DescentBB

The following is a new example of the evils of socialist govt. where medical care is paid fully by the govt. I suppose this will be a way to lessen the burden of govt expenditures, especially for those who will have life long problems and need care. Of course once this is the accepted norm then they can start looking after other "defects".:

"A GOVERNMENT adviser on genetics has sparked fury by suggesting it might be acceptable to destroy children with â??defectsâ?? soon after they are born."

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=93982004

Now lets see who on this board we can get rid of 'cause they are defective...Rican anyone? (sorry Rican, I'm using you as a metaphor...explanation for those too defective to understand)

I guess that's what happens when you try to resolve the 'right to abort' with the understanding that the voyage to the outside of the vagina is no special life giving transformation in and of itself.
If you accept abortion as just a simple medical procedure and also believe life begins before slipping out of the womb then he's arrived at the only logical conclusion.

He has really illustrated that for pro abortion people, life begins when the government says it does....

sheesh, we're already killing America with regular abortions, now we have a trial period?!?!?!(I know that's from Scotland, but I could see it happening here too soon)

Your comparing Blair's socialist government with old Mengele and co'???...that's a bit much Woody no?

Obviously this guy is a little on the outspoken side and won't be taken very seriously. I'm sure his "advice" will lead him to be dropped like a stone by Mr Blair, and won't be called upon again.

Also, though it goes against your politics, and the system isn't perfect, the NHS in Britain is a godsend to millions. To say the system would cut a kids throat to unburden it is a bit daft. In my humble opinion of course...

FC

So,

people go out of their way to rescue a poor, helpless kitten stuck in a sewer pipe, yet its ok to kill babies with "defects" left and right?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Top Wop:
<b> So,

people go out of their way to rescue a poor, helpless kitten stuck in a sewer pipe, yet its ok to kill babies with "defects" left and right?</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kittens are cute, babies with downs are not.

I met several people with Down syndrome, they were the coolest people I've ever seen. They don't care who you are, they want to be your best friend. Killing them is barbaric. If you want to kill everyone with defects, kill me for crying out loud. I have a geneticly bent back, If that isn't a defect, than I don't know what is.

So Meathead, you're like the Hunch back of DBB?

Please note that I am not in any way trying to argue here whether abortion should be considered moral/legal. All am attempting to do is point out that this is not a ridiculous debate begun by Mr. Harris. Before we throw out everything said by Mr. Harris, consider the quote from Mr. Wilkes and its implications.

"Michael Wilkes, the chairman of the BMAâ??s ethics committee, claimed that Harris was simply trying to encourage debate and consistent thinking."

Mr. Wilkes comment is significant. It's one thing to say children with defects should be euthanized. Itâ??s a <u> very</u> different thing to say that there is no moral distinction between aborting a fetus at 40 weeks and euthanizing a newborn. All Harris is doing is saying there is no distinction. The comparison could just as well be used to justify that abortions at 40 weeks are immoral as it could to justify euthanizing children with defects. in other words, if it's wrong to euthanize at birth, it's wrong to abort at 40 weeks. Pro-lifers would be the first to agree there is no distinction. Mr. Harris makes an important point regarding consistency.

Letâ??s leave euthanasia aside for now and look only at abortion. The question is this: when does a human attain full ontological status, i.e. when does a human become a human, or when does the human animal attain personhood? The question is not, "when does life begin?â?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by woodchip:
<b> So Meathead, you're like the Hunch back of DBB?

</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Apparently so

Since we already had a big abortion debate, what I see different here is killing the born child. Last time I checked, once the child is fully passed out the mothers womb, regular laws kick in and the parents no longer have the option of "abortion". The pandoras box here is once we get used to defective infants being stabbed, then what comes next? Genetic defects that don't become apparent for a year or two?
Palzon, lets try to not get into when an abortion is acceptable or not. Once the fetus passes out of the mother it is no longer a fetus, but a infant and no longer a abortion but out and out murder of a human being.

Meathead, for whom the bell tolls...for thee apparently.

Palzon just explained my point...very well too. Better than I could have.
In my defense however I'd just like to point out I did it in one paragraph, including sarcastic undertones...and I used the word vagina

Old, "unpreductive" populace will be next.

this is just sick. Makes ME want to start killing St00pid people. And I don't mean the folks with legitamate problems.

Palz, the whole consistent argument is just another way to stretch something to its ridiculous conclusion, without looking at the details within. I mean if I wanted to argue consistency, I could try to argue that there is no difference between killing babies with major genetic defects and killing terrorists because they're both a blight on society.

While I may be on the pro-abortion side of the fence, my thinking is along the lines of the fact that it is possible to diagnose defects in a fetus well BEFORE 40 weeks. If you've waited that long, there is no reason to be able to have an abortion, unless the mother's life is threatened. I don't see how develpomental defects threaten the mother's life.

Woody, i fully understand where you and the others are coming from. I'm trying to say I think you are missing the point. This is all about the abortion debate. I don't hear this guy arguing we should euthanize defective babies. I hear him arguing that defective babies are not more morally human than a fetus at 40 weeks. The implications of this for the abortion issue are huge.

the funny thing is there is nothing novel about this idea. Harris is bringing up a point that is familiar to every second year philosophy student. the law basically sets viability as the demarcation for personhood, yet makes an exception for birth defects. the point is, with this demarcation, just as he says, there is no moral (<u> as opposed to legal</u>) difference between a fetus of 40 weeks and a newborn. there is hardly a thornier problem in ethical philosophy. that said, this article is totally sensational - it might have well been from the Weekly World News.

Read the article again. Harris is not suggesting that we implement a plan to euthenize defective babies. He's pointing out the inconsistency of the current point of demarcation chosen by the law.

Since others posted while i was responding...

Tet, if you read Wilkes quote in my first post it makes Harris make more sense and explains my whole post. I don't buy your analogy because killing terrorists is sanctioned and is occurring. Harris is an academic, not a pro-choice activist. He's looking at this from a point of view of the consistency of our demarcation for personhood. That is the whole relevance of his point.

T-bird, Harris is making an argument that is totally dependent on defects that DO go undiscovered prior to live birth.

In reply to Woodchip's original post:

In no part of the article did even the writer - let alone Mr. Harris - suggest that even if such 'terminations' were deemed acceptable and at some point lawful, that it should be the government that would dictate which deficits and which babies should be destroyed. As far as I know, the governement of any European country doesn't decide about abortions either.

Even if (and this is a really, really strong 'if') Mr. Harris means what the writer of that article wants to present, finding any reference to governmental fascism requires that you're intentionally looking for them.

As for presenting that the article is proof of the evilness of 'socialist govt. where medical care is paid fully by the govt', that's really far-fetched.