(August 12, 2017 at 1:16 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: There are all kinds of people who continuously surprise us and overcome the odds. Who are we to decide for someone else that they shouldn't live because we assume their life will be nothing but a string of pointless suffering? Nonetheless, purposely killing a child for any reason seems absolutely heinous to me, but that's just me I guess.....

CL, please don't take this the wrong way, but what you are saying reminds me of mother Teresa. Forcing someone to suffer is much more heinous in my opinion than letting them go in peace. What you imagine the ideal solution to be, I guess, would be to let each individual decide their own fate and I agree that should be the case but not everyone is capable of even making that decision, and even if I take the case where they are capable of it, choosing to live on in suffering is the only option they really have. Just google a bit and you'll see there are so many children around the world who are literally begging the justice system to let them die, yet they are forced to live on in agony because in an already over-populated planet, somehow their life is just too precious. Parents all over the world already make life changing decisions for their children without bothering about consent, from genital mutilation to avoiding vaccinations, from staying away from proper education to the choice of marriage and life partner.... yet somehow helping that child out of lifelong suffering is going too far?

I am not advocating children to be murdered on a parent's whim, what I would rather prefer is we progress to a point where we won't even need to consider this kind of thing, and I believe we can get there through genetic engineering, but till we do get to that point, we shouldn't force someone to suffer just cause we are too afraid.

(August 12, 2017 at 4:33 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote:

(August 12, 2017 at 1:16 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: There are all kinds of people who continuously surprise us and overcome the odds. Who are we to decide for someone else that they shouldn't live because we assume their life will be nothing but a string of pointless suffering? Nonetheless, purposely killing a child for any reason seems absolutely heinous to me, but that's just me I guess.....

CL, please don't take this the wrong way, but what you are saying reminds me of mother Teresa. Forcing someone to suffer is much more heinous in my opinion than letting them go in peace. What you imagine the ideal solution to be, I guess, would be to let each individual decide their own fate and I agree that should be the case but not everyone is capable of even making that decision, and even if I take the case where they are capable of it, choosing to live on in suffering is the only option they really have. Just google a bit and you'll see there are so many children around the world who are literally begging the justice system to let them die, yet they are forced to live on in agony because in an already over-populated planet, somehow their life is just too precious. Parents all over the world already make life changing decisions for their children without bothering about consent, from genital mutilation to avoiding vaccinations, from staying away from proper education to the choice of marriage and life partner.... yet somehow helping that child out of lifelong suffering is going too far?

I am not advocating children to be murdered on a parent's whim, what I would rather prefer is we progress to a point where we won't even need to consider this kind of thing, and I believe we can get there through genetic engineering, but till we do get to that point, we shouldn't force someone to suffer just cause we are too afraid.

Damn, I wish I had thought to say that instead. Good one.

Whether you agree that tinkering with the human form, be it gene mods or technology is right or wrong, the time is already here. We've been using embryonic selection for decades now. At first, IVF was only for completely infertile couples, then it was for those having difficulties. Now, it's for anyone who wants to pony up the cash to take a little more control. At all of those points, embryonic selection has been one of the steps. Now we have this guy. Officially the world's first cyborg. We're on the cusp of being able to make heritable changes to DNA through artificial means (in fact, it's now a matter of government approval, not a lack in our ability). Manipulation of the human form either through DNA editing or technology is already here and I don't think there's any going back. In fact, I don't think it would even be ethical to backtrack at this point.

It isn't about forcing people so suffer, it's about not killing children. Holy shit, is this for real????

Unfortunately, the two can, in some instances, be the same.  We routinely sentence people to lives of pain and misery for kneejerk reasons about "beating odds" even when there are no odds to be beaten, only the grinding certainty of our own frailty and mortality.

The bits about an overpopulated planet are a needless addendum (people attach their hobby causes for reasons™), it wouldn't matter if there were very few of us wih plenty of space and resources, the above would still be true in those instances. Every single one of us is born to die, some of us die sooner than the others, and live in agony in that short interim. For at least some of them, death would be a release. Rather than accept the reality of our situation we make it a criminal offense for these people's lives to end.

(August 12, 2017 at 4:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It isn't about forcing people so suffer, it's about not killing children. Holy shit, is this for real????

If someone isn't allowed the chance of death, how is it any different from being forced to live?

---

(August 12, 2017 at 5:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote: The bits about an overpopulated planet are a needless addendum (people attach their hobby causes for reasons™), it wouldn't matter if there were very few of us wih plenty of space and resources

Yes I agree that even if there were just two people on the entire planet, one shouldn't force the other to suffer, but in that situation their survival is comparatively more important to the survival of the species, than when there is an overabundance of their kind.

Also people get a bit too emotional about children but a life be it of a child or an adult is still a life, and if someone is pro-life they should care for both.

(August 12, 2017 at 6:13 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: Also people get a bit too emotional about children but a life be it of a child or an adult is still a life, and if someone is pro-life they should care for both.

Pro-lifers do seem staggeringly ignorant of that. Maybe they only care about fetuses because they're too young to disagree with them?

(August 12, 2017 at 4:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It isn't about forcing people so suffer, it's about not killing children. Holy shit, is this for real????

Did you read Magi's post in full?

(August 12, 2017 at 4:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: It isn't about forcing people so suffer, it's about not killing children. Holy shit, is this for real????

Passively allowing tortuous suffering is as bad as actively doing it when you know it's going to happen and you're capable of preventing it. Yes, it's for real, it's the notion that torturing a child it's whole life is worse than letting it die in peace.

For those who say the slippery slope is just fear-mongering: HERE

I guess liberal Western democracies have decided that people with Downs don't deserve to live.