Originally posted by ivanhoeIf you ever want to stop these ridiculous personal attacks and actually debate an issue, I'll be around. I say you lie when you do; and when you said that the Groningen Protocols allow the killing of handicapped and/or disabled children up to age 12, that was a deliberate falsehood on your part i.e. a lie. When you say the doctors will have the ultimate decision, not the parents that is another lie. If you don't want to be called a liar, don't lie.
I wish you would stop jumping to conclusions and stop labelling my intentions in a negative way. How on earth is it possible to discuss anything with you. I tried it over and over and again. You are just not willing to understand anythin ...[text shortened]... r if you have the capacity of understanding anything at all ...
I am a fervent advocate of individual liberties and limited government; pretty much of all my political positions flow from those two basic beliefs. Your description of me is laughable and it certainly describes your persona on this site far more than mine. You are the one that wants the State to intervene in all kinds of situations because you believe your moral beliefs should be enforced on others; it is ironic for you to call me an "extremely dominant man". And I have consistently opposed the use of military force while you always endorse it; who's "violent", Ivanhoe?
Again, you obviously have a lot of personal anger at people who disagree with you and take these little arguments wayyyyyy too seriously. I suggest you calm down and when you want to actually debate issues rather than hurl personal insults, I'll be here. Godspeed, Ivanhoe.
Originally posted by ivanhoeHere is your opportunity, Ivanhoe, your chance. Help us understand.
There is NO EFFORT WHATSOEVER on your part to try and understand your opponent. It is sad to say but I sometimes wonder if you have the capacity of understanding anything at all ...
What is your objection to the GP as it is currently written?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio
Here is your opportunity, Ivanhoe, your chance. Help us understand.
What is your objection to the GP as it is currently written?
Nemesio
Still not willing to reveal the church community you belong to ?
Seeing your stances on different subjects it might as well be satan's church .......😕
Originally posted by no1marauder
Well again this is merely a variant of the abortion debate. I would not support allowing anyone to blind or make deaf a newborn for the same reason I would not allow maiming of any kind by one individual of another. A new born child is still an autonomous individual in my view.
But we know a newborn is not autonomous. It is entirely dependant on another autonomous being for its most basic neccesity, sustenance.
As you've claimed that a parent is not harming its offspring by engineering it in a fashion to promote a certain trait (in this case blindness) and that it is up to the parents to choose whether to attempt to engineer this trait, could you explain the logic behind your belief that there is any difference between applying this trait prior to and after birth ?
thanks
pc
Originally posted by pcaspianI already did. In my dictionary "Autonomous" means: "existing or capable of existing independently". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. A newborn child certainly exists independently of its parents; its parents are not strictly required for its survival (any adult would do). I would prefer this not to get bogged down into semantics, but it looks like we're headed that way. I regard a newborn child or a viable fetus as a seperate entity capable of independent existence; whereas a collection of sperm and egg cells is not and a nonviable fetus is wholly contained within a woman's body and is not capable of a seperate and independent existence. This is, again, merely the abortion debate all over again.
[b/]Originally posted by no1marauder
Well again this is merely a variant of the abortion debate. I would not support allowing anyone to blind or make deaf a newborn for the same reason I would not allow maiming of any kind b ...[text shortened]... n applying this trait prior to and after birth ?
thanks
pc
Originally posted by no1marauder
I already did. In my dictionary "Autonomous" means: "existing or capable of existing independently".
Ok, to prevent a debate on autonomy, could you explain to me why this should play a part in a why a parent is not allowed to blind or deafen a newborn, should they themselves be blind or deaf ? Afterall it surely is not immoral to perform an operation on a newborn to "repair" a cleft lip ? You previously stated "they wanted a child similar to them like most parents do." Should this be the motive of the deaf couple, could you explain why your understanding of the definition of autonomy should play any part is determining a moral difference pre and post birth (taking into account the cleft lip example) ?
pc
Originally posted by pcaspianI'm not arguing morals has I stated earlier. My position is based on individual innate rights which leads to a theory of limited government. An individual who is already born has a right not to be deprived of something he already has i.e. be it sight or hearing or physical beauty or dozens of other characteristics or his life for that matter. Neither a government or his parents have an absolute right over him since he is already an individual.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] I already did. In my dictionary "Autonomous" means: "existing or capable of existing independently".
Ok, to prevent a debate on autonomy, could you explain to me why this should play a part in a why a parent is not allowed to blind or deafen a newborn, should they themselves be blind or deaf ? ...[text shortened]... ng a moral difference pre and post birth (taking into account the cleft lip example) ?
pc
[/b]
A possible person has no rights at all; he has no existence which would impart rights to him. To argue otherwise is to argue that potential parents have an affirmative duty to avoid doing any possible harm to the potential person. Thus, two deaf or blind people would not be allowed to procreate because if would enhance the possibility that the child would be born deaf or blind, which most of society would regard as a "harm". Since I have answered your questions directly, I would ask you directly should people who have a genetic predisposition towards deafness or blindness be legally required to be sterilized or forbidden to marry others having the same "disability". To me, this would be severely restricting the rights of existing persons to protect the non-existent rights of possible persons. As I do not believe that the government should restrict fundamental individual rights like procreative ones without a compelling government interest and I see none here, I oppose the government either saying you can't procreate in a certain way or you must procreate. Therefore, I believe my positions on forced sterilization, allowing this couple their choice to procreate and abortion are all consistent.
Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not arguing morals has I stated earlier. My position is based on individual innate rights which leads to a theory of limited government. An individual who is already born has a right not to be deprived of something he already has i.e. be it sight or hearing or physical beauty or dozens of other characteristics or his life for that matter.
Sorry, what do you mean by "I'm not arguing morals has I stated earlier" ? Do you not support the same morals as previously mentioned in this thread or are you refering to morals stated in an abortion thread ? If the latter, may I point out to you that your argument for abortion would not have held any position on the impact of the individual when born. As we know an aborted foetus would not actually be born.
Since I have answered your questions directly, I would ask you directly should people who have a genetic predisposition towards deafness or blindness be legally required to be sterilized or forbidden to marry others having the same "disability".
Not trying to be pedantic, but you haven't fully answered my question.
I purposefully mentioned the example of parents having a child with a cleft lip, operated on so that that child can resemble it's parents, something which you previously claimed a valid reason for a deaf couple to attempt to have a deaf child. You neglected to make any mention of this in your reply. As such I will ask you to try answer the question again and ask that you explain specifically why one case may be morally permissable (cleft lip), should this be your view, and the other case not (blind) keeping in mind your original response of "they wanted a child similar to them like most parents do."
Whilst I appreciate your views on abortion, the fundamental difference (as mentioned in this response) is that the abortion of a foetus prevents that which you consider a 'person', however in this case the impacts of the parents prior to birth, do impact the person.
thanks.
Originally posted by pcaspianI see you're perfectly willing to dodge my question while I answer yours. Fine; that's how you play the game.
[b/]Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not arguing morals has I stated earlier. My position is based on individual innate rights which leads to a theory of limited government. An individual who is already born has a right not ...[text shortened]... s of the parents prior to birth, do impact the person.
thanks.
I don't see this as a personal moral question on what I think is right, but as an issue over what power the government should have to enforce a majority position on "morality" on unwilling individuals. I thought my posts made that clear, but you keep asking about "morals": to me my personal morals are irrelevant for the reasons provided.
I do not understand your cleft lip example; a cleft lip is a physical deformity and a potential health threatening one, so I would have no problem with ALLOWING parents to direct that such a condition be corrected. I would not say that the government should REQUIRE that all children with a cleft lip MUST have such surgery. A corrective surgery of a cleft lip does not deprive the child of anything like blinding it or maiming would so I fail to see your point but I assume the answer I've given is sufficient (I'm sure it won't be and you will continue to refuse to do me the courtesy of answering my question).
Originally posted by ivanhoeOff topic. Talk about a read herring!
Still not willing to reveal the church community you belong to ?
Seeing your stances on different subjects it might as well be satan's church .......😕
Here is your chance. Educate us: what is your explicit
objection to the terms of the GP?
It's the topic of the thread.
Nemesio
Originally posted by pcaspianHey pcaspian,
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] I'm not arguing morals has I stated earlier. My position is based on individual innate rights which leads to a theory of limited government. An individual who is already born has a right not ...[text shortened]... the parents prior to birth, do impact the person.
thanks.[/b]
While you are dodging #1s question, why don't you answer mine?
Do you believe that it is unethical for infertile couples to select sperm
and/or eggs on the basis of intelligence or athleticism?
If so, then why not another trait like deafness?
Recall that selecting eggs/sperm in this fashion doesn't guarantee
athleticism, intelligence or deafness, it only increases the likelihood.
I look forward to your answer.
Nemesio
Originally posted by no1marauder
I see you're perfectly willing to dodge my question while I answer yours. Fine; that's how you play the game.
My apology. Indeed I did not answer your question, I simply forgot. Let me try.
I would ask you directly should people who have a genetic predisposition towards deafness or blindness be legally required to be sterilized or forbidden to marry others having the same "disability"
My answer is indeed a resounding no. I do not believe it to be immoral for anyone to attempt to have children, irrespective of the level of their 'disability', this is providing they attempt to conceive a child for purposes of love. In fact, should two deaf couples know they will produce a deaf child, I still do not see anything wrong with it. My only problem is any couple wanting to endow their children with a defective gene, or as you stated "deprive the child of anything like blinding it or maiming" Ofcourse you may claim blindness is not a defect, nor is deafness, but again we will be discussing semantics. From a perspective of a the normal human person, a gene which prevents the otherwise normal functioning of an organ would certain be considered defective, but again our view on defective is irrelevant as you seem to believe you are indeed depriving a child by removing such a function.
I don't see this as a personal moral question on what I think is right, but as an issue over what power the government should have to enforce a majority position on "morality" on unwilling individuals.
Ok, let us not confuse the issue of legality with morality for that is rather off-topic, or can be discussed further down in this discussion. No point trying to enforce legality when we haven't even contemplated the morality of an act. As such, lets debate the moral aspect of the issue.
I do not understand your cleft lip example; a cleft lip is a physical deformity and a potential health threatening one, so I would have no problem with ALLOWING parents to direct that such a condition be corrected. A corrective surgery of a cleft lip does not deprive the child of anything like blinding it or maiming would so I fail to see your point but I assume the answer I've given is sufficient
Ok, you've stated that removing sight / hearing from a child is sufficient to 'deprive' a child of something. This is a bad thing right, ie: immoral ? Based on that assumption, I need to understand why it is ok however, to do this prior to a child being born (but the child still ends up without sight/hearing), but not after birth (child goes without sight/hearing). Keep in mind that babies do not actually have any memories from the first couple of years of life, so "not know what they're missing" would not be a feasible differential. Thus, as this couple purposefully attempted to conceive a child 'deprived' or something, why would you consider this morally permissive, but not should they purposefully remove this ability just after childbirth ?
thanks
pc
[/b]
Originally posted by pcaspianI believe I have already addressed the difference between depriving an individual of something that he has and what this couple did which is to increase the POSSIBILITY that they might not get something. I don't know what more I can add.
Originally posted by no1marauder
[b] I see you're perfectly willing to dodge my question while I answer yours. Fine; that's how you play the game.
My apology. Indeed I did not answer your question, I simply forgot. Let me try.
I would ask you directly should people who have a genetic predisposition towards deafness or blindn ...[text shortened]... ly remove this ability just after childbirth ?
thanks
pc
[/b]
I really cannot debate this from a moral prespective; as I said I am not a philosopher. I got involved in this thread only because some people were asserting that State power should be used to either treat these people as criminals or to allow them to be sued by their own children because they were born deaf. The legal issue is really all that I am interested in; as to the rest is a personal issue for the parents to decide. It's still very unclear to me why the INTENT of the parents is so determinative of the morality in your view: a child born deaf because two deaf people with a genetic predisposition procreate is just as "harmed" as a child born deaf because the parents increased the chances that it would be born deaf (as did the deaf couple). I do not understand the difference quite frankly.
Whether the child would remember it was deprived of something by maiming it is not important in my view; it would still be deprived of something it ACTUALLY had rather than something it POTENTIALLY might or might not have. There are people who cannot remember they are the victims of rapes or assaults but that does not entitle the rapists or assaulter to escape scotfree; the act itself is the wrong. The point I have made is that parents do not have an ABSOLUTE right to do with a living child what they please because it is a distinct and seperate organism which is capable of living without THEM; whereas a possible person has no rights at all. I don't think I can make it any clearer.
Originally posted by no1marauder
I believe I have already addressed the difference between depriving an individual of something that he has and what this couple did which is to increase the POSSIBILITY that they might not get something. I don't know what more I can add.
I believe motive, instead of possibility of success is the defining factor in morality. eg: Intent to kill yet failing because of a faulty trigger, is no reason to consider an act 'morally permissable'. So for arguments sake, lets simply assume that this couple planned to conceive a child "deprived" of hearing. We know their motive for they they went to the extremes to highten their chances of this happening (50 pct). I also state that motive is important in a legal sense. A mother would certainly be considered unfit and her child removed, should a judge deem that she wishes to harm her child, but her attempts thus far have failed.
I really cannot debate this from a moral prespective; as I said I am not a philosopher. I got involved in this thread only because some people were asserting that State power should be used to either treat these people as criminals or to allow them to be sued by their own children because they were born deaf. The legal issue is really all that I am interested in;
I don't believe you need to be a philosopher to air your views on morality, not do you have to be a philosopher to have valid views on morality. However should you feel this a requirement, I will undestand should you not wish to continue this discussion.
It's still very unclear to me why the INTENT of the parents is so determinative of the morality in your view: a child born deaf because two deaf people with a genetic predisposition procreate is just as "harmed" as a child born deaf because the parents increased the chances that it would be born deaf (as did the deaf couple). I do not understand the difference quite frankly.
For the same reason there lies a difference between purposefully killing a pedestrian and accidentally killing a pedestrian. As you said, they are both dead, but the motive certainly determined the moral implications of the act.
The point I have made is that parents do not have an ABSOLUTE right to do with a living child what they please because it is a distinct and seperate organism which is capable of living without THEM; whereas a possible person has no rights at all. I don't think I can make it any clearer.
Ok, but I ask you to clarify what difference it would make to the person and the state of morality whether the parents removed its hearing/sight prior to it becoming a 'person' or after becoming a person. This is the important part
The main question I want you to answer is as follows :
1. The child will grow up to be a deaf adult, unable to listen to music, or see a beautiful sunset (in the case of it being blind).So why are we recognising the rights of the adult only after birth and not prior to birth ?
If you don't have a view on this from the perspective of morality, you need not answer. I would naturally however assume you to have some belief of morals regardless of the legal aspect.
thanks.
Originally posted by pcaspian1) A deaf person does not opine that they are deprived. Indeed, they
Ok, you've stated that removing sight / hearing from a child is sufficient to 'deprive' a child of something. This is a bad thing right, ie: immoral ? Based on that assumption, I need to understand why it is ok however, to do this prior to a child being born (but the child still ends up without sight/hearing), but not after birth (child goes without sight/hearing).
embrace their deafness as a positive and integral part of their being.
2) The difference is that you are only looking at the end result. In the
first case, the being had something and had it removed. In the second
case (when you happen to choose a sperm and egg that both have the
deafness gene), the being (whether you view it as such from conception
or birth) never had hearing and was never 'robbed' of anything. The
selection of the sperm and egg not only occurs prior to the being's being
born, but prior to the being's existence at all.
This is why, if you are going to claim that selecting sperm and eggs for
deafness (a trait which, by the deaf community's own expression, is not
a negative one) is immoral, the you have to claim that selecting for
intelligence or athleticism is also immoral.
Nemesio