Denmark plans to erradicate Down Syndrome by 2030

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No it doesn't - calling something "human" or not is a semantic issue and therefore cannot possibly have any relevance for deciding moral issues.

What!!

It might help to read your posts before you post them. 😛

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Ok.. so you don't actually have even a semi-intelligent or intelligible response. Got it.

There isn't much controversy here outside of the controversy I think you seem to want to spark.

How is it somehow immoral to encourage people to have a test? No one is being forced to even have the test.

Let me ask you something, would you have the test? If so, would you abort? If not, why not?

Originally posted by whodey
What!!

It might help to read your posts before you post them. 😛

Is there any part of my post you don't understand?

Originally posted by whodey
Let me ask you something, would you have the test? If so, would you abort? If not, why not?

I wouldn't because my wife would never go for it and it's ultimately her choice. But I would certainly be open to the idea.

But then I don't consider abortion to be murder.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
I wouldn't because my wife would never go for it and it's ultimately her choice. But I would certainly be open to the idea.

But then I don't consider abortion to be murder.

Why would your wife never go for it?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Is there any part of my post you don't understand?

Pretty much all of it. Do you care to try again?

Originally posted by whodey
Pretty much all of it. Do you care to try again?

Using semantics as a way to back moral judgement is essentially a circular argument. Think about it a little longer.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Using semantics as a way to back moral judgement is essentially a circular argument. Think about it a little longer.

Undo your top button. Deep-throat a corn dog. Polka with serpents. You're too stiff - too relaxed - to make an American Impact.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Using semantics as a way to back moral judgement is essentially a circular argument. Think about it a little longer.

But without semantics, we have no moral compass. Words are assigned value and value is what we base our morals upon. There is no way around it.

Originally posted by whodey
http://takeyourvitaminz.blogspot.com/2011/08/denmark-sets-eugenic-goals-for-2030.html

Denmark it seems plans to promote aborting feteuses suspected of having Down Syndrome, so then society will be free of such people around 2030.

Discuss.

This seems to be quite a bold policy of social engeneering.

While I understand it may rouse the hackles of some people, I think ultimately the goverment of Denmark has the best interests of its people when aiming at such a goal. Mental illness is not only a burden on parents but it also prevents children from enjoying healthy and productive lives, for the reasons we all know.

From what I've seen the government while encouraging such abortions does seem to leave the decision within the parents' discretion, so I suppose there is nothing here one can reasonably conclude to be reprehensible.

Originally posted by whodey
Why would your wife never go for it?

Because she's against abortion. She's not against women having the choice, it's just not for her. I'm not going to elaborate why beyond that because it's personal.

Originally posted by whodey
But without semantics, we have no moral compass. Words are assigned value and value is what we base our morals upon. There is no way around it.

Yes, there is. Many ways, actually. Morals can and do exist independent from language and arbitrary categorizations.

Originally posted by generalissimo
This seems to be quite a bold policy of social engeneering.

While I understand it may rouse the hackles of some people, I think ultimately the goverment of Denmark has the best interests of its people when aiming at such a goal. Mental illness is not only a burden on parents but it also prevents children from enjoying healthy and productive lives, f ...[text shortened]... iscretion, so I suppose there is nothing here one can reasonably conclude to be reprehensible.

I think the government utopia would be if you could somehow do screening for cancer, heart disease, mental illness etc, then possibly you could bring into the world a healthy blue eyed blond haired group of people that would not drive up health care costs and be "productive" members of society.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, there is. Many ways, actually. Morals can and do exist independent from language and arbitrary categorizations.

Examples?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Because she's against abortion. She's not against women having the choice, it's just not for her. I'm not going to elaborate why beyond that because it's personal.

So in your estimation you would agree that the only reason to have the test would be to have an abortion if the tests came back "bad"?