Scrolls of Lore Forums  

Go Back   Scrolls of Lore Forums > Scrolls of Lore > Halls of Lordaeron

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-24-2014, 08:14 AM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,015

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagan View Post
I'm not sure about "brain-developed" (science isn't my specialty), but late-term abortions are inevitably more tricky. I find it hard to accept the abortion of a viable foetus, that is, a foetus that could survive outside the womb.
And you realize that, thanks to technology, children can be born more prematurely today than they could hundreds of years ago. Does that mean personhood today requires slightly less physical development than personhood did in years past? Does it mean that, if future medical achievements allow a child to survive outside the womb earlier, the personhood threshold will expand when that time comes in the future? If yes to either of those, then do we really want our understanding of personhood to be based more on external factors (society's level of development) than on the internal factors of the human in question?

Also, why should that newborn have rights of personhood when my dog doesn't have those rights? My dog is more intelligent, has developed more of a personality, and has higher levels of environmental awareness. If I get hurt or killed in front of my dog and in front of the newborn, my dog is the one who is going to react with sadness or anger or confusion, while the newborn flails ignorantly. So what's the criteria here?

Last edited by BaronGrackle; 01-24-2014 at 08:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-24-2014, 09:55 AM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Well I value the fetus more than I value the dog. I value the dog more than I value the chickens/cows or any other animal I regularly eat.

It is a cultural and moral standard I think is worth having and sanctifying by law.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-24-2014, 10:09 AM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowtide View Post
Fun fact: pigs are smarter than dogs and rougly as smart as 3 year old children.

Sheep border mental retardation compared to other farm animals though.
They taste good though and are less useful. People eat dogs, cats, and horses in parts of the world. I don't like it but it is a cultural difference that I find tolerable(tolerance is not acceptance.) I wouldn't want people to be able to eat dogs, cats, or horses in the United States. I think everyone should value human life, especially that early in development where they have an entire lifetime ahead of them.

There are a lot of people that think deconstructing moral capital makes them clever. They are not.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-24-2014, 10:46 AM
Saranus Saranus is offline

Elune
Saranus's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 5,576
BattleTag: DrRobert#1475

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
Well I value the fetus more than I value the dog. I value the dog more than I value the chickens/cows or any other animal I regularly eat.

It is a cultural and moral standard I think is worth having and sanctifying by law.
Yeah, its funny you mention food because that is one of the best examples of how arbitrary morality really is. Take this list of 4 animals: Dog, Cow, Pig, Horse. Put them in order of which is most ok to eat to most taboo. Now put them in order of intelligence. The list changes completely. Now go to India and do the same thing. Now China. Now France. Now Saudi Arabia. The order is completely different in each place and for completely different reasons.

Not sure what that has to do with fetuses. Just something to think about.
__________________
Now imagine a music, dear readers, heavy with cellos at a rapid staccato. Cellos held between thighs in a dark room. The little room of Harry's chest as he walks with his teammates to the opening gate of his first Test of Cribbage. They are a rag-tag group of champions, this bunch, and with Harry, the near-perfect new god, they know they will dominate the day. Harry is a world laced with rivers of wizardly blood. He is ready.

Last edited by Saranus; 01-24-2014 at 10:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-24-2014, 11:12 AM
Eagan Eagan is offline

Eternal
Eagan's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,136

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
And you realize that, thanks to technology, children can be born more prematurely today than they could hundreds of years ago. Does that mean personhood today requires slightly less physical development than personhood did in years past? Does it mean that, if future medical achievements allow a child to survive outside the womb earlier, the personhood threshold will expand when that time comes in the future? If yes to either of those, then do we really want our understanding of personhood to be based more on external factors (society's level of development) than on the internal factors of the human in question?

Also, why should that newborn have rights of personhood when my dog doesn't have those rights? My dog is more intelligent, has developed more of a personality, and has higher levels of environmental awareness. If I get hurt or killed in front of my dog and in front of the newborn, my dog is the one who is going to react with sadness or anger or confusion, while the newborn flails ignorantly. So what's the criteria here?

Viability outside the womb without artificial means as such, is how I'd determine it. There is no real reason why animals shouldn't have the same rights. That's just the way society has arisen. I hate dogs, personally, and would put them all down if I was the murdering type. But I grew up raising chickens, find them twenty times more intelligent than a dog, and would prefer if they didn't die. It is all arbitrary.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-24-2014, 12:52 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saranus View Post
Yeah, its funny you mention food because that is one of the best examples of how arbitrary morality really is. Take this list of 4 animals: Dog, Cow, Pig, Horse. Put them in order of which is most ok to eat to most taboo. Now put them in order of intelligence. The list changes completely. Now go to India and do the same thing. Now China. Now France. Now Saudi Arabia. The order is completely different in each place and for completely different reasons.

Not sure what that has to do with fetuses. Just something to think about.
That was actually my entire point. I think a society need morals and we need to uphold them in order to keep them. If you sanctify these morals by law and education future generations wouldn't feel so indifferent towards a fetus and off-spring in general. Morality binds people together. Saying that a human life is worth more than an orgasm is a good moral to codify.

The slavery example comes up because people thought Africans were on the same level as farm animals. Some people will even justify the most depraved things if they are allowed too and it can become a regional phenomenon. When people are left to decide these things for themselves people start to grow apart, especially in a country as big as the United States. That is when infighting and a nation doesn't stand together as well.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-29-2014, 01:33 PM
Omacron Omacron is offline


Omacron's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 34,372
BattleTag: Omacron#1477

Default

Well this thread I made on Reddit blew up last night.

The TLDR version of my argument is that I think that allowing a fetus with a detected birth defect to come to term (and I must note that technological development has allowed us to detect many defects much earlier on in pregnancy than before) should be classed as a crime against humanity- a purposefully hyperbolic statement but one that I think could have some weight using our current definitions.

EDIT: It'd help if I actually posted the damn link.
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview..._being_with_a/
__________________

Last edited by Omacron; 01-29-2014 at 02:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-29-2014, 02:02 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omacron View Post
Well this thread I made on Reddit blew up last night.

The TLDR version of my argument is that I think that allowing a fetus with a detected birth defect to come to term (and I must note that technological development has allowed us to detect many defects much earlier on in pregnancy than before) should be classed as a crime against humanity- a purposefully hyperbolic statement but one that I think could have some weight using our current definitions.
That sounds like eugenics. Even people with birth defects deserve a chance at life to live up to their full potential.

With advances in healthcare though people will find more medical defects livable. I have taken growth hormone, used braces, and am taking allergy shots to help correct some of my defects I was born with. Obviously it isn't as bad as probably what you are implying but the point still stands. We should encourage and promote innovation in the medical industry and many of these defects won't be defects at all.

I volunteered with the Special Olympics before. Many of those people are happier than people that are perfectly healthy. They love every bit of life. There were many special needs people at Walmart as well and they could do their job with more pride and enthusiasm than your punk teenager.

Anyone that proposes something like this needs to be opposed and stopped.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 01-29-2014, 02:03 PM
Anansi Anansi is offline

Master Worldbuilder
Anansi's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: A Dying World
Posts: 18,016

Orb of Venom

Stop him, PJ. Dismantle Omacron.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
And the HRE was a meme that went too far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSalad View Post
You are pretty cool for being one of the bad guys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
I was probably just upset about the Horde fleet in the Second War.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-29-2014, 02:05 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anansi View Post
Stop him, PJ. Dismantle Omacron.
Evil is bad.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 01-29-2014, 02:08 PM
Omacron Omacron is offline


Omacron's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 34,372
BattleTag: Omacron#1477

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
That sounds like eugenics. Even people with birth defects deserve a chance at life to live up to their full potential.

With advances in healthcare though people will find more medical defects livable. I have taken growth hormone, used braces, and am taking allergy shots to help correct some of my defects I was born with. Obviously it isn't as bad as probably what you are implying but the point still stands. We should encourage and promote innovation in the medical industry and many of these defects won't be defects at all.

I volunteered with the Special Olympics before. Many of those people are happier than people that are perfectly healthy. They love every bit of life. There were many special needs people at Walmart as well and they could do their job with more pride and enthusiasm than your punk teenager.

Anyone that proposes something like this needs to be opposed and stopped.
If your parents could have aborted you early and kept trying until their potential fetus would not require all of those expensive treatments in the future, would that not be preferable?

EDIT: Derp, forgot to post the link to the thread which goes into my argument in more depth.
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview..._being_with_a/
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 01-29-2014, 02:14 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omacron View Post
If your parents could have aborted you early and kept trying until their potential fetus would not require all of those expensive treatments in the future, would that not be preferable?

EDIT: Derp, forgot to post the link to the thread which goes into my argument in more depth.
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview..._being_with_a/
No. I will take care of my parents in their old age and pay more in taxes than I have ever taken out. I make good use of the gift of life.

Where would your metric of 'good' genetics come in? What would make you so much more worthy of life than anyone that would be aborted?
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-29-2014, 05:15 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,015

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omacron View Post
Well this thread I made on Reddit blew up last night.

The TLDR version of my argument is that I think that allowing a fetus with a detected birth defect to come to term (and I must note that technological development has allowed us to detect many defects much earlier on in pregnancy than before) should be classed as a crime against humanity- a purposefully hyperbolic statement but one that I think could have some weight using our current definitions.

EDIT: It'd help if I actually posted the link.
http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview..._being_with_a/
So... if you come across someone who's already been born with a birth defect, then is it a crime against humanity to not kill them on the spot? If the answer is "no", then why not?

Be careful with your answer. Up to this point I've regarded your position as consistently amoral, monstrous in its rational simplicity but as such untouchable. But now if you try to say nonsense like "a person isn't really a person before being born", your intellectual credibility will drop like a stone to the bottom of the sea.


EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omacron View Post
If your parents could have aborted you early and kept trying until their potential fetus would not require all of those expensive treatments in the future, would that not be preferable?
And even after someone has born, can't we kill that person and thus spare them and their families all of the expensive treatments that are yet to come?

Come, Omacron. You're wandering into stupid territory, and I don't think you want to find yourself here.

Last edited by BaronGrackle; 01-29-2014 at 05:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 01-29-2014, 05:23 PM
Ashendant Ashendant is offline

Elune
Ashendant's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Portugal
Posts: 15,557
BattleTag: Ashendant#2130

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
But now if you try to say nonsense like "a person isn't really a person before being born", your intellectual credibility will drop like a stone to the bottom of the sea.
Only for people that believe that personhood starts at conception. For everybody else the answer will depend on the actual answer rather than definitive biased viewpoint.
__________________

Last edited by Ashendant; 01-29-2014 at 05:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-29-2014, 07:30 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashendant View Post
Only for people that believe that personhood starts at conception. For everybody else the answer will depend on the actual answer rather than definitive biased viewpoint.
Well we pass laws and penalize people that break them. We can't just have people committing murder, rape, or theft just because they justified it in their heads. This is just something we have to legislative push for. I bet once it is restricted the newer generations wouldn't even have a second thought about it being acceptable. They grew up like that.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 01-29-2014, 07:33 PM
SmokeBlader SmokeBlader is offline

Elune
SmokeBlader's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 30,978

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
Well we pass laws and penalize people that break them. We can't just have people committing murder, rape, or theft just because they justified it in their heads. This is just something we have to legislative push for. I bet once it is restricted the newer generations wouldn't even have a second thought about it being acceptable. They grew up like that.
Future generations won't be mindless androids who accept all the shit you shove in their heads.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 01-29-2014, 07:34 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeBlader View Post
Future generations won't be mindless androids who accept all the shit you shove in their heads.
Those kind of thoughts are culturally acquired. That is why society changes so much over history.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 01-29-2014, 07:51 PM
Leviathon Leviathon is offline

Elune
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 21,434
BattleTag: Leviathonlx#1820

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
That sounds like eugenics. Even people with birth defects deserve a chance at life to live up to their full potential.

With advances in healthcare though people will find more medical defects livable. I have taken growth hormone, used braces, and am taking allergy shots to help correct some of my defects I was born with. Obviously it isn't as bad as probably what you are implying but the point still stands. We should encourage and promote innovation in the medical industry and many of these defects won't be defects at all.

I volunteered with the Special Olympics before. Many of those people are happier than people that are perfectly healthy. They love every bit of life. There were many special needs people at Walmart as well and they could do their job with more pride and enthusiasm than your punk teenager.

Anyone that proposes something like this needs to be opposed and stopped.
Eugenics isn't a bad thing if done right (right as in not basing it on things like race but basing it on actual medical problems). I know I'd get a lot of hate for it but I see no problem with doing things like aborting a fetus that we know is mentally retarded that will offer absolutely nothing to society besides adding to our population that doesn't need adding to.

Last edited by Leviathon; 01-29-2014 at 07:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 01-29-2014, 08:22 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathon View Post
Eugenics isn't a bad thing if done right (right as in not basing it on things like race but basing it on actual medical problems). I know I'd get a lot of hate for it but I see no problem with doing things like aborting a fetus that we know is mentally retarded that will offer absolutely nothing to society besides adding to our population that doesn't need adding to.
Then you would have people that would want to abort homosexual babies or make welfare recipients infertile. Instead of arbitrarily deciding who gets to live and die based off of something like that we should let them make choices first.

You won't get hated on for that kind of opinion. This is an internet forum. The repressed get to voice their opinions free of consequences here.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 01-29-2014, 08:46 PM
Omacron Omacron is offline


Omacron's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 34,372
BattleTag: Omacron#1477

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post
So... if you come across someone who's already been born with a birth defect, then is it a crime against humanity to not kill them on the spot? If the answer is "no", then why not?
The crime against humanity is predicated on the "degrading". If someone's born with a birth defect that was preventable or even caused by their parents, it's their parents' fault, not the individuals'.


I've long been of the opinion that drinking, smoking, or otherwise ingesting chemicals that negatively influence a gestating human, the bringing it to term, is child abuse, and this is the next logical step from it.

Quote:
And even after someone has born, can't we kill that person and thus spare them and their families all of the expensive treatments that are yet to come?

Come, Omacron. You're wandering into stupid territory, and I don't think you want to find yourself here.
If they opt into it? Sure! I'm fine with assisted suicide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
Then you would have people that would want to abort homosexual babies or make welfare recipients infertile. Instead of arbitrarily deciding who gets to live and die based off of something like that we should let them make choices first.

You won't get hated on for that kind of opinion. This is an internet forum. The repressed get to voice their opinions free of consequences here.
AFAIK poverty isn't a heritable trait, and we can't yet detect homosexuality in the womb. If we could, I'm honestly on the fence about aborting homosexual fetuses and trying again for a straight one, and I could conceive of arguments for and against it.
__________________

Last edited by Omacron; 01-29-2014 at 08:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 01-29-2014, 08:48 PM
PajamaSalad PajamaSalad is offline

Elune
PajamaSalad's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Undisclosed location in the Universe.
Posts: 42,139

Default

I do think doing drugs or alcohol while pregnant should be considered severe child abuse. I don't think killing them though is justified.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-29-2014, 09:08 PM
BaronGrackle BaronGrackle is offline

Echo of the Past
BaronGrackle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 15,015

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashendant View Post
Only for people that believe that personhood starts at conception.
Only for people who believe that all human beings are people. For the rest of you, I'm sure you're content to work out some bullshit definition for "sapience" that has no relationship with reality.

Let me know when you're finally ready to explain how a newborn has more sapience/personhood than a well-trained dog who actually lives life, is aware of his surroundings, and feels emotions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviathon View Post
Eugenics isn't a bad thing if done right (right as in not basing it on things like race but basing it on actual medical problems). I know I'd get a lot of hate for it but I see no problem with doing things like aborting a fetus that we know is mentally retarded that will offer absolutely nothing to society besides adding to our population that doesn't need adding to.
And again, are you okay with eliminating people who are born already, who have mental retardation or who add nothing to society?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omacron View Post
The crime against humanity is predicated on the "degrading". If someone's born with a birth defect that was preventable or even caused by their parents, it's their parents' fault, not the individuals'.
Okay. So... you're in favor of terminating the parents, instead of the child?

I'm not sure what your point is here. But you came on here knowing I'd call your opinion foolhardy if you started talking like an unborn human was somehow not a human, or had less "personhood" than a born child. Knowing that, I'm a little surprised you didn't have some sort of explanation ready to defend your position a little more strongly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omacron View Post
If they opt into it? Sure! I'm fine with assisted suicide.
Well, you could always have it done while they were sleeping or otherwise unconscious. There's no worries about whether they "opt" in or out, in that case.

EDIT: Of course, with some people who have certain mental defects, you might convince them to opt in. Even if they don't fully understand that. I suppose you might be onboard with that.

Last edited by BaronGrackle; 01-29-2014 at 09:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-29-2014, 09:16 PM
Leviathon Leviathon is offline

Elune
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 21,434
BattleTag: Leviathonlx#1820

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pajamasalad View Post
Then you would have people that would want to abort homosexual babies or make welfare recipients infertile. Instead of arbitrarily deciding who gets to live and die based off of something like that we should let them make choices first.

You won't get hated on for that kind of opinion. This is an internet forum. The repressed get to voice their opinions free of consequences here.
Well I'm not of the belief that homosexuality is genetic yet (though I can care less either way about the whole marriage thing) since there's yet to be a 'gay gene' found when there's been cases of identical twins where 1 is gay and other is not. So there's no concern at the moment and if it was found to be genetic it'd go with race as something that you wouldn't base eugenics on since it has no negative impact on that persons ability to contribute to society (unless you count not adding to our 7 billion population as a negative).

As for welfare people. I have absolutely no problems limiting them to only 1 child and forcing sterilization through the food they get from the government since I feel that is one way that could be used to try and fix the problems in the inner cities. Overall I feel we let emotional reasoning negate what logical decisions should be made in many cases such as how when AID's started we should have just quarantined all the people with it preventing the entire epidemic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post

And again, are you okay with eliminating people who are born already, who have mental retardation or who add nothing to society?
.
People already alive I have no issue living the rest of their lives but they'd just be the 'last of their kind' so to speak.

Last edited by Leviathon; 01-29-2014 at 09:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-29-2014, 09:17 PM
Shroombie Shroombie is offline

Eternal
Shroombie's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,262

Default

All I'm gonna say is that I would totally eat a dog or a cat.
__________________
...Place loses all significance...
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-29-2014, 09:38 PM
Omacron Omacron is offline


Omacron's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 34,372
BattleTag: Omacron#1477

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronGrackle View Post



Okay. So... you're in favor of terminating the parents, instead of the child?

I'm not sure what your point is here. But you came on here knowing I'd call your opinion foolhardy if you started talking like an unborn human was somehow not a human, or had less "personhood" than a born child. Knowing that, I'm a little surprised you didn't have some sort of explanation ready to defend your position a little more strongly?
Correction: I was expecting Bolvar to bitch at me, not you.

Anyway, the "crime" is committed by the parent, not the offspring. The parent should be punished for not terminating the offspring, though, but I'm not sure if it's a crime worthy of execution.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
barongrackle is right!, inappropriately named, morally indefensible, not done yet, population control

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.