I would just like to add that some things about these secular societies have hinted at the rather unpleasant consequences of a secular state. I have read about forced abortion in Denmark for babies who show signs of down syndrome. In the Netherlands they had legalized mercy killings which had disastrous effects. Things that would not have happened if those countries where more Christian. Their is some evidence that these countries are showing the signs that Christians have been talking about.
Just for perspective, many people in those countries look at the United States and find the death penalty abhorrent. Are you really moralizing on how bad mercy killings are, when a common 'Christian' value is vengeance killing? Others have refuted the 'forced abortion' issue, and I've yet to see anything about 'diastrous effects' of voluntary euthanasia. Volunteer to work in a nursing home for a couple weeks, then come talk to me.
There are quite a few unpleasant consequences of a religious state. They may not be scary to you, but they are scary to anyone who doesn't share your belief structure. Take a look at Iran and Afghanistan if you want examples of what a religious state looks like. Some poeple in the US like to fear monger about 'Sharia Law', but allowing Christian beliefs to dictate law is just as frightening to me.
You are confusing the ideals of Christianity with the reality of organized religion. Even if you cover everyone with the same religious blanket, it doesn't change who people are fundamentally. Christians still commit crimes and violate the tenants of their religion. 'Christianity' isn't a magic wand that fixes social problems, it just adds another layer of complexity.
Great link! Also, I think it's important to say that it seems likely that bakgat just doesn't understand why anyone would want to be an athiest since he's perfectly happy as a Christian. I don't see him as being hostile in any sense of the word. I do see him as being perhaps a little confused or not sure on some things.
When you spend a lot of time ingesting a lot of information about ANY topic, it's easy to not see the logic of the opposing viewpoint. Many Christians are told that Athiests have no morals and no happiness... when in reality it's not the case at all.
A Christian won't rob a bank because God tells them it's bad and they don't want to burn in eternal hellfire.
An Athiest won't rob a bank because they don't want to be a douchebag.
I suspect the motivations for not doing obviously wrong things are much the same between a theist/atheist. We all feel a compulsion to adhere to what society views as acceptable behaviour, e.g; not breaking the law/being a douchebag. The differences arise in how we justify our actions to ourselves. i.e. Religious people will be prone to attributing their own and others good deeds to an adherance to the rules of their deity(s), while atheists will treat it for what it is, adherance to your personal moral compass and your inherent and culturally developed understanding of right and wrong. In short, people will mostly be good or bad for exactly the same reasons, but they validate those decisions to themselves in different ways. We are really good at finding an excuse for our wrongful/immoral actions, be they religious or secular reasons. Unless you're a sociopath, then you can do whatever the hell you want.
Yes, if we're talking about correlation between religiousness and ___, a theocracy is useful.
Not a theocracy with an area of a fifth of a square mile and a population of eight hundred that is by any realistic sociological standard just a part of the city of Rome.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Just for perspective, many people in those countries look at the United States and find the death penalty abhorrent. Are you really moralizing on how bad mercy killings are, when a common 'Christian' value is vengeance killing? Others have refuted the 'forced abortion' issue, and I've yet to see anything about 'diastrous effects' of voluntary euthanasia. Volunteer to work in a nursing home for a couple weeks, then come talk to me.
I don't intend to actively dispute the rest of your post here, despite the fact that I disagree with it, but: A common Christian value is vengeance killing? really? Do you have anything to support that? Are you making it up? I've never heard of it myself, and I'm fairly well versed in most of the mainstream Christian denominations. You'd think if something was a common value, it would be part of at least one of the mainstream Christian denominations...
I don't intend to actively dispute the rest of your post here, despite the fact that I disagree with it, but: A common Christian value is vengeance killing? really? Do you have anything to support that? Are you making it up? I've never heard of it myself, and I'm fairly well versed in most of the mainstream Christian denominations. You'd think if something was a common value, it would be part of at least one of the mainstream Christian denominations...
I apologize - I was not actually being literal with it being a common Christian value (hence the quotation marks above 'Christian'), I was trying to point out the irony (or more accurately, hypocrisy) inherent in such moralizing.
The vast majority of proponents of the death penalty in the United States are (a) Republicans and (b) Christians. My point was that 'Christianity' isn't a salve for societal problems, and Christians can be just as horrible as anyone else.
Notice I say can be, and not are, I don't want to generalize because most Christians are good people, and Christianity has plenty of great values (when it isn't being twisted by bad people using it for their own small-minded ends), but the problem is that the ideal of Christianity is not the reality of Christianity as performed by people.
I apologize - I was not actually being literal with it being a common Christian value (hence the quotation marks above 'Christian'), I was trying to point out the irony (or more accurately, hypocrisy) inherent in such moralizing.
The vast majority of proponents of the death penalty in the United States are (a) Republicans and (b) Christians. My point was that 'Christianity' isn't a salve for societal problems, and Christians can be just as horrible as anyone else.
Maybe, then, you should have put the faux quotation marks around "vengeance" instead of around Christian. The death penalty is not about vengeance, or rather, not only about vengeance. Someone can be in favor of the death penalty without wanting "vengeance."
Notice I say can be, and not are, I don't want to generalize because most Christians are good people, and Christianity has plenty of great values (when it isn't being twisted by bad people using it for their own small-minded ends), but the problem is that the ideal of Christianity is not the reality of Christianity as performed by people.
No you didn't. You said "A common 'Christian' value is vengeance killing." Never mind the fact that vengeance killing and the death penalty are not the same thing.
So really what you meant to say was "self proclaimed christians can be in favor of the death penalty." Perhaps more care in oyur choice of wroding would be in order.
For anyone who is asking my sources. Here is the link to the article about abortion in Denmark. I had to go trough 50 pages of threads on WLC forum to get the link. Lets no one say I'm making anything up.
My source about the Mercy Killings in the Netherlands is the book Atheism and its scientific pretensions by David Berlinski.
Someone asked what exactly these disastrous effects was. It became the 5th leading cause of death in that country in something like two years as doctors where finding any excuse to kill their patients.
Europeans see the USA as very religious and the rest of the world sees Europe as very secular and both could very easily be wrong. Funny how people derive opinions on places without any firsthand experience.
The article you posted consists of nothing more than a slippery slope argument. I'm as scared of a Gattaca scenario as anyone, but dealing with debilitating problems like Down Syndrome is not anywhere close to that sort of problem.
I can't respond to your book, because I haven't read it. However, from what you said, I don't think corrupt doctors is a good reason to be against voluntary euthanasia.
Fact is, the stuff you're presenting as a horrible side effect of the secularism of a nation are things I think are great. I'm far more horrified by a bunch of religious fundamentalists legally requiring that a dying person remain in agony than a corrupt doctor trying to convince you to kill yourself.
The article you posted consists of nothing more than a slippery slope argument. I'm as scared of a Gattaca scenario as anyone, but dealing with debilitating problems like Down Syndrome is not anywhere close to that sort of problem.
o.O? Dealing with "debilitating problems" like Downs Syndrome is exactly that sort of problem. We don't "deal with" problems by killing them. A person with downs syndrome is no less of a person than you or I, and selectively aborting for downs syndrome is no better than selectively aborting for red hair, or for black skin.
If it is unacceptable to abort for "red hair", or because the child is a "girl" instead of a boy, or becuase the child is likely to be less intelligent, then it is unacceptable to abort a child becuase they have downs syndrome.
o.O? Dealing with "debilitating problems" like Downs Syndrome is exactly that sort of problem. We don't "deal with" problems by killing them. A person with downs syndrome is no less of a person than you or I, and selectively aborting for downs syndrome is no better than selectively aborting for red hair, or for black skin.
Obviously, I disagree, and I don't think I should get into why exactly, since that's dangerously close to another debate topic. The Gattaca problem is being discriminatory towards people, not controlling for favorable traits. And I will say that "having red hair" isn't nearly as debilitating as "down syndrome."
Blatch - are you really comparing something that does NOT effect a persons ability to contribute to society and support themselves after maturity (red hair) to something than can and does effect a persons abilities to contribute or support themselves (downs syndrome)??
Yes, many downs syndrome persons live fine, have jobs, and take care of themselves.
But you also ignore the MANY that do not live normal lives and cannot take care of themselves.
There is not just one level of severity for the disease. On a scale from 1-10, someone could have a 1, and someone could have a 10.
Also, its not just for Downs Syndrome. What about selectively aborting ALS, MS, Spina Bifida, and other really debilitating defects.
I'm for the earliest possible screening and embryo rejection of defected fetuses. I don't want 3rd trimester abortions. But with the science we have available, I think we can know within the first 23 days of conception whether or not that baby is going to live a handicapped and burdened life.
7 billion people on the planet. We do not have an imperitive to bring every possible fetus to term. It's unnecessary. We can be selective, because we have an overpopulation. There is homelessness, joblessness, poverty, starvation. If anything it is morally irresponsible to bring a handicapped baby into the world that will devour more time and resources than a healthy one would.
@Bakgat
The sources and articles you are using to support your argument are some of the worst supporting evidence I have ever seen anyone present in defense of the anti-secular nation position.
Everything Zaph said +1
Also, I'd love to live in a country where I can get assisted suicide. I do not want to live in agony, or a vegetable, or a triple amputee. **** that life, its not worth living.
So if I'm up **** creek without a paddle, it'd be nice if the doctor can help me sink gently without losing his job.
I live in Oregon, we PASSED doctor assisted suicide here, and then the Surgeon General stepped in and tried to shut it down. We are still fighting legal battles over it.
What does a religious state mean here? I don't know if it's much different than what we have. God is already pretty involved in our government, because our congressmen and representatives, and even our president do not leave their religious beliefs at the door. We'd have an Iraqi born muslim woman as president before we have an Atheist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Obviously, I disagree, and I don't think I should get into why exactly, since that's dangerously close to another debate topic. The Gattaca problem is being discriminatory towards people, not controlling for favorable traits. And I will say that "having red hair" isn't nearly as debilitating as "down syndrome."
Right, so people with Downs Syndrome don't deserve to live.
Blatch - are you really comparing something that does NOT effect a persons ability to contribute to society and support themselves after maturity (red hair) to something than can and does effect a persons abilities to contribute or support themselves (downs syndrome)??
One's ability to contribute to society, as opposed to being dependent upon society is wholly irrelevant to their worth as a person.
OPr do you advocate for killing off people who have drawn too much welfare?
Yes, many downs syndrome persons live fine, have jobs, and take care of themselves.
But you also ignore the MANY that do not live normal lives and cannot take care of themselves.
There is not just one level of severity for the disease. On a scale from 1-10, someone could have a 1, and someone could have a 10.
I'm fully aware of this, and have not "forgotten" it.
Also, its not just for Downs Syndrome. What about selectively aborting ALS, MS, Spina Bifida, and other really debilitating defects.
I'm for the earliest possible screening and embryo rejection of defected fetuses. I don't want 3rd trimester abortions. But with the science we have available, I think we can know within the first 23 days of conception whether or not that baby is going to live a handicapped and burdened life.
Yes, becuase handicapped or burdensome lives are not worth it, we should just kill them all. That would sure save us a lot of money.
(Edit: Ok, deleted a bunch of stuff that would get me banned despite my relatively good record here. Next time you talk about this stuff, keep in mind that you may very well be telling them that their brother would be better off dead, and that the world would be a better place if he hadn't been born.)
With that edit, I'm done here. I obviously can't handle this discussion with some of you to the degree that this forum requires. Good Day.
Next time you talk about this stuff, keep in mind that you may very well be telling them that their brother would be better off dead, and that the world would be a better place if he hadn't been born.)
Didn't say that either. All I've said is that people shouldn't have to have down syndrome or similar debilitating ailments. I've said nothing about harming people who do have them.
Maybe, then, you should have put the faux quotation marks around "vengeance" instead of around Christian. The death penalty is not about vengeance, or rather, not only about vengeance. Someone can be in favor of the death penalty without wanting "vengeance."
No, because I believe the death penalty only has to do with vengeance. But this is a pointless argument.
No you didn't. You said "A common 'Christian' value is vengeance killing." Never mind the fact that vengeance killing and the death penalty are not the same thing.
First, I was referring the first paragraph of the post you are quoting, not the previous post.
Second, explain to me how the death penalty isn't a vengeance killing by the state? Or, at the very least, how the concept diverges from mercy killings in such a way that one is okay and the other isn't.
So really what you meant to say was "self proclaimed christians can be in favor of the death penalty." Perhaps more care in oyur choice of wroding would be in order.
I'm not playing the 'they aren't really Christian' game, that becomes a semantics trap, and is beside the point. The issue is whether or not belief in Christianity would fix the supposed problems. It would not, because belief in is not the same as adherence to ideals. If every Christian today followed the fundamental golden rule, the world would be more or less a utopia. My point is that belief in Christianity, or identifying yourself as Christian, does not equate fewer social issues, especially when there is no consensus as to whether or not the issue is really a problem.
One's ability to contribute to society, as opposed to being dependent upon society is wholly irrelevant to their worth as a person.
I would argue that it is relevant, to varying degrees on a situation-by-situation basis.
I have a neice that is both physically and mentally handicapped. She's kept alive because OTHER people force themselves to take care of her. If this girl was ANY OTHER ANIMAL, she'd be dead. I believe the truly inhumane thing is to force her to live in her condition. A drooling incognitive cripple in a motorized chair who is 27 years old, the size of a 12 year old, with atrophied muscles, and a mind that cannot form a cohesive thought.
You want to argue that the humane thing is to let her live. Fine, argue that then. I want to hear why.
Or do you advocate for killing off people who have drawn too much welfare?
There is a difference between someone who cannot find work, or won't work, and someone who is INCAPABLE of work.
I wouldn't approve of someone refusing to work and sucking on the system if they were fully capable of doing something productive.
Welfare is supposed to be a temporary help until you get back on your own feet.
I am currently unemployed and getting unemployment benefits. benefits I paid taxes for, and I am looking for a new job constantly. Not alot of work out there.
Also, I HATE how everytime this comes up, you people (and by you people I mean all you people who argue against the utilitarian position) always assume we want to "kill-off" these people.
Screening against handicapped fetuses in the first 18 weeks =/= killing off already living people with handicaps.
I'm fully aware of this, and have not "forgotten" it.
Just because I wouldn't kill Korky, doesn't mean that I want every severly handicapped baby to be born.
We don't need them. They are not necessary for posterity, not for cheap labor, not for humanity to perpetuate itself, and not to give a family a sense of fulfillment (hint: adopt, or try to have a healthy baby). Tell me WHY we MUST bring handicapped fetuses to term no matter what condition they are in.
Yes, becuase handicapped or burdensome lives are not worth it, we should just kill them all. That would sure save us a lot of money.
Not birthing MORE NEW handicapped and burdensome children =/= killing off all the ones who are already alive.
(Edit: Ok, deleted a bunch of stuff that would get me banned despite my relatively good record here. Next time you talk about this stuff, keep in mind that you may very well be telling them that their brother would be better off dead, and that the world would be a better place if he hadn't been born.)
Why delete?
I have been infracted for my opinions on several occasions. I would not go back and edit myself. Sometimes the foul is worth the flag.
About your brother. Is he like my neice? If so, I'd advocate putting him down. Because I truly believe it is selfish and cruel to force a being to live in a condition that prevents them from actually LIVING.
Some people think they are doing them a favor, or being kind by keeping them alive. Well sorry, but although this is true for some, for others you are imprisoning them inside their own crippled and broken bodies. Quite possibly against their will even.
Maybe your brother would be better off dead, how should I know, I am not HIM, and neither are YOU, and I don't actually know what condition he is in.
I know that I would rather die than live strapped to a chair getting fed by a tube, never being able to play basketball, or fly a helicopter, or freedive in the ocean, or climb a mountain, or charm a pretty girl I like and bang her brains out under my own power.
Wow, my neice gets to live. Woopie! She gets to pee in a bag, eat goop, and have her twisted and crippled body washed by her mother for her entire short life until her body just quits functioning. How blessed an existence.
With that edit, I'm done here. I obviously can't handle this discussion with some of you to the degree that this forum requires. Good Day.
I am sorry that you cannot carry on a conversation with someone who does not share your beliefs and voices his dissenting opinion without running from it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
[...]I have a neice that is both physically and mentally handicapped. She's kept alive because OTHER people force themselves to take care of her. If this girl was ANY OTHER ANIMAL, she'd be dead. I believe the truly inhumane thing is to force her to live in her condition. A drooling incognitive cripple in a motorized chair who is 27 years old, the size of a 12 year old, with atrophied muscles, and a mind that cannot form a cohesive thought.
You want to argue that the humane thing is to let her live. Fine, argue that then. I want to hear why.
No, the humane thing is not to kill her. You're making some pretty brash assumptions about the quality of her life, raising some questions that nobody (including herself, if what you say here is true) can answer. This isn't euthanasia, someone saying that they want to die being of sound mind and sound body, and what you see and describe to us cannot be the whole truth of the situation, as she hasn't weighed in on the issue herself (nor could she, if what you say is true). Regardless of what would happen to any other animal, she is human, and deserving of her right to live without interference. It isn't about what is best, or right, or fair, it's about applying those standards without exception. It may very well be that she would be "better off dead," but that is a judgment call no one can make. That is heartwrenchingly sad, but the only alternative is to take away more of her rights.
Please note, I am not questioning the truthfulness of your post with the repitition of the phrase "if what you say is true," just being unilateral in my statements.
[...]Just because I wouldn't kill Korky, doesn't mean that I want every severly handicapped baby to be born.
We don't need them. They are not necessary for posterity, not for cheap labor, not for humanity to perpetuate itself, and not to give a family a sense of fulfillment (hint: adopt, or try to have a healthy baby). Tell me WHY we MUST bring handicapped fetuses to term no matter what condition they are in.
But the family did try to have a healthy baby. Just because they failed at it doesn't mean they should throw up their hands and give up, abort the fetus and adopt a child. To use your example and perhaps avoid some of the explosive quality of this topic, just because you've been infracted for making a post that didn't fall within forum guidelines doesn't mean you should stop posting here.
Not birthing MORE NEW handicapped and burdensome children =/= killing off all the ones who are already alive.
While I appreciate what you're saying, some people (not just the religious, mind you) don't think that [A]bort, [R]etry, [F]ail are the only worthwhile options when it comes to their own progeny. Not everyone cares about the overall state of humanity, and to them having their own child is worth more than the impact it will have on mankind, even in the case of a disabled child.
[...]I am sorry that you cannot carry on a conversation with someone who does not share your beliefs and voices his dissenting opinion without running from it.
I have a neice that is both physically and mentally handicapped. She's kept alive because OTHER people force themselves to take care of her. If this girl was ANY OTHER ANIMAL, she'd be dead. I believe the truly inhumane thing is to force her to live in her condition. A drooling incognitive cripple in a motorized chair who is 27 years old, the size of a 12 year old, with atrophied muscles, and a mind that cannot form a cohesive thought.
You want to argue that the humane thing is to let her live. Fine, argue that then. I want to hear why.
Clearly the humane thing could not be to "let her live" because, let alone, she will die. Yet this instinct we have to preserve the lives of other, severely handicapped humans, no matter how much it may go against any sort of utilitarian principle, is deeply ingrained in us. I cannot cite what I am about to say, so I hope you can take it on good faith that I am not making this up -- I read it in a newspaper six years ago or so -- but archaeologists dug up human bones dating to roughly 8000 BCE, somewhere in the southern US if I recall correctly. The bones were identified as belonging to a girl approximately 12 years old, and also bore distinctive signs of a certain congenital illness that would've rendered her crippled from birth. The consensus was that her nomadic tribe must have carried her from place to place throughout her life, until she died of some other cause. Clearly she could've contributed nothing to her people -- a people living barely above a subsistence level -- and yet they kept her alive.
Of course, I have also read anthropological accounts of a tribe in Africa where deformed babies are thrown into the river because "they belong to the hippo god." I don't know to what extent that religious rationale was born of utilitarian considerations; but it is important to note that a religious rationale was apparently necessary to justify throwing babies away... just to say "they're worthless" evidently didn't cut it.
But my point is this: perhaps our efforts to preserve the lives of those who cannot function themselves is not so much about their humanity, but our own. For we do not find it sufficient just to keep severely handicapped people alive at some minimum level; but we wash them and dress them and take them out for walks in the park in their wheelchairs. Even though they may in no way be able to comprehend it, we try to elevate them as fully as possible into the larger human community. This may bespeak a sense of duty, and you may call it a perverse sense of duty; but I believe it is duty undergirded by love.
And love, as mysterious and "impractical" as it may be, must (as I was reminded earlier in this thread) be sufficient unto itself -- or else nothing is. As you said:
I know that I would rather die than... never being able to play basketball, or fly a helicopter, or freedive in the ocean, or climb a mountain, or charm a pretty girl I like and bang her brains out under my own power.
Nothing you mentioned -- the things that for you make life "worth living" -- can be justified in any sense as "practical." Yet no one would question you for finding value and satisfaction in them. You love them; and we all intuitively understand that (except in cases where gross negligence or harm results) that is enough justification to do nearly anything. And I think that our care for severely handicapped people is also thus justified.
Note that I am not speaking against euthanasia, or against the aborting of fetuses tested positive for some terrible disease, both of which I think can be justified. I would, however, like to refute this idea:
Because I truly believe it is selfish and cruel to force a being to live in a condition that prevents them from actually LIVING.
In the case of a lucid person with some terminal and incapacitating illness who requests to be allowed to die and is not granted that request, then yes, I agree with you. In the case of someone whose mind is manifestly not there, then I must disagree; for such a person cannot articulate the question as to whether he desires to live or not, and it is only our own sense of revulsion at his condition that leads us to assume that his answer would surely be "no."
Many people would rather die than live in the condition that Stephen Hawking finds himself in; yet I do not believe that he unequivocally laments his existence.
EDIT: Sorry, B_S; didn't see your red text prior to posting.
My body is pretty fraked up, genetically. I was born with cystic fibrosis, which causes all kinds of pain and problems right from birth. And then later I developed diabetes as a direct result of the CF defect. And I have to say that if I could go back in time to visit my parents during my gestation, I would have begged them to abort me.
The choice between a life full of discomfort, pain and escalating dependance on meds and a quick death before I could learn to fear death...that's a no-brainer for me. So I absolutely support the mother's option to abort, especially in cases of incurable defects.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Won't you be Neighbor Cthulhu's friend?
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just for perspective, many people in those countries look at the United States and find the death penalty abhorrent. Are you really moralizing on how bad mercy killings are, when a common 'Christian' value is vengeance killing? Others have refuted the 'forced abortion' issue, and I've yet to see anything about 'diastrous effects' of voluntary euthanasia. Volunteer to work in a nursing home for a couple weeks, then come talk to me.
There are quite a few unpleasant consequences of a religious state. They may not be scary to you, but they are scary to anyone who doesn't share your belief structure. Take a look at Iran and Afghanistan if you want examples of what a religious state looks like. Some poeple in the US like to fear monger about 'Sharia Law', but allowing Christian beliefs to dictate law is just as frightening to me.
You are confusing the ideals of Christianity with the reality of organized religion. Even if you cover everyone with the same religious blanket, it doesn't change who people are fundamentally. Christians still commit crimes and violate the tenants of their religion. 'Christianity' isn't a magic wand that fixes social problems, it just adds another layer of complexity.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I suspect the motivations for not doing obviously wrong things are much the same between a theist/atheist. We all feel a compulsion to adhere to what society views as acceptable behaviour, e.g; not breaking the law/being a douchebag. The differences arise in how we justify our actions to ourselves. i.e. Religious people will be prone to attributing their own and others good deeds to an adherance to the rules of their deity(s), while atheists will treat it for what it is, adherance to your personal moral compass and your inherent and culturally developed understanding of right and wrong. In short, people will mostly be good or bad for exactly the same reasons, but they validate those decisions to themselves in different ways. We are really good at finding an excuse for our wrongful/immoral actions, be they religious or secular reasons. Unless you're a sociopath, then you can do whatever the hell you want.
Not a theocracy with an area of a fifth of a square mile and a population of eight hundred that is by any realistic sociological standard just a part of the city of Rome.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't intend to actively dispute the rest of your post here, despite the fact that I disagree with it, but: A common Christian value is vengeance killing? really? Do you have anything to support that? Are you making it up? I've never heard of it myself, and I'm fairly well versed in most of the mainstream Christian denominations. You'd think if something was a common value, it would be part of at least one of the mainstream Christian denominations...
I apologize - I was not actually being literal with it being a common Christian value (hence the quotation marks above 'Christian'), I was trying to point out the irony (or more accurately, hypocrisy) inherent in such moralizing.
The vast majority of proponents of the death penalty in the United States are (a) Republicans and (b) Christians. My point was that 'Christianity' isn't a salve for societal problems, and Christians can be just as horrible as anyone else.
Notice I say can be, and not are, I don't want to generalize because most Christians are good people, and Christianity has plenty of great values (when it isn't being twisted by bad people using it for their own small-minded ends), but the problem is that the ideal of Christianity is not the reality of Christianity as performed by people.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Maybe, then, you should have put the faux quotation marks around "vengeance" instead of around Christian. The death penalty is not about vengeance, or rather, not only about vengeance. Someone can be in favor of the death penalty without wanting "vengeance."
No you didn't. You said "A common 'Christian' value is vengeance killing." Never mind the fact that vengeance killing and the death penalty are not the same thing.
So really what you meant to say was "self proclaimed christians can be in favor of the death penalty." Perhaps more care in oyur choice of wroding would be in order.
http://www.scancomark.se/Competitiveness/Plans-on-the-way-to-make-Denmark-a-Down-syndrome-free-perfect-society.html
My source about the Mercy Killings in the Netherlands is the book Atheism and its scientific pretensions by David Berlinski.
Someone asked what exactly these disastrous effects was. It became the 5th leading cause of death in that country in something like two years as doctors where finding any excuse to kill their patients.
Europeans see the USA as very religious and the rest of the world sees Europe as very secular and both could very easily be wrong. Funny how people derive opinions on places without any firsthand experience.
I can't respond to your book, because I haven't read it. However, from what you said, I don't think corrupt doctors is a good reason to be against voluntary euthanasia.
Fact is, the stuff you're presenting as a horrible side effect of the secularism of a nation are things I think are great. I'm far more horrified by a bunch of religious fundamentalists legally requiring that a dying person remain in agony than a corrupt doctor trying to convince you to kill yourself.
o.O? Dealing with "debilitating problems" like Downs Syndrome is exactly that sort of problem. We don't "deal with" problems by killing them. A person with downs syndrome is no less of a person than you or I, and selectively aborting for downs syndrome is no better than selectively aborting for red hair, or for black skin.
If it is unacceptable to abort for "red hair", or because the child is a "girl" instead of a boy, or becuase the child is likely to be less intelligent, then it is unacceptable to abort a child becuase they have downs syndrome.
Yes, many downs syndrome persons live fine, have jobs, and take care of themselves.
But you also ignore the MANY that do not live normal lives and cannot take care of themselves.
There is not just one level of severity for the disease. On a scale from 1-10, someone could have a 1, and someone could have a 10.
Also, its not just for Downs Syndrome. What about selectively aborting ALS, MS, Spina Bifida, and other really debilitating defects.
I'm for the earliest possible screening and embryo rejection of defected fetuses. I don't want 3rd trimester abortions. But with the science we have available, I think we can know within the first 23 days of conception whether or not that baby is going to live a handicapped and burdened life.
7 billion people on the planet. We do not have an imperitive to bring every possible fetus to term. It's unnecessary. We can be selective, because we have an overpopulation. There is homelessness, joblessness, poverty, starvation. If anything it is morally irresponsible to bring a handicapped baby into the world that will devour more time and resources than a healthy one would.
@Bakgat
The sources and articles you are using to support your argument are some of the worst supporting evidence I have ever seen anyone present in defense of the anti-secular nation position.
Everything Zaph said +1
Also, I'd love to live in a country where I can get assisted suicide. I do not want to live in agony, or a vegetable, or a triple amputee. **** that life, its not worth living.
So if I'm up **** creek without a paddle, it'd be nice if the doctor can help me sink gently without losing his job.
I live in Oregon, we PASSED doctor assisted suicide here, and then the Surgeon General stepped in and tried to shut it down. We are still fighting legal battles over it.
What does a religious state mean here? I don't know if it's much different than what we have. God is already pretty involved in our government, because our congressmen and representatives, and even our president do not leave their religious beliefs at the door. We'd have an Iraqi born muslim woman as president before we have an Atheist.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Right, so people with Downs Syndrome don't deserve to live.
Got it.
One's ability to contribute to society, as opposed to being dependent upon society is wholly irrelevant to their worth as a person.
OPr do you advocate for killing off people who have drawn too much welfare?
I'm fully aware of this, and have not "forgotten" it.
Yes, becuase handicapped or burdensome lives are not worth it, we should just kill them all. That would sure save us a lot of money.
(Edit: Ok, deleted a bunch of stuff that would get me banned despite my relatively good record here. Next time you talk about this stuff, keep in mind that you may very well be telling them that their brother would be better off dead, and that the world would be a better place if he hadn't been born.)
With that edit, I'm done here. I obviously can't handle this discussion with some of you to the degree that this forum requires. Good Day.
No, because I believe the death penalty only has to do with vengeance. But this is a pointless argument.
First, I was referring the first paragraph of the post you are quoting, not the previous post.
Second, explain to me how the death penalty isn't a vengeance killing by the state? Or, at the very least, how the concept diverges from mercy killings in such a way that one is okay and the other isn't.
I'm not playing the 'they aren't really Christian' game, that becomes a semantics trap, and is beside the point. The issue is whether or not belief in Christianity would fix the supposed problems. It would not, because belief in is not the same as adherence to ideals. If every Christian today followed the fundamental golden rule, the world would be more or less a utopia. My point is that belief in Christianity, or identifying yourself as Christian, does not equate fewer social issues, especially when there is no consensus as to whether or not the issue is really a problem.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I would argue that it is relevant, to varying degrees on a situation-by-situation basis.
I have a neice that is both physically and mentally handicapped. She's kept alive because OTHER people force themselves to take care of her. If this girl was ANY OTHER ANIMAL, she'd be dead. I believe the truly inhumane thing is to force her to live in her condition. A drooling incognitive cripple in a motorized chair who is 27 years old, the size of a 12 year old, with atrophied muscles, and a mind that cannot form a cohesive thought.
You want to argue that the humane thing is to let her live. Fine, argue that then. I want to hear why.
There is a difference between someone who cannot find work, or won't work, and someone who is INCAPABLE of work.
I wouldn't approve of someone refusing to work and sucking on the system if they were fully capable of doing something productive.
Welfare is supposed to be a temporary help until you get back on your own feet.
I am currently unemployed and getting unemployment benefits. benefits I paid taxes for, and I am looking for a new job constantly. Not alot of work out there.
Also, I HATE how everytime this comes up, you people (and by you people I mean all you people who argue against the utilitarian position) always assume we want to "kill-off" these people.
Screening against handicapped fetuses in the first 18 weeks =/= killing off already living people with handicaps.
Just because I wouldn't kill Korky, doesn't mean that I want every severly handicapped baby to be born.
We don't need them. They are not necessary for posterity, not for cheap labor, not for humanity to perpetuate itself, and not to give a family a sense of fulfillment (hint: adopt, or try to have a healthy baby). Tell me WHY we MUST bring handicapped fetuses to term no matter what condition they are in.
Not birthing MORE NEW handicapped and burdensome children =/= killing off all the ones who are already alive.
Why delete?
I have been infracted for my opinions on several occasions. I would not go back and edit myself. Sometimes the foul is worth the flag.
About your brother. Is he like my neice? If so, I'd advocate putting him down. Because I truly believe it is selfish and cruel to force a being to live in a condition that prevents them from actually LIVING.
Some people think they are doing them a favor, or being kind by keeping them alive. Well sorry, but although this is true for some, for others you are imprisoning them inside their own crippled and broken bodies. Quite possibly against their will even.
Maybe your brother would be better off dead, how should I know, I am not HIM, and neither are YOU, and I don't actually know what condition he is in.
I know that I would rather die than live strapped to a chair getting fed by a tube, never being able to play basketball, or fly a helicopter, or freedive in the ocean, or climb a mountain, or charm a pretty girl I like and bang her brains out under my own power.
Wow, my neice gets to live. Woopie! She gets to pee in a bag, eat goop, and have her twisted and crippled body washed by her mother for her entire short life until her body just quits functioning. How blessed an existence.
I am sorry that you cannot carry on a conversation with someone who does not share your beliefs and voices his dissenting opinion without running from it.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
No, the humane thing is not to kill her. You're making some pretty brash assumptions about the quality of her life, raising some questions that nobody (including herself, if what you say here is true) can answer. This isn't euthanasia, someone saying that they want to die being of sound mind and sound body, and what you see and describe to us cannot be the whole truth of the situation, as she hasn't weighed in on the issue herself (nor could she, if what you say is true). Regardless of what would happen to any other animal, she is human, and deserving of her right to live without interference. It isn't about what is best, or right, or fair, it's about applying those standards without exception. It may very well be that she would be "better off dead," but that is a judgment call no one can make. That is heartwrenchingly sad, but the only alternative is to take away more of her rights.
Please note, I am not questioning the truthfulness of your post with the repitition of the phrase "if what you say is true," just being unilateral in my statements.
But the family did try to have a healthy baby. Just because they failed at it doesn't mean they should throw up their hands and give up, abort the fetus and adopt a child. To use your example and perhaps avoid some of the explosive quality of this topic, just because you've been infracted for making a post that didn't fall within forum guidelines doesn't mean you should stop posting here.
While I appreciate what you're saying, some people (not just the religious, mind you) don't think that [A]bort, [R]etry, [F]ail are the only worthwhile options when it comes to their own progeny. Not everyone cares about the overall state of humanity, and to them having their own child is worth more than the impact it will have on mankind, even in the case of a disabled child.
Low blow, sir.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Clearly the humane thing could not be to "let her live" because, let alone, she will die. Yet this instinct we have to preserve the lives of other, severely handicapped humans, no matter how much it may go against any sort of utilitarian principle, is deeply ingrained in us. I cannot cite what I am about to say, so I hope you can take it on good faith that I am not making this up -- I read it in a newspaper six years ago or so -- but archaeologists dug up human bones dating to roughly 8000 BCE, somewhere in the southern US if I recall correctly. The bones were identified as belonging to a girl approximately 12 years old, and also bore distinctive signs of a certain congenital illness that would've rendered her crippled from birth. The consensus was that her nomadic tribe must have carried her from place to place throughout her life, until she died of some other cause. Clearly she could've contributed nothing to her people -- a people living barely above a subsistence level -- and yet they kept her alive.
Of course, I have also read anthropological accounts of a tribe in Africa where deformed babies are thrown into the river because "they belong to the hippo god." I don't know to what extent that religious rationale was born of utilitarian considerations; but it is important to note that a religious rationale was apparently necessary to justify throwing babies away... just to say "they're worthless" evidently didn't cut it.
But my point is this: perhaps our efforts to preserve the lives of those who cannot function themselves is not so much about their humanity, but our own. For we do not find it sufficient just to keep severely handicapped people alive at some minimum level; but we wash them and dress them and take them out for walks in the park in their wheelchairs. Even though they may in no way be able to comprehend it, we try to elevate them as fully as possible into the larger human community. This may bespeak a sense of duty, and you may call it a perverse sense of duty; but I believe it is duty undergirded by love.
And love, as mysterious and "impractical" as it may be, must (as I was reminded earlier in this thread) be sufficient unto itself -- or else nothing is. As you said:
Nothing you mentioned -- the things that for you make life "worth living" -- can be justified in any sense as "practical." Yet no one would question you for finding value and satisfaction in them. You love them; and we all intuitively understand that (except in cases where gross negligence or harm results) that is enough justification to do nearly anything. And I think that our care for severely handicapped people is also thus justified.
Note that I am not speaking against euthanasia, or against the aborting of fetuses tested positive for some terrible disease, both of which I think can be justified. I would, however, like to refute this idea:
In the case of a lucid person with some terminal and incapacitating illness who requests to be allowed to die and is not granted that request, then yes, I agree with you. In the case of someone whose mind is manifestly not there, then I must disagree; for such a person cannot articulate the question as to whether he desires to live or not, and it is only our own sense of revulsion at his condition that leads us to assume that his answer would surely be "no."
Many people would rather die than live in the condition that Stephen Hawking finds himself in; yet I do not believe that he unequivocally laments his existence.
EDIT: Sorry, B_S; didn't see your red text prior to posting.
The choice between a life full of discomfort, pain and escalating dependance on meds and a quick death before I could learn to fear death...that's a no-brainer for me. So I absolutely support the mother's option to abort, especially in cases of incurable defects.