a myth.
You want a child to be born into that environment?
mark32607 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 08:24 PM   #156
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,634
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark32607 View Post
You want a child to be born into that environment?
Ahhhh... classic non-sequitur.

OrP: Your characterization is false.
Mark: Do you want a crack baby?
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 08:28 PM   #157
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,695
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by mark32607 View Post
You want a child to be born into that environment?
Do you want fries with that?
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2014, 11:38 PM   #158
batair
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
batair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: fore the rain starts
Posts: 15,066
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Why kill them all off. Some can and do work so since they are not fully human just make them propriety of the state and bam free labor.
batair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2014, 08:42 AM   #159
mrmr
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 653
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
As noted by Original Position, there are people who hold such a position. But to bite the bullet in that manner does start you down a different slippery slope, especially as you've crossed over to the other side of the birth moment. What prevents you from sliding down further beyond "just born"? What if the child develops a disease at 2 months? 6 months? 1 year? Do you hold to your justification?
I don't know. If the parents and doctor all vote to kill a 1 year old, maybe it is ok. It is a slippery slope, but it isn't a problem that is generally solved for other points of view. For example, we kill criminals, some who are quite young, many who are semi-retarded. We kill women for having pre-marital sex or otherwise dishonoring their family. We allow people to die preventable illness-related deaths because society chooses not to divert the money train in their direction.

I don't have a grand unified theory of morality, but in trying to tackle this piece of the puzzle, it makes sense to allow people to abort DS fetuses, and I wouldn't frown at the mother or mother-in-law who suggests that her daughter abort her DS fetus.

Does it matter if I mention that one of my children exhibited a DS marker in the womb, and I elected not to do any additional tests to determine whether it had DS because I planned to keep it either way?
mrmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2014, 09:29 AM   #160
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,634
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmr View Post
I don't know. If the parents and doctor all vote to kill a 1 year old, maybe it is ok. It is a slippery slope, but it isn't a problem that is generally solved for other points of view. For example, we kill criminals, some who are quite young, many who are semi-retarded. We kill women for having pre-marital sex or otherwise dishonoring their family. We allow people to die preventable illness-related deaths because society chooses not to divert the money train in their direction.
You're making a mistake of saying that "we" do something and hence it must be moral. That's clearly false.

Quote:
I don't have a grand unified theory of morality, but in trying to tackle this piece of the puzzle, it makes sense to allow people to abort DS fetuses, and I wouldn't frown at the mother or mother-in-law who suggests that her daughter abort her DS fetus.
"It makes sense" -- Why?

Quote:
Does it matter if I mention that one of my children exhibited a DS marker in the womb, and I elected not to do any additional tests to determine whether it had DS because I planned to keep it either way?
Not as far as the logic is concerned.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2014, 12:00 PM   #161
Mightyboosh
mmm mmm good
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Mount Olympus
Posts: 4,937
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
In case you weren't aware, the whole "crack baby" thing is basically a myth.
Hmmm. I can't make sense of this. You seem to be assuming that mark32607 is referring solely to some assumed effect on the foetus of in-utero exposure to cocaine and you link an article that debunks that and points out that environmental factors such as poverty are what are really affecting long term outcomes, when the comment you're responding to (" Kids born into poverty with crack head mothers who are on crack during the entire pregnancy is sick and disgusting".) mentions the environment that babies are born into before it mentions that the mothers were using Crack during the pregnancy, and even then that could as equally likely be a reference to the lack of care for the foetus that you could expect from someone using Crack during a pregnancy, than it is to do with the effect of exposure to cocaine on the foetus.

Uncharitable maybe?
Mightyboosh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2014, 01:11 PM   #162
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,695
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh View Post
Hmmm. I can't make sense of this. You seem to be assuming that mark32607 is referring solely to some assumed effect on the foetus of in-utero exposure to cocaine and you link an article that debunks that and points out that environmental factors such as poverty are what are really affecting long term outcomes, when the comment you're responding to (" Kids born into poverty with crack head mothers who are on crack during the entire pregnancy is sick and disgusting".) mentions the environment that babies are born into before it mentions that the mothers were using Crack during the pregnancy, and even then that could as equally likely be a reference to the lack of care for the foetus that you could expect from someone using Crack during a pregnancy, than it is to do with the effect of exposure to cocaine on the foetus.

Uncharitable maybe?
No.

That is, I've nowhere characterized his position or argumentation either explicitly or implicitly. I'm merely passing on information that he might not know - it doesn't really affect the force of his argument at all.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2014, 01:18 PM   #163
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,695
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
As noted by Original Position, there are people who hold such a position. But to bite the bullet in that manner does start you down a different slippery slope, especially as you've crossed over to the other side of the birth moment. What prevents you from sliding down further beyond "just born"? What if the child develops a disease at 2 months? 6 months? 1 year? Do you hold to your justification?
I think the right response to this is to point out that all positions, except for maybe the most maximal no birth control views have the same slippery slope problems.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2014, 01:38 PM   #164
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,634
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
I think the right response to this is to point out that all positions, except for maybe the most maximal no birth control views have the same slippery slope problems.
I disagree. There are many ways to stop the slippery slope problem when you introduce more robust arguments. My point here is that the logic of "the social systems are inadequate" is far from a sufficient argument in favor of abortion, without introducing problems to the position.

Two examples of barriers to the slippery slope problem are "moment of birth" (that the rules change the instant the child is born -- one I believe that you had suggested earlier) and the other is "viability" (that once the child is capable of living distinct from the mother, it should be considered a separate life). Both of these prevent the slippery slope argument from extending to 1 year old children.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 09:11 AM   #165
mrmr
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 653
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
You're making a mistake of saying that "we" do something and hence it must be moral. That's clearly false.
That is not what I'm saying. What I wrote is that other points of view suffer equally with an incomplete answer, with loopholes, with potentially slippery-slopes and no ironclad defenses against them. So calling me out for those kinds of problems is not a particularly persuasive blow against my point of view. I would be much more interested in actual problems with it, not merely the idea that there could be problems if it is extended to other areas.
mrmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 10:48 AM   #166
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,634
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmr View Post
That is not what I'm saying. What I wrote is that other points of view suffer equally with an incomplete answer, with loopholes, with potentially slippery-slopes and no ironclad defenses against them. So calling me out for those kinds of problems is not a particularly persuasive blow against my point of view.
This doesn't strengthen your view in the slightest. It's almost a form of tu quoque (formal logical fallacy) except you're not quite accusing me of having an incomplete answer. At the root, you're not really addressing the criticism and avoiding criticism by pointing to others.

I also think the ones you pointed to, especially especially honor killings, doesn't exactly strengthen your argument that your position should be considered to be solid. Most people reject honor killings, and so by categorizing your position like that, you're suggesting that your argument is "suffers equally" with something most people find morally grotesque.

Would you find it acceptable if the parents of a 10-year old and their doctor vote to kill the child on the basis of an illness that is non-life threatening? Maybe they tried to raise a DS child, and then after 10 years they're just tired of it and want to give up. Is that still morally acceptable on the basis of a lack of support systems for the parent?

Quote:
I would be much more interested in actual problems with it, not merely the idea that there could be problems if it is extended to other areas.
It *is* an actual problem, at least if you think that reasoning should be consistent. If you don't think the reasoning you use should try to be consistent, then that's a completely different story. Citing an absence of support systems is simply not enough.

Your position would be a lot more consistent if you simply believed that all elective abortions are okay, regardless of the circumstances, so that all this discussion about DS is merely a red herring.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 12:25 PM   #167
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,695
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
This doesn't strengthen your view in the slightest. It's almost a form of tu quoque (formal logical fallacy) except you're not quite accusing me of having an incomplete answer.
I realize this is the second recent nitpick, and I apologize for that, but tu quoque is an informal logical fallacy.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 01:12 PM   #168
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,695
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
I disagree. There are many ways to stop the slippery slope problem when you introduce more robust arguments. My point here is that the logic of "the social systems are inadequate" is far from a sufficient argument in favor of abortion, without introducing problems to the position.

Two examples of barriers to the slippery slope problem are "moment of birth" (that the rules change the instant the child is born -- one I believe that you had suggested earlier) and the other is "viability" (that once the child is capable of living distinct from the mother, it should be considered a separate life). Both of these prevent the slippery slope argument from extending to 1 year old children.
I think the reason why people think there is a slippery slope problem here is not because you can't pick a post-birth barrier (e.g. you can just pick an age), but because these barriers seem either morally arbitrary or inherently vague. One arbitrary line seems no better than another, so if you are going to pick birth or viability, then why not pick 1 years old, or 2, and so on.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 02:00 PM   #169
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,634
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position View Post
I realize this is the second recent nitpick, and I apologize for that, but tu quoque is an informal logical fallacy.
Heh... I knew that, and that was a typo. Oh well.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2014, 04:15 PM   #170
Original Position
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Original Position's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 6,695
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
Heh... I knew that, and that was a typo. Oh well.
Figured it was something like that.
Original Position is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2014, 09:17 AM   #171
mrmr
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 653
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
I also think the ones you pointed to, especially especially honor killings, doesn't exactly strengthen your argument that your position should be considered to be solid. Most people reject honor killings, and so by categorizing your position like that, you're suggesting that your argument is "suffers equally" with something most people find morally grotesque.
Who is most people? My community loves honor killings. They are carried out frequently. Are we wrong? Am I supposed to take that for granted, or are you going to prove it?

What I actually think is happening is noncognitivism - you hit the nail on the head when you said people find it morally grotesque. Yucky = immoral.

Perhaps more later, can't comment more now..
mrmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2014, 10:09 AM   #172
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,634
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmr View Post
Who is most people?
People do surveys to find the answers to such questions. Here's one from Pew Research:



While this survey does not specifically show "morally grotesque" it does show that most people believe that honor killings are never justified.

Quote:
My community loves honor killings. They are carried out frequently. Are we wrong? Am I supposed to take that for granted, or are you going to prove it?
Am I going to "prove" it? What measure of "proof" are you asking of me? What I will continue to assert is that most people find honor killings morally grotesque. Support for such behaviors is significantly smaller outside of the Middle East. For example:

http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2012/honour-crimes/

Quote:
[In Britain,] The ultimate punishment of ‘honour killing’ was sanctioned by 3% of young Asians, including the same number of Muslims and Hindus, but rising to 4% of Sikhs and Christians. Support for ‘honour killings’ has thankfully fallen since 2006 when, in a similar survey of young Asians aged 16-34, 8% overall justified such killings, peaking at 14% among Hindus and Christians.
---

Quote:
What I actually think is happening is noncognitivism - you hit the nail on the head when you said people find it morally grotesque. Yucky = immoral.
That's not moral noncognitivism. Moral noncognitivism means that the moral statements does not have a truth value. That is, when I claim that people find honor killings morally grotesque, I'm claiming that "Honor killings are immoral" is a true statement.
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2014, 04:19 PM   #173
mrmr
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 653
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

It represents moral noncognitivism. You may believe you are making a truth-apt statement, but I suspect you are expressing an emotional response to something.

The survey you posted shows that millions of people do not feel that honor killings are never justified. It really doesn't matter to me if millions of others disagree, unless you have some way of demonstrating that the one group is right or more right than the other.

I apologize for not engaging each of the points you have made in your last couple messages. I hope to return to them.
mrmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2014, 05:30 PM   #174
Aaron W.
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Henderson, NV
Posts: 27,634
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmr View Post
It represents moral noncognitivism. You may believe you are making a truth-apt statement, but I suspect you are expressing an emotional response to something.
Not really. There are a many reasonable arguments against honor killings, many of which stem from some sort of belief in the value of individual expression.

Quote:
The survey you posted shows that millions of people do not feel that honor killings are never justified. It really doesn't matter to me if millions of others disagree, unless you have some way of demonstrating that the one group is right or more right than the other.
Nice diversionary tactic. You asked me to support my claim, and I believe I have successfully done so.

But what are you looking for to "demonstrate" the "rightness" of one belief or another? Are you simply shoving your fingers in your ears and telling me that I can't prove you "wrong"?
Aaron W. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2014, 08:03 PM   #175
mrmr
grinder
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 653
Re: Idiot Richard Dawkins opens his mouth again: "It's immoral not to abort Down's Syndrome bab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W. View Post
Not really. There are a many reasonable arguments against honor killings, many of which stem from some sort of belief in the value of individual expression.



Nice diversionary tactic. You asked me to support my claim, and I believe I have successfully done so.

But what are you looking for to "demonstrate" the "rightness" of one belief or another? Are you simply shoving your fingers in your ears and telling me that I can't prove you "wrong"?
I said my community supports honor killing, and you said many people find honor killing to be morally grotesque, and I think you hit the nail on the head. Of course you can find other ways of rationalizing that emotional reaction and say "honor killings go against my belief in the value of individual expression," but I don't think that is why people say something is morally wrong. They say it is wrong because it is grotesque. It speaks to them. They feel it in their gut, and then find a way to support that sounds like a logical argument, but all it really means is that-makes-me-feel-awful. At least, that is what I suspect is going on.

And I am not diverting. I said existing systems have problems with slippery slope, and they have murder after birth (as opposed to abortion), and so pointing out that my revised system (which is status quo + it is good to abort DS babies) suffers from these things is not troublesome for me. The fact that some people outside of my community don't approve of what the millions and millions of people across many nations do support and believe is right and moral does not somehow mean that existing moral systems do not entertain murder. It does not alter my original point that attempting to deal with DS fetuses as a "special case" and then merge it into a broader system of morals is reasonable, and not an illogical or ill fated project, simply because I don't know the answers to many other important moral questions.

And my 3 uninterrupted minutes to spend on this are once again depleted.
mrmr is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ę 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online