Baby boy survives for nearly two days after abortion

[jerney]

I support abortion rights, but something just seems wrong about this. At the same time I think it's ridiculous to allow an abortion on a 22 week old fetus, but once it survives consider it homicide if doctors don't attempt to prolong its life. This may sound cold, but if the fetus survives abortion (I'm not entirely sure how that works in the first place) then they should just euthanize the fetus soon after. What strikes me as inhumane is allowing it to sit there and die slowly for hours or days.


A baby boy abandoned by doctors to die after a botched abortion was found alive nearly a day later.

The 22-week infant died one day later in intensive care at a hospital in the mother's home town of Rossano in southern Italy.

The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her baby was disabled.

However, the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabro hospital, and was left by doctors to die.

He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body.

He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing.

The priest raised the alarm and doctors immediately arranged for the infant to be taken to a specialist neo-natal unit at the neighbouring Cosenza hospital, where he died on Monday morning.

Italian police are investigating the case for "homicide" because infanticide is illegal in Italy.

The law means that doctors have had an obligation to try to preserve the life of the child once he had survived the abortion.

The Italian government is also considering an inquiry into the conduct of the hospital staff.

Eugenia Roccella, the under-secretary of state in the health department, on Wednesday night promised a government inquiry into the incident.

“The minister of health will send inspectors to the hospital in Rossano Calabro to investigate what actually happened, and to see if the Law 194, which prohibits abortion when there is a possibility of the foetus living separately from the mother, and permits it only when the continuation of the pregnancy would result in life-threatening danger to the mother.”

She said that if initial information is correct, “this would be a case of deliberate abandonment of a seriously premature neonate, possibly also with some form of disability, an act contrary to any sense of human compassion but also of any accepted professional medical practice".

She added: “We must remember that a baby, once born, is an Italian citizen equal to all the others, and is entitled to all fundamental rights, including the right to health and therefore to be given full support.”

The case has reignited controversy on the legality of abortion in the Roman Catholic country.

It could also raise questions in Britain over the legal upper limits for abortion and the viability of the foetus – or its ability to survive outside of the womb.

A spokesman for the ProLife Alliance said: "There cannot be anybody in the world who is not horrified by a story like this nor anybody in the UK who would not support a massive reduction in the upper limit for abortion."

Most abortions at 22 weeks simply involve the induction of the birth which normally results in the death of a young foetus.

The case is causing uproar in Italy because it is the second involving a foetus of that age surviving the procedure in just three years.

The other involved a baby in Florence who weighed just 17oz when he was aborted at 22 weeks because of a suspected genetic disorder, but lived for three days.

Since 1978, abortion has been available on demand in Italy in the first three months of pregnancy but is restricted to specific circumstances – such as disability- in the second trimester. The government is considering a review of the working of the laws.

The case also comes as figures in Britain revealed last week that the number of babies born weighing only 2lbs has more than doubled in just two years.

Yet the proportion of tiny babies born stillborn has nearly halved, the health service statistics have shown.

The figures do not reveal at what stage the babies were born but a child weighing under 2lbs is likely to have been born at least three months early.

They will inevitably include some born alive at an age when they could, in other circumstances, have been aborted.

More than 200,000 abortions are performed each year, most for non-medical reasons within the legal upper limit of 24 weeks gestation.

The increasing number of babies surviving below 24 weeks, partly because of advances in medicine, has led to widespread calls for the legal upper limit to be further reduced.

Attempts to lower the limit failed in Parliament in 2008.

In 2005 a baby boy in Manchester was born alive at 24 weeks after surviving three attempts to abort him. He is now a five-year-old schoolboy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7646540/Baby-boy-survives-for-nearly-two-days-after-abortion.html

[Beorn]

Should drag that bitch out head first with a pair of tweezers and dump her on a cold slab, and see how she fairs.

I'll never understand the people who abort their babies. Mind you, I don't understand the minds of murderers, so I never will.

[Cato]

:grumpy:

[Great Dane]

Abortion is murder. So is euthanizing newborns. It is no wonder our societies are dying out with this sort of attitude towards life.

[Agrippa]

Abortion is murder. So is euthanizing newborns. It is no wonder our societies are dying out with this sort of attitude towards life.

Abortion is free choice, the problem comes from people just wanting no family and children, that attitude must be changed. We must look at the value of the family, bloodline and group though, rather than pseudoreligious moral.

But there are cases in which the decision to abort is reasonable and it was practised in most societies until Christianity, even infanticide was, its just natural to choose in a societies which had to decide which one lives and which won't, with rare ressources.

In this case the woman in question acted absolutely rational and exemplary, no reason to blame her for anything, because, as the article says:

The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her baby was disabled.

Thats the best reason for an abortion, because if the prenatal scans were right, that wouldn't have been a healthy and valuable child, carrier of the bloodline and group member anyway.

So I'm assuming she wanted a child, just a healthy one. That attitude is the best, because people who don't care what they get and how they can and want care for their children are a plague.

Yes to children and family, carrying on the own bloodline, tradition and group. But for that, we need healthy children with good traits and if we can detect that this won't be the case and unless we can correct a defect in the germline before birth, before being active in the phenotype and being carried on in the next generations, abortion is the only choice.


Should drag that bitch out head first with a pair of tweezers and dump her on a cold slab, and see how she fairs.

She's a developed human, a developed personality with a consciousness and she acted just right, the foetus on the other hand was not developed but rather a future human being, in this case one with a (presumably) serious defect.

The only tragical thing in this case would have been if the doctors were wrong and the child would have been healthy. And of course its tragical for the woman, because she wanted a healthy child, that didnt worked out, now she has this "scandal" and experience too. Really nothing one would wish anybody, it was just very bad luck so to say...

If she's a good European woman with a good European partner, I just hope it works out the next time.

Personally I wouldnt want a woman to abort my offspring, even if the situation would be suboptimal, most likely not even after an affair, but for one reason: Detected negative traits.

[Beorn]

In this case the woman in question acted absolutely rational and exemplary, no reason to blame her for anything, because, as the article says:


The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her baby was disabled.

Thats the best reason for an abortion, because if the prenatal scans were right, that wouldn't have been a healthy and valuable child, carrier of the bloodline and group member anyway.

I'll agree with you in that given a choice anyone would wish to have a healthy child, but I personally have to yet come across a midwife, doctor, potential parent who has taken, condoned, witnessed, etc, this test and had the results come through 100% as foretold.

I know 2 very close friends who apparently were supposed to have disabled children, yet bore 2 very healthy children.

Gutter talk now, but this whore decided wrong. May she rot in Hell.

[Agrippa]

I'll agree with you in that given a choice anyone would wish to have a healthy child, but I personally have to yet come across a midwife, doctor, potential parent who has taken, condoned, witnessed, etc, this test and had the results come through 100% as foretold.

I know 2 very close friends who apparently were supposed to have disabled children, yet bore 2 very healthy children.

I heard of such cases too. In one case the doctor diagnosed microcephaly, but just because he calculated the wrong way. The father, a doctor too, looked at it a second time, came to the correct result and didnt do the abortion - the girl was healthy.

Such things happen, especially if the problem can't be detected genetically, but just in the ultrasound and the doctor is not very experienced or simply capable. Still the failures are quite rare and the methods highly valuable. Its like it is with many other modern medical methods, they usually help a lot, but in some rare cases they can cause more troubles than the disease itself, thats statistics.


Gutter talk now, but this whore decided wrong. May she rot in Hell.

That the foetus still lived doesnt mean he was healthy, unless we get more information on the case. And I can imagine much worse crimes than caring for a healthy child and the group, which is no crime but just responsibility and exemplary behaviour.

Another case for constrasting it: One woman got twins - two Down Syndrome twins. She got the message from the doctor just in time and could have aborted, but she decided to carry them out, now she has a full time job with these two "Mongoloid" children with trisomy 21 and said: "They keep me busy all the time, originally I wanted more children, but now I want to care for them with all my energy and dont need more children..."

Now thats something for going to hell, because its too stupid for being not punished! Ruining the own life and bloodline, harm the group, even though having a choice, getting no healthy children and caring the rest of her life for a branch which will die off anyway...

THATS a problem case, not that exemplary woman which did the right thing under difficult circumstances.

[W. R.]

Do as Spartans did: let a baby be born and in case he/she is disabled throw him/her into an abyss.

[Pallantides]

I believe the Inuits and other Arctic cultures had a similar practice when it came to disabled or defective newborns.

[W. R.]

I believe the Inuits and other Arctic cultures had a similar practice when it came to disabled or defective newborns.The difference between abortion and infanticide isn't that big as we usually believe it is.

[Daos]

Do as Spartans did: let a baby be born and in case he/she is disabled throw him/her into an abyss.

And what would the nanny state say about that? :chin: You don't decide what you do with your children, your state does!:richter:

[Lars]

This is cruel. The doctors should make damn sure the fetuses are dead.

It's not a baby. It's a fetus!

Kill defectives.

Edit: Forgiveness from Christians really shrines through in this thread.

[Monolith]

This is quite disturbing. Both the doctors and this thing that gave birth to the unfortunate child should be tried for first degree murder and locked up indefinitely.

No mercy for those who showed none.

[W. R.]

And what would the nanny state say about that? :chin: You don't decide what you do with your children, your state does!:richter:Yes, a properly organised state must do it, as it was in Sparta. The Lukashist Republic of Belarus is not Sparta, and I didn't mean my country.

[Autobahn]

I'm pro-choice, as long as the pregnancy is an early stage, 12 weeks or less. And even then, I think that there should be a legitimate reason for the abortion, such as rape, incest, & medical problems. But an abortion after 22 weeks, is no short of murder, in my opinion. Then to add insult to injury, the baby survives the abortion, then left to die like an animal. That creep doctor should lose his license to practice medicine and both the doctor & the mother should stand trial for at least second degree murder. Unfortunately, we now live in a degenerating
society, where there rarely is justice.

[Svanhild]

The fate of the baby is lamentable. I'd abort if my life was in danger, if my baby had a severe defect or if I was sexually abused. Failing this I'd carry it out. In my book, unborn babies are tiny humans like you and me.

[Agrippa]

The difference between abortion and infanticide isn't that big as we usually believe it is.

Humans are late bloomers, they aren't ready when born neither and one reason why humans being born that "unfinished" is because of their brain/head size. Simple put, a woman wouldnt be able to deliver the child if humans would have a similar level of development like some other mammals.

Agreed the difference isn't huge, its just easier from practical standpoint to abort, because there is no relation whatsoever of the mother to the newborn, because women get a hormonal conditining after birth, which is good if the child is good, but bad otherwise and even much more traumatic.

And of course it depends on the week of the abortion, because at start its more or less just a bunch of cells, just a plan for a future human, that can't be compared with a state in which, like in this case, the child is already able to survive after birth, has no personality still, but a developed-differentiated body etc.


And what would the nanny state say about that? You don't decide what you do with your children, your state does!

patria potestas.

With help of the community and the elders - which are now just the experts and medical doctors. :thumb001:

In the end, if being enlightened properly, most people have a good idea of which traits and cases are wanted or unwanted, they will do it for free and of course, shun those who act against group interests. Their choice, their problem.


In my book, unborn babies are tiny humans like you and me.

Well, that goes fluently over in philosophical questions.

F.e. if I would have a stroke, my brain being severely damaged, which could happen every day to you and me, my personality being eradicated, I would definitely want Euthanasia and no ignoble existence.

I would also say that if my personality is destroyed, I'm dead, regardless of some sort of living organism still being around, its almost like being stuffed out after death.

I dont define a human by the heart beat, but his/her personality, his/her human qualities. If its about unborn and new born, we deal with potential new human personalities. Thats why there is a great difference between me being degraded to the state of a 3 year old by a stroke or a 1 year old developing his personality. He has a future, me not in this case.

But his personality will fully develop later, before or without consciousness, I dont speak of a human legally. Thats in my book.

So what I protect if I dont want to abort my child nor kill it after birth, is the future personality which was procreated. No healthy future, nothing to be cared for or protected.

As I said, if I come in a situation with no future, being degraded to "something", you can plug me out any time, actually I wouldnt damn anybody who doesnt, if I'm unable to. You can live a life in dignity, now or potentially in the future, or you shouldnt live at all.

If you have a developed personality, you can decide that on your own, whether you want to live under these or that circumstances, that means free choice for Euthanasia. If you have no personality on your own, not even a hint of it, others can decide about the face of that hull.

To abort a defect fetus is a decision pro-life, for a healthy life. Because some months after the abortion, a women could get pregnant again, this time with a healthy child hopefully. Otherwise she would carry the defect child out, the whole normal pregnancy time, would have a hard time afterwards, especially because of the "hormonal charge" whether she keeps the defected or not and if she does, that might ruin her life and taking away energy which could be used in a better way for herself, the family, healthy children and the group.

Its a simple decision and without pseudoreligious interference nobody could doubt that.

[Murphy]

Laurentian's presence at the Apricity incited more of a negative reaction from posters than a child who has been murdered in cold blood.

I really do question why I post here..

[The Lawspeaker]

Abortion is terrible enough (but my opinion still stands) but this doctor should be charged and dragged before a court (with mandatory MAXIMUM punishment) as he didn't make sure that the poor child was dead right away and in his neglicience left it to suffer.

The doctor could either have euthanised the poor child (preventing any more suffering) or fought to safe his life. He did neither.

[poiuytrewq0987]

I support abortion rights, but something just seems wrong about this. At the same time I think it's ridiculous to allow an abortion on a 22 week old fetus, but once it survives consider it homicide if doctors don't attempt to prolong its life. This may sound cold, but if the fetus survives abortion (I'm not entirely sure how that works in the first place) then they should just euthanize the fetus soon after. What strikes me as inhumane is allowing it to sit there and die slowly for hours or days.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/7646540/Baby-boy-survives-for-nearly-two-days-after-abortion.html

I wonder why they didn't euthanize the baby as soon as it was cut out still alive.

[Grey]

Well, it boils down to the question: Does every person deserve to live? If yes, then abortion is wrong; if not, then what are the criteria to be worthy of life and do these unborn children fit them?

Abortion is indeed murder, and those who beat around that bush are deluding themselves. Just as the killing of animals is murder. However, is abortion a form of murder that can be justified?

[W. R.]

Laurentian's presence at the Apricity incited more of a negative reaction from posters than a child who has been murdered in cold blood.

I really do question why I post here..Because everyone is rendered speechless with indignation.

[Nodens]

Well, it boils down to the question: Does every person deserve to live? If yes, then abortion is wrong; if not, then what are the criteria to be worthy of life and do these unborn children fit them?

Begs the question: "What is a person?"

[Tabiti]

Murder is a murder, but a person who pretends to be "civilized" should do it in the "softer" way.

[Agrippa]

I wonder why they didn't euthanize the baby as soon as it was cut out still alive.

I wonder too. A method I know is that they use a lethal injection to kill the fetus in the womb, so that afterwards it can be aborted being sure its already dead. If assuming that there is some kind of suffering, even if its no human personality, not even comparable to a higher animal in that regard, I would still, just for going the secure way and because it won't change too much otherwise, use that method in such cases.

So the child is almost instantly dead then, a really fast and absolutely humane death most people won't get when dying and the fetus dont even registers the abortion itself any more, being already dead. Thats a method I would prefer in such cases and considering the week in which it happened, that would have been preferable for sure.

Even if its "just in case".

I dont like animals suffering if being slaughtered neither, at least if its not necessary for the procedure, so why should we be that careless in the case of a fetus.

Probably something went really wrong in this case, but honestly, there are much worse cases of medical failure and since the doctor didnt do it deliberately...

This case was just good to show that a secure method, like described above, is preferable in such cases. I dont know why they didnt do it and whether this was just careless...

But sometimes newborns dont show reactions, especially early ones, so I guess that should have been the case here, no reaction, they thought its dead anyway. No control, that was the mistake. Surely nothing the doctor did deliberately, at least thats the least likely scenario in my opinion.


In general we have to consider how our society changed towards hypersensitive individualism too. In this case f.e. according to most older Christian believes aborts and new borns were not buried in holy soil and considered lost souls.

Until a newborn got a name and was accepted by the group, he was no group member at all.

Also the child mortality was extremely high, so it would have been a failed investment to care too much about it. Now in the Western society there is this hypersensitive attitude and there are not too many children, but those are almost advertising characters, used with their "cuteness".
Of the few children many more survive, often with intensive medical care, so the child's death is the absolute exception statistically and with so few children, every single one counts more and being sometimes even "overcared" in individual families.

This high investment - not enough children - hypersensitive Individualism is something which went wrong. High investment is good, but the bloodline and group being forgotten in the West and thats a disease. If we bring back that attitude, we also know that children are the future, but the future must be planned.

[Grey]

Begs the question: "What is a person?"


Humans commonly refers to the species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man"),[3][4] the only extant member of the Homo genus of bipedal primates in Hominidae, the great ape family. However, in some cases the term is used to refer to any member of the genus Homo.

[Nodens]

'Human' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human) and 'person' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhood) are not synonymous.

[Majar]

If it survived for 2 days it is clearly a fully formed human being and not a "fetus." :rolleyes:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/2295/pbapicture.gif

And we have the nerve to call other cultures "barbaric."

[Agrippa]

If it survived for 2 days it is clearly a fully formed human being and not a "fetus." :rolleyes:

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/2295/pbapicture.gif

And we have the nerve to call other cultures "barbaric."

You think other cultures don't know abortion as a method? Most do, its just rational to think about whether its the right time for a child and infanticide a legitimate measure to get rid of the deformed and defect ones.

Thanks to our modern methods we dont have to rely on brutal methods, they are usually painless. If you consider whats being done in other cultures to people with a real personility and consciousness, thats really a big, big difference.

The personality and therefore person evolves over time and has a consciousness and human mind in the sense we know and recognise it.

The fetus state being defined from coming after the embryo-phase with 3 months, lasting to the birth.

Just some facts:
- the newborn has a brainsize of 0,35 l, an adult of 1,35
- speed of nerve impuls 3 m/s of the newborn to 110 m/s in an adult

The development of the cerebral cortex starts in the 20th week just, eyes not used, hearing in the 24th week, seeing from the 30th week ca.

To even compare that status with that of an adult person is strange, obviously one can't compare the protection of an adult person with that of a fetus which is more a potential person in development.

And of course, if we know that development is unfavourable, its time to stop it.

[jerney]

I wonder why they didn't euthanize the baby as soon as it was cut out still alive.

From what I understood from the article was that if the fetus isn't dead after the abortion then they're required by law to attempt to keep it alive (I fail to see the logic there).

[Cato]

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/2295/pbapicture.gif

:puke:

[jerney]

^Yeah that's pretty disturbing, but I personally don't feel too much emotion over it when most aren't done "personal" reasons. In almost all cases they are performed if the fetus has a serious disability or genetic disorder, because the mother's life is in danger if she carries the baby to term, or rape and as far as I know 2nd-3rd trimester abortions arein the 1% bracket of abortion.

[Svanhild]

From what I understood from the article was that if the fetus isn't dead after the abortion then they're required by law to attempt to keep it alive (I fail to see the logic there).
That's the question of active euthanasia and passive euthanasia.

[Aviane]

To put it frankly abortion is dangerous and is like murder. Heck how on earth could some people just decide to kill their baby like that when they are actually are luckly to have a possible born baby alive and breathing. [shakes head]

[jerney]

To put it frankly abortion is dangerous and is like murder. Heck how on earth could some people just decide to kill their baby like that when they are actually are luckly to have a possible born baby alive and breathing. [shakes head]

Should this be kept alive rather than aborted?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpg

[Great Dane]

Should this be kept alive rather than aborted?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpg

^ That is unfortunate but who are you to decide if he or she should live or die? People should have their lives taken for them for serious criminal offenses only.

If you think some persons deserve to be euthanized for severe physical deformities, what about persons with serious personality disorders or who are just plain mean?

[Arrow Cross]

^ That is unfortunate but who are you to decide if he or she should live or die?
A sane, responsible, merciful person. It is practically borderline sadism of the slimiest, self-righteous type to let such highly unfortunate children live, to toss them into a firepit of suffering for life and appear "humane".

There are certain things both on individual and state level that may seem dirty and unfortunate, but they nevertheless have to be done, or we're where we are now in modern liberal democrazies.

[The Lawspeaker]

A sane, responsible, merciful person. It is practically borderline sadism of the slimiest, self-righteous type to let such highly unfortunate children live, to toss them into a firepit of suffering for life and appear "humane".

Agreed. I may not be a big fan of abortion there are cases where it is the best available option.

[Beorn]

Right then! Which one of you lot is going to put this abomination to sleep then? :)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpg

Anyone?

[Arrow Cross]

For goodness' sake, how many times do y'all have to link that disturbing picture?

[Osweo]

Right then! Which one of you lot is going to put this abomination to sleep then? :)

Anyone?

I would, if its condition were causing it constant pain, as it seems likely. Gladly.

[Toni]

Advocates of abortion and of euthanasia should be euthanasized, that's not a bad idea at all.

[Agrippa]

Advocates of abortion and of euthanasia should be euthanasized, that's not a bad idea at all.

Yes, but only at free will, when its my own choice and I think its my time to go, then its ok, I want it that way :thumb001:

By the way, because you saying that, you are an advocate of Euthanasia too :coffee:

Welcome to the fine club of rational people.

[Amapola]

Should this be kept alive rather than aborted?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpg

:( What's the name of that illness, jerney? do you know it at all? :confused:

[Murphy]

Everyone who disagrees with me has a severe genetic disorder that is a threat to the survival of the human race. Sadly, all those who disagree with me must report to be euthanised. I hope it's not too much of a bother on your busy schedules.

[Toni]

Yes, but only at free will, when its my own choice and I think its my time to go, then its ok, I want it that way :thumb001:

By the way, because you saying that, you are an advocate of Euthanasia too :coffee:

I meant compulsory euthanasia. I advocate euthanasia, yes, but only for advocates of abortion, euthanasia on eugenic grounds and eugenics in general.


Welcome to the fine club of rational people.

LOL. Whichever club calls itself fine and rational, it is very likely that it is the opposite of that.

[Toni]

Should this be kept alive rather than aborted?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpg


:( What's the name of that illness, jerney? do you know it at all? :confused:

It's called photoshoppitis acuta.

[jerney]

It's called photoshoppitis acuta.

Except no

Bq9l2r3Ax9k

[Sally]

:( What's the name of that illness, jerney? do you know it at all? :confused:

I'm not jerney, but it's called Treacher Collins syndrome.

[Vulpix]

It's called photoshoppitis acuta.

These too I suppose?

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/defects.png

Enter Harlequin syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlequin_type_ichthyosis):


http://ba.img.v4.skyrock.net/bab/malformations/pics/2183039515_small_1.jpghttp://justsickshit.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/deformed-baby-harlequin3.jpg

[Saruman]

In general I support the abortion right for women, as it's their body, but obviously not for late pregnancies, and in the case of possible very negative traits offspring would have it seems rational.
Obviously in this case I think the reasoning behind the abortion was completely justifiable, things here went wrong and baby suffered horribly. :(
I thought sometimes that I should not support the abortion in order to increase birth rates, if that is necessary, and well it is in Europe. And still I'm undecided, as there are other means of increasing the birth rates.
I have had in the family a case of abortion because of negative traits, deformities, and after that the couple later had 2 children.

[Loki]

Let's clone 'em instead.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpghttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpghttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpghttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpghttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpghttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpg

[Svanhild]

Right then! Which one of you lot is going to put this abomination to sleep then? :)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FvbGRwTkbdQ/SnaMck2lhJI/AAAAAAAAKmo/0KDcgKF6VsM/s320/juliannaat2.jpg

To put that abomination to sleep would be murder de jure, plain and simple. Would you break the law to kill that individual? Regardless of how defective the exemplary child is, to kill is the proper word to use here.

Some serious defects remain undiscovered during pregnancy. I hope with all of my heart that I'll never give birth to such a sad being but I couldn't kill it. Most probably I would give it away to state institutions. I don't want to commit a capital crime. But I'd abort the unborn baby if there was a clear medical proof for present serious defects. Is my logic flawed? Maybe. But that's something I have to arrange with myself.

[Arrow Cross]

To put that abomination to sleep would be murder de jure, plain and simple. Would you break the law to kill that individual?
No. I'd change the law (or in your case, reverse ;)). "De jure" always depends on the current political system.

[Svanhild]

No. I'd change the law (or in your case, reverse ;)). "De jure" always depends on the current political system.
And who determines who's worthy to live and who's not? The baby on the photo is indescribably ugly, we can all agree with this statement. But it has everything what's needed to life: A mouth to drink and eat, a nose to breath, eyes too see and ears to listen. I'm not even sure if it feels strong pain. It just looks entirely deformed and ugly. Is ugliness a precondition for euthanasia? The borders are fluent.

[Arrow Cross]

And who determines who's worthy to live and who's not? The baby on the photo is indescribably ugly, we can all agree with this statement. But it has everything what's needed to life. A mouth to drink and eat, a nose to breath, eyes too see and ears to listen. I'm not even sure if it feels pain. It just looks entirely deformed and ugly. Is ugliness a precondition for euthanasia?
Degeneration is. A highly professional and responsible commission of doctors and scientists should set the lines, with the sanctification of the state.

Not unlike in the Third Reich.

[Agrippa]

No. I'd change the law (or in your case, reverse ;)). "De jure" always depends on the current political system.

Exactly. The law is just what people agreed upon or a state enforces. Nothing else. It says nothing about morality or usefulness.

In this case, a law preventing this poor beings salvation for the good of it and the good of the group is immoral and idiotic.


Some serious defects remain undiscovered during pregnancy. I hope with all of my heart that I'll never give birth to such a sad being but I couldn't kill it. Most probably I would give it away to state institutions. I don't want to commit a capital crime. But I'd abort the unborn baby if there was a clear medical proof for present serious defects. Is my logic flawed? Maybe. But that's something I have to arrange with myself.

No it isnt in the current system, because obviously you can give the child away if it was too late for an abortion or it wasnt recognised and get new, healthy and valuable children instead, not caring for that cripple any longer.

If you would go to prison or lose your social status for the salvation of it, that would be understandable, but not recommendable, unless you know that you get away with it.

Rather we should change the law and fight for a changing attitude, pronatal, pro-family, but in a group oriented and qualitative, Eugenic and Euphenic way.

[Falkata]

Degeneration is. A highly professional and responsible commission of doctors and scientists should set the lines, with the sanctification of the state.

Not unlike in the Third Reich.

The goverment deciding who is worthy to live or not? Scary shit. All the goverments in the world are more or less corrupted, i can´t imagine if they had not only the control of our money , but of our own lifes too...
I´m in favour of euthanasia and abortion, but as a choice, not forced.

[Amapola]

It's funny how in some places you can abort them (but not give them a smack) :D

[Monolith]

Welcome to the fine club of rational people.
Bah. Rationality is overrated.

[Agrippa]

Bah. Rationality is overrated.

Not as much as religious and pseudoreligious moral. If we would have a rational policy - rational doesnt have to mean inhumane or merciless, just knowing problems, solutions and priorities like they come to us by the reality of life in this world, we would have much less problems and thats for sure.

[Matritensis]

Degeneration is. A highly professional and responsible commission of doctors and scientists should set the lines, with the sanctification of the state.

Not unlike in the Third Reich.


Fuck the third Reich.Oh,wait,it's done already.

[Monolith]

Not as much as religious and pseudoreligious moral.
I tend to think that it's not religious moral that's overrated, but that certain elements that make us human are being underestimated instead.

If we would have a rational policy - rational doesnt have to mean inhumane or merciless, just knowing problems, solutions and priorities like they come to us by the reality of life in this world, we would have much less problems and thats for sure.
Indeed, there are many things that rationality could achieve on the field of pragmatism, like it already has many times in the past. Unfortunately, when it comes to humans, pragmatism often comes with a price that not many are willing to pay. I'm of the opinion that you can't isolate a part of human personality and be guided solely by it. We're not machines.

[Beorn]

To put that abomination to sleep would be murder de jure, plain and simple. Would you break the law to kill that individual?

No. I would break laws to let it live.


Some serious defects remain undiscovered during pregnancy. I hope with all of my heart that I'll never give birth to such a sad being but I couldn't kill it.

I also hope that for you, and am glad to hear you wouldn't murder the child. :)


Most probably I would give it away to state institutions.

Are your mothering skills not up to the task? Are you afraid of accepting your fate? Some might say this is a test, pass this test and perhaps your reward will be unimaginable to human perception.


Is my logic flawed? Maybe. But that's something I have to arrange with myself.

I'd say it is, but as you then go onto say; it is your choice.

[Agrippa]

Indeed, there are many things that rationality could achieve on the field of pragmatism, like it already has many times in the past. Unfortunately, when it comes to humans, pragmatism often comes with a price that not many are willing to pay. I'm of the opinion that you can't isolate a part of human personality and be guided solely by it. We're not machines.

Thats correct. But if a person is emotionally, by its personality, unable to see the truth, the facts and acting accordingly for its own interest and the collective interests of the group, thats a defect.

It might have worked in some distant past when critical thinking was not that important, at least for reproductive success, but if looking at what humans are now and should become if they want to live on higher level and in a sustainable way, there is no choice and humans dont have to become machines, but just grow up and stop acting stupid.

Religion being a major factor for stupid actions and the denial of the facts and whats necessary, thats why anybody saying religion is a solution is by himself in denial.

Religions were simply rules made up by people - sometimes making sense for their group and at their time, sometimes not, justifying their ideas with a religious experience and dogma, the presense of something transcendental.

If someone accepts that fantasy, he has to accept everything in a religion being not man made, but coming from god, so even the most absurd and outdated rules would be equally recommended in that sort of religious believes.

Thats particularly apparant in the evengalical maniacs and their literal interpretation of the Bible, including the Jewish Old Testament. Looking at those, they are on a spiritual and mental level which is beyond anything we can recommend for future humans. If thats the future, an atom bomb might be the only salvation and even Islam is like an intelligent and well thought rule-work in comparison...

Yet other religious believes are not that bad, but the basic failures of Evangelicals show up too, sometimes more, sometimes less.

If those maniacs say anything about moral, they should rather think about their own mental health first.


Are your mothering skills not up to the task? Are you afraid of accepting your fate? Some might say this is a test, pass this test and perhaps your reward will be unimaginable to human perception.

A test for what? Being a complete idiot or a thinking human?

Any investment which prolongs such a "life" would be wasted and rather be a crime. Any animal you euthanise if its in a helpless, bad shape, but humans have to suffer on, completely useless, as some form of "a test"?

If a religion and god would demand that, it would be an even more sadist and immoral thing than we already see if looking through the world. Completely absurd.

Those which make such sick claims should be put together in a small state and then we give them all those they want to save, the non-integrable immigrants, the retarded, the bigot - they get them all. Then they can build up their "paradise on Earth".

Thats what I say to everybody who wants Gypsies and non-integrable immigrants in my country too: Take them in your house, live with them in your community, let me send all of them to you, you have to live with them, you care for them, you pay for them. Not me, not other normal people, you do, because you want those.

Same here. As long as the majority is rational and does whats necessary, and that will happen if enlightening the people and giving them free health care including Eugenic and Euphenic programs, it doesnt matter if there are some people around which dont get it.

Just put them together, they can live in their primitive town on like they want, but don't infect others with their nonsense which goes against the legitimate interests the group and mankind.

[Toni]

Thats correct. But if a person is emotionally, by its personality, unable to see the truth, the facts and acting accordingly for its own interest and the collective interests of the group, thats a defect.

It might have worked in some distant past when critical thinking was not that important, at least for reproductive success, but if looking at what humans are now and should become if they want to live on higher level and in a sustainable way, there is no choice and humans dont have to become machines, but just grow up and stop acting stupid.

Religion being a major factor for stupid actions and the denial of the facts and whats necessary, thats why anybody saying religion is a solution is by himself in denial.

Religions were simply rules made up by people - sometimes making sense for their group and at their time, sometimes not, justifying their ideas with a religious experience and dogma, the presense of something transcendental.

If someone accepts that fantasy, he has to accept everything in a religion being not man made, but coming from god, so even the most absurd and outdated rules would be equally recommended in that sort of religious believes.

Thats particularly apparant in the evengalical maniacs and their literal interpretation of the Bible, including the Jewish Old Testament. Looking at those, they are on a spiritual and mental level which is beyond anything we can recommend for future humans. If thats the future, an atom bomb might be the only salvation and even Islam is like an intelligent and well thought rule-work in comparison...

Yet other religious believes are not that bad, but the basic failures of Evangelicals show up too, sometimes more, sometimes less.

If those maniacs say anything about moral, they should rather think about their own mental health first.



A test for what? Being a complete idiot or a thinking human?

Any investment which prolongs such a "life" would be wasted and rather be a crime. Any animal you euthanise if its in a helpless, bad shape, but humans have to suffer on, completely useless, as some form of "a test"?

If a religion and god would demand that, it would be an even more sadist and immoral thing than we already see if looking through the world. Completely absurd.

Those which make such sick claims should be put together in a small state and then we give them all those they want to save, the non-integrable immigrants, the retarded, the bigot - they get them all. Then they can build up their "paradise on Earth".

Thats what I say to everybody who wants Gypsies and non-integrable immigrants in my country too: Take them in your house, live with them in your community, let me send all of them to you, you have to live with them, you care for them, you pay for them. Not me, not other normal people, you do, because you want those.

Same here. As long as the majority is rational and does whats necessary, and that will happen if enlightening the people and giving them free health care including Eugenic and Euphenic programs, it doesnt matter if there are some people around which dont get it.

Just put them together, they can live in their primitive town on like they want, but don't infect others with their nonsense which goes against the legitimate interests the group and mankind.

It's just some reductionist ideology of yours, based on some premises of what religion (and some other things) really is etc, premises that don't have to be shared by everyone else. In fact, they are not shared by most people (including the large portion of the non-religious). Too many abstractions, like group interests, mankind etc.

[Agrippa]

It's just some reductionist ideology of yours, based on some premises of what religion (and some other things) really is etc, premises that don't have to be shared by everyone else.

Well, there are people which believe in "the Creation" like its being described in the Bible, you know, in one week, the way described, even if knowing biological facts...

Do I have to care for every idiot?


In fact, they are not shared by most people (including the large portion of the non-religious). Too many abstractions, like group interests, mankind etc.

Thats right. You know, humans are not made for understanding their world, they were selected for acting appropriate in the situations they lived in. Now that means we dont have a natural capacity to grasp what we are actually doing, how life really works on this planet. That has to be researched, there has to be a scientific exploration of things to know more than what our simple senses can tell us.

Yet, going from the facts we know, we can say that the goal of life is ultimately to reproduce and sustain itself. Humans are social and cultural beings, they don't come as individuals, because an individual is nothing without other human beings, can't even procreate itself.

Many cultural aspects of our live being similarly and sometimes selected together with biological traits, we can call an analysis of that Memetic research, sociobiological research - various aspects of it.

Anyway, now if you want to do the best for the individuals and groups, and ultimately every non-degenerated human being should want that, there are some things you can't ignore or push aside.

I agree, you can discuss a lot about details and there are many interpretations and opinions possible. I think that my approach is the best and because I think so, I want to make it real. Yet I can perfectly see that even from the known facts other interpretations are possible from logical point of view.

I consider them suboptimal, but can say that they are at least rational, as they are not DIRECTLY contradicted by the facts.

Thats a crucial point, because many ideologies and all religions go wrong in that most basic point already, they being DIRECTLY contradicted by the facts, their teachings and ideas being "anti-natural" - they go against the reality of life and need for the legitimation of this idiotic rules always something transcendental.

"Thats crap, it doesnt work out in this world and all its premises are wrong..."
Answer of the religious idiot: "Its being said by god, written in the xxx something..."

Now that shows the basic problem and why rational politics can only be inspired by religious moments, but religion in itself is irrational - the degree depends on the religion in question and its exact interpretation of course.

The most basic requirement of any cultural inventar has to be, that it must be positive or AT LEAST neutral for the biological survival and success of those practising it.

If its negative its degeneration, no matter what. If its neutral and there are better options, its suboptimal to degeneration.

F.e. if a group of people decide they have to live in celibacy now, thats a degeneration, because their memetic program can't fulfil the most basic rule of life, its simple suicide and a total degeneration.

If you have a moral rule which makes an aborted defect fetus "life" more valuable than that of an intelligent and educated doctor and a woman which might give birth to healthy children in the future, its totally degenerated and idiotic.

Also if you have a religion or belief which makes the adoption of foreign racial children more of a merit, good deed than getting children on your own and caring more for your own people, which being considered egoistic in comparison, its a total degeneration.

Any rule which might prevent a group of humans to achieve new biological and cultural heights, which would make this group of people superiour in their fight for future survival, is irrational and total degeneration.

Just some obvious examples for which most arguments against come from religious and pseudoreligious considerations.

I might explain what pseudoreligious means in this context:
Beliefs which being derived from religions without having any further justification than being established rules, which might still be active as a cultural inventar even in people which dont actually believe in the religion from which its coming any more.

Liberals/Libertarians and Cultural Marxists and Marxists in general f.e. are strongly influenced by Christian moral and beliefs quite often, even if being atheists themselves. Those are, in a way, secularised Christian sects, which carry on the ballast, actually to a large degree the worst of it, from the Christian religion and culture.

Crucial is that it has no factual justification but can be refuted by the facts, which the believers dont accept, just because having a pseudoreligious moral believe in the rule system they adore.

A degenerated cultural inventar, which is more of a burden than a benefit for the life of the people and group, is at the same level culturally as the deformed newborn shown in this thread from the biological perspective.

Its unfit for life.

[Svanhild]

Are your mothering skills not up to the task? Are you afraid of accepting your fate?
I'm afraid that's true. Both questions. But I don't consider a gravely defective baby as fate but rather as bad luck.

[Sol Invictus]

Yeah, whether pro choice or against, which I am very much so, the doctor broke his oath to do no harm and should be brought up on appropriate charges such as Criminal Negligence Causing Harm Or Death. This is why the tiniest precautions are made when you have someone's life and well-being in your hands, and unfortunately in his career, neglect in the operating room can often mean time in jail. Even Police and EMS are accountable to this.

[Guapo]

Should drag that bitch out head first with a pair of tweezers

Unfortunately that's how they do abortions. First the skull is crushed and then dragged out with a clamp. I don't understand how these fetuses survived. Are these stories even true??

[Piparskeggr]

I think that abortion is a medical procedure, of which the efficacy and appropriateness is between the woman and her doctor.

I also think it is the termination of a person's life. But, the Moral - Ethical questions are between the woman and her own conscience and/or God.

If it can be medically proven that the potential person will have a "shitty" life due to overwhelming defect, than, yes, kill it. Save society the cost.

However, if the evidence is that the potential person will be born healthy, well, lots of potential adoptive parents out there.

That being written, it is not my place to decide for a woman that she MUST carry any pregnancy to full-term.

I love kids. My wife does, if they are someone else's. We have taken effective measures for over 30 years to see that there are no any unwanted pregnancies.

Children MUST be wanted, especially in light of the current, world, economic climate.

Better to spoil nieces and nephews (Blood or Chosen) than to slight "fruit" of one's own body.

In the case cited, horse-whipping is too good for the doctors and other medical personnel at fault.

[Cato]

Abortion, being a medical procedure like mercy-killings, is a situational condition that can't be judged on purely moral or religious grounds. People that cite the Bible as the moral authority against abortion do so, to me, in an unintentionally hypocritical fashion- given that the Bible is filled with God-induced horrors such as the slaying of the firstborn of Egypt or the <insert Biblical atrocity here>.

[Amapola]

I don't think we need to resort to the Bible. Respect for life should be an universal principle.

[Agrippa]

Unfortunately that's how they do abortions. First the skull is crushed and then dragged out with a clamp.

The head is the largest part of the fetus, so its much more gentle for the female if thats done. Like I said, thats also the reason why humans being born so "unfinished", because our women couldnt give birth to them if being fully developed, both because our biped status and the head size.


I don't understand how these fetuses survived. Are these stories even true??

Thats a good question actually. Single horror stories about abortions being spread - yet I could tell a lot of much more frightening horror stories from the medical experiences. Much worse things being done to fully conscious and developed persons.

But overall thats a statistical minority, which is why I largely trust, with a reasonable doubt, in modern medicine, its benefits simply excell the deficits.

So it is with abortion as well.

Also a woman which doesnt want a child has a certain sociocultural and biological background, why should this child exist at all, just for being uprised by others? Only if the mother is just misled and has very good genetic traits this being justified, especially for childless couples.

Otherwise its parasitism with asocials giving birth to children others bring up. Just consider how many low level blacks go regularly for abortions. In Romania Gypsies were encouraged to abort, it was forbidden for ethnic Romanians though.

There is no general rule on that, one has to look at whats good for the individual, people and group in the specific situation in question.


I don't think we need to resort to the Bible. Respect for life should be an universal principle.

You don't eat meat?

I might add, this attitude is too weak for the reality of life in this world. We now live in a decadent time, where this might be easily said, but in a situation in which you are challenged, I might say yes, saving life and preventing suffering is a good thing, but first we must care for our own survival on a higher level.

Secondly, in this cases in question, being against the abortion is not about saving a lfie or preventing suffering, but just pseudoreligious reasoning, because a deformed fetus has no real chance for a meaningful life and the woman is best advised to get a healthy baby as soon as possible and forgetting about the failed trial, because that what it is.

When the ovum and spermium came together, formed the zygote, something got wrong, a bad mutation, a bad recombination, we dont know - or it happened later, in the early development: Some kind of supply, growth or structuring didn't work.
Thats a failure, thats what it is.

You dont go on building a house after failed plan, when you know it won't last nor can anybody live in it. Worthless waste of time, energy and ressources.

And an embryo or defect fetus is just a failed plan in progress, which being stopped in time to prevent worse.

The earlier it can be stopped, the earlier you can start again and become a pride mother of a valuable child for you, the group and future mankind with a real chance for a proper development.

[Wölfin]

Abortion should be done in the first term... And should be induced by ingested abortives, like holly. It leads the body to miscarry which is less traumatic physically for the woman and the embryo or fetus will die in utero.

Also agree with the OP that if it survives the abortion (which really is just proof that abortion techniques need serious revisions. Otherwise its not all that better than a coat hanger in a dark alley type) everything should be done to save it at that point.

[Toni]

If Osweo and Agrippa were culled with a lethal injection, that would be for the good of humanity. I mean, they are so ugly, both physically and in their respective ideologies, worldviews.

Who ever doesn't think Agrippa deserves to be euthanasized, is a weak-minded sentimentalist unable to face the harsh reality of life.

[Daos]

If Osweo and Agrippa were culled with a lethal injection, that would be for the good of humanity. I mean, they are so ugly, both physically and in their respective ideologies, worldviews.

Who ever doesn't think Agrippa deserves to be euthanasized, is a weak-minded sentimentalist unable to face the harsh reality of life.

Wait! Didn't you just describe yourself here?;)

[Cato]

I don't think we need to resort to the Bible. Respect for life should be an universal principle.

No, but I often find, at least in the U.S., that people resort to this "appeal to Biblical authority" trick when they oppose abortion. I usually chuckle and am reminded of Paine's assertion that it's "a book of horrors" that no sane man can call the word of God because of its many lascivious atrocities, some by man and some by God himself- and I say this knowing that the Bible has good and bad aspects to it, unlike Paine (who seemed to see only the bad in it).

Musonius Rufus the Stoic opposed abortion on purely moral and natural grounds, comparing it to a form of infanticide that no rational creature could engage in- least of all a mother, who has the parental obligation to play out her part in the continuation of the natural order- as seen from the human perspective.

[Toni]

Wait! Didn't you just describe yourself here?;)

How so? Since I advocate that Osweo and Agrippa be euthanasized, it's the opposite that is true. It seems you have some reading problems. Or problems with understanding a written text.

[Beorn]

Unfortunately that's how they do abortions.

Indeed it is. :(


I don't understand how these fetuses survived. Are these stories even true??

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I can only suggest that in this event the head wasn't crushed or the brains sucked out, and the child was delivered fully in tact.

Yet it makes me shudder to think this child may possibly have been on that cold slab for that amount of time with a broken neck and/or a crushed head.

[Agrippa]

Musonius Rufus the Stoic opposed abortion on purely moral and natural grounds, comparing it to a form of infanticide that no rational creature could engage in- least of all a mother, who has the parental obligation to play out her part in the continuation of the natural order- as seen from the human perspective.

That makes sense for a good standard mother and a good standard baby in a good situation.

But it doesnt make sense for the group if the mother has very bad traits, it makes no sense for the mother if the child has very bad traits and it would be no value for keeping up the bloodline and of course - its also not reasonable if the chances to bring the baby up are very low, f.e. when the mother has still another small child, there is a famine, they are on the move with small children or the like. Then the mother shouldnt risk her own life and the life of the stronger children for the weaker one, which has very low chances anyway, but could carry along the others too...

As I said, for a healthy child of mine and relatives, or any people with good traits in an era with too few people with good traits anyway, I would almost never want an abortion with drastic exceptions like described above.


If Osweo and Agrippa were culled with a lethal injection, that would be for the good of humanity. I mean, they are so ugly, both physically and in their respective ideologies, worldviews.

Who ever doesn't think Agrippa deserves to be euthanasized, is a weak-minded sentimentalist unable to face the harsh reality of life.

I get the reality of life at least in theory and try it in practise, if you defend obvious degeneration, your ideas are a burden to the group, as is your faulted moral.

If you have to fall back to personal attacks only, with almost no meaningful arguments, this just shows your inferior intellect and character.

Prove to me the value of upbringing a defect child, which takes away lifetime, energy and ressources from the mother, family and group, for nothing of value in return and call that a "moral" obligation, even more so if the fetus in question would be just a "suffering something", living a painful nightmare of a life no sane individual would ever want to live.

Without the bible.

[Wölfin]

Also Abortion is not a purely human or recent invention. I know of several (herbivorous at any rate) mammals who will selectively look to eat abortives if they sense an anomaly or if there are dire survival conditions.

And there is reason to believe Hominids as far back as Neandertalis had discovered which plants could be used as abortives as well.

So... when it comes to humans in regards to abortion one must consider several aspects. Natural vs Moral vs Functional vs Social (and economical, political etc.)

[Eldritch]

I meant compulsory euthanasia. I advocate euthanasia, yes, but only for advocates of abortion, euthanasia on eugenic grounds and eugenics in general.



I think it was people like yourself that the term "retroactive abortion" was coined for. :thumb001:

[Cato]

That makes sense for a good standard mother and a good standard baby in a good situation.

But it doesnt make sense for the group if the mother has very bad traits, it makes no sense for the mother if the child has very bad traits and it would be no value for keeping up the bloodline and of course - its also not reasonable if the chances to bring the baby up are very low, f.e. when the mother has still another small child, there is a famine, they are on the move with small children or the like. Then the mother shouldnt risk her own life and the life of the stronger children for the weaker one, which has very low chances anyway, but could carry along the others too... There were special education classes in many of the schools I went to as a kid, and some of the, ahem, students therein where really fucked-up and a real hassle to deal with, often attacking completely innocent and unawares people for no reason. :eek: I've had an aversion to such people ever since then, having been mauled by one of them on one unforunate occasion and being a firsthand witness to episodes of spastic pants-shitting, limbs flailing about, spitting and hissing like a mad thing, and God knows what else. Hideous.

It's a mercy to kill a child that suffers from some kind of severe disease or deformity that'll hamper its life and that of its family throughout its lifetime; I don't care what Bibles or Torahs say about such matters, and all of the Popes in the world be damned. I wouldn't want any potential child of mine to go through life being a freakshow! :eek:

Musonius Rufus may've never dealt with such a situation before- like most Stoics he took his belief in the ideal familial unit from what he regarded as an ideal human nature, something akin to the Gods themselves. Stoics didn't get their marching orders from an otherworldly source but by observing nature. This makes me wonder if certain Stoics may've regarded the exposure of deformities as a simple matter of course, instead regarding the exposure of healthy children as a horror to be avoided. :confused:

[Agrippa]

Stoics were somewhat problematic and influenced the Christian religion by the way.

I rather stick to the old patria potestas and Roman virtues if you ask me, than Stoic philosophy, which has its merits too though.

Many of these philosophies, even if they had interesting thoughts, had a certain "spirit of decadence", like the classic "decadence religions" like Christianity and Buddhism (free after Nietzsche).

The problem of such "decadence" religions is, that they dont face life as it is and rather project too much in their individual self and spiritual ideas, as well as or even more so the "afterlife". So they simply care too much about what should be a rather small part of human life and definitely too much about some sort of "afterlife".

This makes people passive in their thinking and actions quite often, at least in some regards, stoic/stoisch too stands for that, but in a more wordly and dignified manner.


This makes me wonder if certain Stoics may've regarded the exposure of deformities as a simple matter of course, instead regarding the exposure of healthy children as a horror to be avoided.

That could have been the case, because it was just such a common practise to set out newborn children in most ancient cultures, that dont doing it was also more noteworthy than doing it.

And of course, they were no Neo-Christians or Cultural Marxists with that sort of weakling-Pseudoindividualism for sure.

[Cato]

I only consider it to be merciful and common sensical to abort a severely-malformed fetus, something that the Stoics could've appreciated simply because of the familial ramifications- such as how much attention and care is lavished on such a child over the healthy, active children? Epictetus had a lecture about the parental duty being to provide care, comfort, and nurture for a child- this in a discussion with a father who was in a severe case of anxiety over a sick daughter. In this case, the child was a healthy child, not some sickly deformity.

Musonius Rufus opposed the exposure of children, but, as I've said, he never seems to indicate if it was the exposure of deformed or healthy children. Modern people might say he was against the exposure of all children, but I don't know if this can really be the case.

[Amapola]

You don't eat meat?
Not human.


I might add, this attitude is too weak for the reality of life in this world. We now live in a decadent time, where this might be easily said, but in a situation in which you are challenged, I might say yes, saving life and preventing suffering is a good thing, but first we must care for our own survival on a higher level.
Sure, I will defend my life but...

Hedonism versus trascendent human reality, I say.


Secondly, in this cases in question, being against the abortion is not about saving a lfie or preventing suffering, but just pseudoreligious reasoning
As I said, the meaning of life goes beyond religion.


because a deformed fetus has no real chance for a meaningful life
Why?


and the woman is best advised to get a healthy baby as soon as possible and forgetting about the failed trial, because that what it is.
What did you mean here? I didn't get it.


You dont go on building a house after failed plan, when you know it won't last nor can anybody live in it. Worthless waste of time, energy and ressources.


And an embryo or defect fetus is just a failed plan in progress, which being stopped in time to prevent worse.



The earlier it can be stopped, the earlier you can start again and become a pride mother of a valuable child for you, the group and future mankind with a real chance for a proper development.

Hmmm... I don't see death as a remedy. The authorities should be committed to provide the disabled with special care. Some of them could even service our community pretty decently.

[Cato]

Hmmm... I don't see death as a remedy. The authorities should be committed to provide the disabled with special care. Some of them could even service our community pretty decently.

I'd only support death in a severe, hopeless case. I've seen some special needs people every so often at work, usually in menial jobs to be true, but to me they seem to perform them at a level of devotion that's hard to not be impressed by.

There's a halfway house a few blocks from where I live, and I've often seen a girl with Down Syndrome getting onto and off from a bus- she works, at a fast food place of some kind, and I've seen Down Syndrome kids at work in other places before. I respect these folks and it makes me think of one of my friends, a fat slob who hasn't worked in God knows how long because he's too "depressed" or some bullshit like that- and, of course, he's on the gravy train for his "disability." :mad:

[Agrippa]

Not human.

Actually, if you want to preserve lives, I might add that many animals have more of a consciousness than a human fetus, yet an embryo.


Why?

Because there is the potential of a normal human, his mental and physical developments. If you take that away, you have a subject which will always suffer from its deficiencies and never be able to do the things a normal human should be able to.

If its a serious defect, usually life is suffering or there is no conscious personality and therefore person even present, then this is just a humanoid meatbag and thats pointless, undignified and a waste of time, efforts and energy - at least if the meatbag can't be an organ donor.
That might change things, because then it would be something like a organ plant which could really achieve something in life, namely saving a real person.


What did you mean here? I didn't get it.

I mean its a waste of time and energies and the best thing a woman can do is to look at it as bad luck and forward, going on to the next attempt, hopefully getting a healthy baby then. Every defect embryo/fetus just occupies a position - in every respect - in which a healthy child could grow into which chance being eliminated otherwise.

So to abort in such cases is a decision for life: For a healthy life which wouldnt come into existence otherwise and against a failed attempt.


Hmmm... I don't see death as a remedy. The authorities should be committed to provide the disabled with special care. Some of them could even service our community pretty decently.

If they are already in existence, developed personalities, yes, at least as long as the group can afford it and we are, generally speaking, a wealthy society, so why not.

Everybody could come in a bad situation in which he/she needs care for a shorter or longer period of time.

Thats no issue. Euthanasia is something I want volontarily, so if a developed person wants to live on with its handicaps, its their decision and they can expect help in the way the group can provide it without damaging its higher interests. Which means to me a lot in a wealthy modern society of a techno-civilisation, I have a strong idea of a social welfare state, that goes for all persons as long as its recommendable for the group and no real harm, the person in question complies to basic rules.

Crucial is that there actually is a person which can decide that or such a person could appear again - f.e. after a period in which it was in a coma or the like, then the will of the person (before the incident) or its relatives might be decisive.

Otherwise, if there is no person to decide, than there is no person to protect. There is a human mind or not! A meatbag makes no human. If my personality being erradicated, its not me, the body itself makes no human life which can be murdered, the person makes.

Someone eliminating my person, f.e. with a shot in the head, is my murderer, someone liquidating the meatbag left then, if the brain being largely destroyed but just the heart beats on, makes just an end to this undignified something which was me before, but doesnt murder me really, just stops the heartbeat of this corpse.

And in the prenatal phase we deal with plans and "in development" exclusively, thats why harder decision are still humane and not against the protection of human persons. No conscious person, no human to protect and the embryo is on a very low level, the fetus still mostly instinctive and far away from any sort of a developed human personality...

[Toni]

Agrippa, your long posts are utterly boring and tiresome even to bother reading. You seem to be struck by a disease commonly referred to as logorrhea, or verbal diarrhea. I guess some eugenic programs might be needed in the future in order to root out that disease since people infected by it are prone to bore to death the rest of society.

It seems our ideas are not so very different, it's just that we think of different categories of people as deserving to be euthanasized.

[Agrippa]

Agrippa, your long posts are utterly boring and tiresome even to bother reading. You seem to be struck by a disease commonly referred to as logorrhea, or verbal diarrhea. I guess some eugenic programs might be needed in the future in order to root out that disease since people infected by it are prone to bore to death the rest of society.

It seems our ideas are not so very different, it's just that we think of different categories of people as deserving to be euthanasized.

Indeed. Probably you belong to the retarded category of people which are only able to read one-liners and are not able to think their ideas really to a consequent end, which seems to be the case with your person.

But oh, I have to keep it short, don't want to overload your small brain and short concentration span, go Toni, go play outside with a stick of wood and have some fun...

[Osweo]

go play outside with a stick of wood and have some fun...

Ekh... :cry2

MDVhB0jGP7I

[Great Dane]

@Agrippa: Okay, you don't have a problem with abortion on demand, I get that. I don't agree. But you also don't seem to view infants as fully human either. If a woman can abort a healthy fetus, and most aborted fetus are healthy, then is it permissable to euthanize a healthy infant? Since you and many others here no problem euthanizing deformed infants and you don't consider newborns to be fully persons. And at what age would an infant or toddler be deserving of life in that taking of that life should be considered murder?

[Rainraven]

Euhh long posts :zzz

I just think it's horrible and should have been checked for straight after the abortion was done. Not really any excuse for a live baby to sit there suffering for 2 days.

[Agrippa]

@Agrippa: Okay, you don't have a problem with abortion on demand, I get that. I don't agree. But you also don't seem to view infants as fully human either. If a woman can abort a healthy fetus, and most aborted fetus are healthy, then is it permissable to euthanize a healthy infant? Since you and many others here no problem euthanizing deformed infants and you don't consider newborns to be fully persons. And at what age would an infant or toddler be deserving of life in that taking of that life should be considered murder?

A child is a great investment for a woman, I mean just think about the long time of pregnancy, the changes in her body, the loss of potential in that time for other activities etc. Its a risk, its a huge investment.

To abort a healthy child early on, in the embryonal stage, means a great saving for the woman, if she wants no child anyway and the embryo is still just "a plan".

Now if the fetus is already larger and more developed, she invested so much in it and even with the abortion she actually has to give birth to this fetus, that the only reasonable justification of an abortion in that stage is:
- A defect or generally very problematic traits
- That the life of the mother is in danger
- That the child won't survive under the given circumstances - I have in mind something like a famine, warlike situation, people on the move and she has a already a toddler, no people would care for it etc.

Otherwise, if she has good traits, it would be a total waste of time, efforts and energy to kill the child in a very late stage or even after birth. I mean all her investment - lost!

And of course, even if she doesnt want the child, if its a healthy baby of my group, with generally good traits, there might be childless families which want it or even if not, even if the community has to raise it, it would be an enrichment for my people or at least could be one.

Also its a really difficult discussion, but in general, if there is no VERY good reason, see above, the child after birth deserves protection of the group for sure.

But of course, here I make the strong distinction between ingroup vs. outgroup, valuable or not.

What f.e. a tribe somewhere far away of a primitive racial type does with his newborns is not my cup of tea, and thats also this pseudoreligious and religious crap which goes around in the West. If they decide to do this or that to THEIR children, we might inform them, try to change it, but not necessarily force them. Their decision, I dont need too many of those anyway.

In the end, every child is the child of the respective parents, before being introduced to the community, its totally under their rule, afterwards its a shared rule of the group and the family.

Thats part of the ideological Pseudoindividualism in the West. People look at an example of an infanticide of a newborn and do so as if its their child - no, she has given birth to it, the primary rights are those of the father and mother before anybody else.

I mean they have their genes, they were born by this woman and some do as if it would be THEIR child, what it isn't.

This is also something many people dont get any more, but was a matter of course in most traditional societies.

I mean, who wanted to care for a foreign child to begin with? Only if having none of your own, but otherwise its hard enough to bring up your own, you hardly care for others if they are not kin - with exceptions here and there already in primates. Especially if the situation is so desperate for a woman that she can't care - most of the time other's wouldnt be much better of then...

Thats also a reason why the West has not enough births:
You have no right over your children, they dont belong to you, no bloodline, no clan, no fixed structure - you bring them up like a pet and then they can do "whatever they want", even against the group interests, your honour.

We are talking about a real exception from the rule in the West and this had positive and negative consequences, the negative consequences now by far outweigh the positive ones if its about the biological success of the individuals and group.

That must be corrected.

[Monolith]

A child is a great investment for a woman, I mean just think about the long time of pregnancy, the changes in her body, the loss of potential in that time for other activities etc. Its a risk, its a huge investment.

To abort a healthy child early on, in the embryonal stage, means a great saving for the woman, if she wants no child anyway and the embryo is still just "a plan".
Ideas like these often make me wonder whether human beings deserve to exist. If we are reduced to factors, investments, capital, etc., then what's the point in living? Proliferation? Economic, social, cultural and technological development? Maybe, but what a pathetic existence would that be. Perhaps that's just semantics, but it's repulsive nevertheless.

You can't dissect human life, nor human sentience, when discussing how and why people act. It's absurd.

[The Lawspeaker]

You can't dissect human life, nor human sentience, when discussing how and why people act. It's absurd.
It's called biology and psychology and both are long-standing sciences.

[Agrippa]

Ideas like these often make me wonder whether human beings deserve to exist. If we are reduced to factors, investments, capital, etc., then what's the point in living? Proliferation? Economic, social, cultural and technological development? Maybe, but what a pathetic existence would that be. Perhaps that's just semantics, but it's repulsive nevertheless.

You can't dissect human life, nor human sentience, when discussing how and why people act. It's absurd.

It would be absurd if I would think and act like that in all areas of my life, but its not absurd for theoretical reasoning, because in the end, that we have a brain, that we can think that way, is exactly the result of such factors.

Its also the reason why degeneration can happen or humans have huge deficits which cause great suffering and failures.

We have to accept the reality as it is, I just tell you that. We dont live in a wonderland but on Earth, in this Universe.

If you really want to make things better, for you, kind, group, all of mankind, you face things as they are. And a pregnancy is one of the greatest investments of all, I mean even that we are social and cultural beings, have something like love, that there is sex, that we have certain different behaviours in the sexes, thats all related to that.

Thats just biology and biology works, religious and pseudoreligious reasoning doesnt.

Only if the real problems are solved you can think about the fantastic ideas, first you have to solve the real problems and those have to be solved in a rational way or you fail.

Its really funny how humans acted so racial with plants and animals, while not seeing how they play in the same time. Actually they knew and then, in a way and emotionally, better than decadent people now, because they live far away from harsh reality of life and if they dont get close in a theoretical-scientific manner, they come to all sorts of absurd conclusions in urban centres - probably less stupid than on the countryside, but in another way more retarded if that makes sense to you, I think you know what I mean.


You can't dissect human life, nor human sentience, when discussing how and why people act. It's absurd.

Actually its not about whether you can or not, but that we HAVE to do it, because otherwise we are just instinctive animals like others which haven't grasped anything.

THATS what making us human, that we have reasoning and can analyse our environment as well as ourselves. THATS the very core of what the human species is about.

If we fail on that, we failed as a species and will vanish. You can see that as a mission or you can see that as a constraint, but either case we achieve a rational state with our collective organisations and actions in particular, or we will all be dust.

Asking what life is about: Achieve the next stage and secure survival on a high level!

[Monolith]

It's called biology and psychology and both are long-standing sciences.
I meant there are complex motives behind our actions. We cannot detach ourselves from our rationality, our emotions, of from certain universal morals common to all humans. Sure, the particular parts of our psyche and physiology can be studied, but they can only be completely understood when they are viewed as a whole, i.e. when their purpose is translated into actions.

[Agrippa]

I meant there are complex motives behind our actions. We cannot detach ourselves from our rationality, our emotions, of from certain universal morals common to all humans. Sure, the particular parts of our psyche and physiology can be studied, but they can only be completely understood when they are viewed as a whole, i.e. when their purpose is translated into actions.

Their purpose was originally survival and biological success.

What I said is the same thing just on a higher level and more favourable for humans as individuals and as a whole, because if we approach things as I want it, we can prevent failures and sufferings from happening, Nature doesnt care for suffering, because its no consciousness but just a neutral system.

For the evolution it doesnt matter whether a person suffers 15 years before dying childless, this being a great loss for this individual, as it has a painful and useless life, for its family and surroundings, for the group as a whole.

If modern medicine saves that person, its no solution if the deeper reason for the defect being not eliminated, because over generations they will be always dependent and as soon as you take away the medical help for a moment, they will die off - thats no adaptive quality, independence and a versatile potential is an adaptive quality, no mankind which needs to be under constant medical care just for existing.

Whats that for a future at all?

So if you want to prevent suffering AND secure the future, you need Eugenic measures to reach both in a humane and rational manner.

Simple as that.

[Monolith]

It would be absurd if I would think and act like that in all areas of my life, but its not absurd for theoretical reasoning, because in the end, that we have a brain, that we can think that way, is exactly the result of such factors.
Which is exactly why I can ask existential questions and search for the answers without resorting to reductionism. One may argue that the simplest answers are usually the correct ones, but this principle can't be used indefinitely. This is even more apparent when you understand that we are extremely limited beings, considering the access we have to the entire spectrum of information in our reality is one tiny bit of a greater whole.

I never said you must think and act like that in all areas of your life. I rather consider it a mistake to marginalize one part of our humanity, while idealizing another. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and human beings are the ultimate example of that.


We have to accept the reality as it is, I just tell you that. We dont live in a wonderland but on Earth, in this Universe.
Sure. Did I argue the opposite? However, like I implied above, to accept the reality as it is we must first understand it, and our (human) understanding of it is quite shallow. Do note that I'm not talking here solely about the part of reality accessible to man.


If you really want to make things better, for you, kind, group, all of mankind, you face things as they are. And a pregnancy is one of the greatest investments of all, I mean even that we are social and cultural beings, have something like love, that there is sex, that we have certain different behaviours in the sexes, thats all related to that.
What kind of investment? Perhaps an investment into ensuring the survival of progressive and advanced forms of life (whatever they are)? Maybe, but that's just consequential. The best we can do in this regard is for each of us to choose the best possible spouse. Humanity's greater good is a too vague ideal, for people to follow anyway. You might claim that you're a realist because of your support for eugenic policies, but you're as much as an idealist as those who follow completely different types of reasoning.


Thats just biology and biology works, religious and pseudoreligious reasoning doesnt.
You seem to imply that I'm using religious and pseudoreligious(?) reasoning. Please, do correct me if I'm wrong.


Only if the real problems are solved you can think about the fantastic ideas, first you have to solve the real problems and those have to be solved in a rational way or you fail.
Indeed, only when we solve our existential problems can we achieve self-actualization. Nobody says we can't consider these fantastic ideas when our work is in progress.


Actually its not about whether you can or not, but that we HAVE to do it, because otherwise we are just instinctive animals like others which haven't grasped anything.
I don't think you understood me correctly. It's not about whether we may or may not, but whether we are able to do so or not. In this case, it is impossible to dissect a fraction of one's mind so as to study its interaction with unrelated systems.


Asking what life is about: Achieve the next stage and secure survival on a high level!
Funny. That is quite similar to what the Bible says. Anyway, my question was a rhetorical one.

Their purpose was originally survival and biological success.

Is it the same now?

[Agrippa]

What kind of investment? Perhaps an investment into ensuring the survival of progressive and advanced forms of life (whatever they are)? Maybe, but that's just consequential. The best we can do in this regard is for each of us to choose the best possible spouse. Humanity's greater good is a too vague ideal, for people to follow anyway. You might claim that you're a realist because of your support for eugenic policies, but you're as much as an idealist as those who follow completely different types of reasoning.

Of course. But I consider two kinds of Idealism:
Rational higher and irrational lower Idealism. The first means you want a greater good and goal, but are able and especially ready to accept facts, while the other being something "like lost in fantasy", f.e. religious fanatics, often with even low level, egoistic motivations like "getting straight to heaven after being blown up", saying that "Jesus hates Marxists" and being an asocial Capitalist instead or something like that.

Generally people in an almost complete denial of reality if its about their ideals.

Thats why a successful human group, for a better society and with more potential, needs higher, but not as much lower Idealisem, which causes often more trouble than benefits.


You seem to imply that I'm using religious and pseudoreligious(?) reasoning. Please, do correct me if I'm wrong.

In some sentences it appeared to me.


I don't think you understood me correctly. It's not about whether we may or may not, but whether we are able to do so or not. In this case, it is impossible to dissect a fraction of one's mind so as to study its interaction with unrelated systems.

Look, there are differences between the sexes, races, constitutions and finally and most important, individual psychological variants in their reaction. We can even say some act more rational if you give them a certain information or get a clue, other's dont.

Some are good in this field, others in that. Humans dont work all the same and this being apparent in the political-ideological field as well.

If we look a the differences between humans and the genetic and environmental background responsible for it, we come to know how humans in general and specific personalities in particular function. Also we can compare objective measurments and controls of the environment with the result a human brain can come up. Simple put like you feed a computer with data and depending on the quality of the hardware, software and input you get a result.

Finally humans have a hardware (genes, the organism as such in phenotype), a software (culture, memes) and finally the input (challenges from the environment).

If one of these parts goes completely wrong, you have a problem and a result, which can be catastrophic for the survival and individuals quality of life.

The organism can degenerate in various ways, culture too (f.e. various forms of cultural physical deformations and mutilations etc.), whats something we have always to keep in mind is the input, the challenges humans can face throughout their life.

Eugenic and Euphenic programs mean to give the group members and therefore the group as a whole the best possible "equipment" to have a good and fulfilled life, in a condition in which they are able to master old and new potential challenges, survive as bloodlines and collective on a high level.

Even the deeper philophical questions can only be answered by specific kinds of humans primarily, even our knowledge will expand and our experiences and potential grow, if we actually plan were we are heading to. If we dont, we might just end up in a dead end or being stucked in a primitive status - "by chance".

We have the ability, we have the chance - to not use that would be a waste and against our existence, because humans always were the planners with reason, they now just need to grow up and beyond what they already are, because the defects which cause suffering and failure are unnecessary evils and social as well as medical care, as humane as it is and I fully promote it, makes things just worse - so does the way we live in general.

We need a correction, a humane, modern and goal oriented one for the best of the individuals and group as whole.


Is it the same now?

The purpose doesnt change, only the expression which can degenerate.

F.e. that humans strive for social status, wealth, sports, war, prominence, power, artistic or scientific achievements all being, if going deeper into the human mind and biological structure, related to the strive for biological, reproductive success.

It can be all directly linked to it. Now if the best variants Western mankind now still strive for this things, but dont reproduce any more, thats a cultural degeneration. If on the other hand even more of those which are unable to compete in any of these fields get more children than those who are top, we have a dysgenic trend.

So the PRIMARY purpose never changes, it can be just distracted or degenerate.

I mean, what many humans do and think now is like a bird a scientist gave a ball and it now sits on it, because of its instinctive programs, keeps it warm, protects it from enemies, as if that ball would be its egg. Because its programs just run on, its in their genes, they are not able to distinguish whether its useful or not when certain impulses are met.

Same with grey goose who can be conditioned to follow a ball or anything and "think" thats their mother. Well, they dont really "think" in a rational manner, its just a running program: First thing you see must be your mother...

Because thats so often true, the grey goose just follow it. So do humans.

In the evolutionary past wealth, social status, attractiveness, artistic or scientific achievements etc., all were related to reproductive success, thats why there is competition.

Now Capitalism just abuses these drives and converts it into economic values for a minority, which therefore acts like a social parasite, especially if those producing the greatest real values have no reproductive success. That also undermines the very structure of civilisation, because a civilisations needs to be beared and like it is with higher Idealism, not all people are equally capable of it.

What we do with a group oriented state, Eugenic and Euphenic measures, is just to bring humans back on track, taking the positive things which evolved on, but eliminating the degenerations which just caused troubles by producing constant failures, latest since the Techno-Civilisation started.

In fact, degenerated stone age lifeforms have now a modern Techno-Civilisation and being abused by social parasites. Thats the "culture of the West" currently.

Because even in the stone age the level was higher and in the past we had even more variants which would have been able to actually form a higher level group, but unfortunately dysgenic trends resulting in a constant degradation.

Again, I dont want to go back to Barbarism, because that would or could mean a one sided end too and cause immense suffering again, but I also see how the human culture and partly race degenerated. So something has to be done to correct that in time, before the failures result in the final catastrophy: Our extinction because of our own disability to evolve on a higher level.

In the current system we might make this comparison:

Grey goose which acted like Konrad Lorenz being their mother (early imprinting after hatching):
http://kidsweb.at/uploads/pics/konrad_lorenz.jpg

In humans we can observe whole structures which act like this would be their god and sole purpose, though its a man made instrument which being abused by a corrupted social parasite, the plutocratic Oligarchy:
http://www.interessantes.at/dollartrick/dollar-front.jpg

[Amapola]

Well Agrippa, you have voiced your opinion very well and I thank you for that but can't respect it and I don't share it. My views on abortion are a bit differet. I am sorry if I expand too much... but here they are...

Terminating the pregnancy voluntarily is aborting, although the euphemism makes it sound "not so hard". Aborting is murdering, although certain laws, developed in irresponsable parliaments, had legalized it at a stroke. I don't think that aborting is progressive despite the so called saying the opposite. Every Constitution and law on human rights shares the postulate that every individual has the right of life. The assertion leaves no room for dispute and like that it is continually repeated and demanded. On the other hand, if that right is defended at the moment of conception, dissidents arise... dissidents that question the start of human life, with scientific definitions of zygote... arguing about laws, science or the moment where the fetus is "viable". Personally I prefer to call it just "child", in other words, independent human life made up of soul and body which just need "some time". It's just a stage in the line of life. The first stage without which the others can't be. That's why in abortion, there are no exceptions.

Some sectors brand us retrogade; us we defend human life since the very moment of conception until final death. They claim it's a religious matter especially while referring to Christians. There need to be said though that when Christianity had not yet been established, Hipocrates, considered the father of medicine, condemned abortion, and presently there are activist atheists that defend life, not to mention Ghandi, icon of so many progessive minds. Rather than a religious matter it is a philosophical, biological, political, legal and moral issue.

Anti-life groups have adopted stances all around the world. Their mission is manipulating society- especially women, by saying that we have the right to decide over our body- and putting preassure on polititians so that they can pass laws that legalize abortion. With that purpose, they use false data and fraudulent surveys as in the USA, confessed by the very doctor Bernard Nathanson, nickname "the king of abortion", after repenting of so many murders:

http://www.squidoo.com/Bernard-Nathanson
http://www.coralridge.org/equip/10TruthsSeries/10%20Truths%20About%20Abortion/abortion-truth-4.aspx

Abortion is the heritage of the XX atheist regimes, an extrapolation of nazi ideology that has always been part of feminists's agenda (heirs of other times eugenics ideology). In past years, with the introduction of the "perspective of gender" this demand has become more radical and virtually almost every country has deviced "laws to terminate the pregnancy".

Abortion laws are sold like big social improvements. Concepts like freedom, equality, right of your own body or right to decide are usually treated with frivolity with the aim of presenting them with program shape to free women of a non-desired motherhood.

Advocators of abortion argue that women have the right to decide over their body and include the very little body that is being developed in their as "theirs"; a new being, independent, of whom the culture of death terms "set of cells", " tissue without shape, clot or litle cyst. Bravo!

The women who abort, rather that guilty, are victims of a society that trivialize most important things. Our society is anesthetized and has gone brainless, permissive, unable to discern, and very lazy to defend their thousand-year-old heredity

I don't want to blame women that don't know how the living being inside them is developed; they are also ignorant about the unwanted effects that abortion generates in them; they give themselves to abortionists most of the times following the bad advice of evil psychologists or other proffesionals whose purpose is not anything but swelling their current acount with the blood-stained checks of the poor victims.

Abortion amounts to thousand million every year. Only in Spain, in 2006, the murder of innocent beings amounted to 175 milion euros (not counting the black money). Many of these murders are perpetrated with the money of our taxes.

The Moral crisis we live in prevents us from discering good from evil.

[Radojica]

Woman give a birth to a child and after day or a two throw it away like a trash. Whole society condemn that woman and her action. If she is found (the mother) and baby is already dead, she is sent to prison, or mental institution.

Women do abortions on daily basis all over the world, but only a few are ready to rise their voices against such acts and it is all in vain.

Homosexual marriages are legalized, they can adopt the children, women are allowed to have abortions. What is next? Legalization of pedophilia,legalization of zoo sex, raping. If everybody have the right to decide what to do with his own life and body, then why not :shrug:

I saw one good looking sheep and a bunch of 10 years old boys a few days ago, legalize pedophilia zoo sex too, will you please? :rolleyes:

[anonymaus]

http://i.imgur.com/UAKVc.png

Speaking of abortions.

[Agrippa]

Obviously its the woman which can decide whether she wants to give birth to a child or not. The only other individual which has a word on that is the father.

Thats her potential child and unless it became a person with a human personality, its nothing but her property. Why should she be forced to carry on an unwanted child, invest in that and finally what then?
Others should care for their seed? Why so? If she didnt wanted it, why should others want to raise a foreign child for her unless she has otherwise so great genes that its worth the effort.

The whole thing is just based on pseudoreligious ideas about moral considerations.

A human person is no meatbag but a developed human personality or one wanted "with work in progress".

Once more this just shows how Christian and pseudoreligious moral poisened us. That way Europeans won't make it, too soft and weak, dont using whats their greatest cultural achievement and potential: reason and rationality.

Eugenic measures are a necessity we desperately need and the idea of every potential life being worth saved is just so far away from the reality of human life that it can't be argued in another than religious or pseudoreligious way.


considered the father of medicine, condemned abortion

Abortion if being done in an unprofessional way can be very dangerous. Thats another reason why we shouldnt ban it, because illegal abortions often result in dead, heavily injured or infertile women.

I too don't like the idea of valuable children being aborted if we need more of them, but I don't condemn it for principal reasons.

We need a pronatal and pro-Eugenic population policy, a good social and Euphenic system, thats what we need, not laws which forbid abortion out of a pseudoreligious principle and nothing else being changed...

Europeans are that stupid, they probably care more for aborted Negroid children than their own birthrate and biological-cultural future. If Europeans can't be changed, they are doomed to extinction and it will be for good...

I just hope they make it and can come back to a more reasonable approach though, I'm fighting for that.


murder of innocent beings

"Innocent beings"? Everybody is guilty or innocent in a certain way, because what we are and do is the result of the organism being shaped by genetic and environmental influences.

These are the children of those parents, they have their genetic heritage.

Thats just pseudoreligious reasoning, as if they are "innocent" - "innocent" why? Because they dont have a personality or the means to do anything like any developed human?

This embryos are just potential life and potential life with the genes of the parents.

If the parents dont want a child and if the potential child is not extremely valuable from a genetic point of view, in which interest should it be that the woman being FORCED to give birth to it?

The embryo is no real person with a developed human personality, but just a pile of cells - a plan for a person with "work in progress".

If the plan is bad, investment should be stopped immediately and if not even the parents don't want it, who are we to force the woman to give birth to this unwanted POTENTIAL child?

For what reason?

Absurd.

[Amapola]

[QUOTE]Obviously its the woman which can decide whether she wants to give birth to a child or not. The only other individual which has a word on that is the father.
And you are forgetting obviously the most important one: the child who cannot express himself yet.


Thats her potential child and unless it became a person with a human personality, its nothing but her property.
There is nothing like potential child:
"In the first constituent cell of a human person, in other words, in the fertilized ovule, there is a human being".
Jean Rostand, biologist and Nobel Prize.


Why should she be forced to carry on an unwanted child, invest in that and finally what then?
Because she caused him to be.


Others should care for their seed? Why so? If she didnt wanted it, why should others want to raise a foreign child for her unless she has otherwise so great genes that its worth the effort.
Irrelevant, there is the right of life above all.


The whole thing is just based on pseudoreligious ideas about moral considerations.
They claim it's a religious matter especially while referring to Christians. There need to be said though that when Christianity had not yet been established, Hipocrates, considered the father of medicine, condemned abortion, and presently there are activist atheists that defend life, not to mention Ghandi, icon of so many progessive minds. Rather than a religious matter it is a philosophical, biological, political, legal and moral issue.


Once more this just shows how Christian and pseudoreligious moral poisened us.
And before Christianity... who posined us/them? :D


That way Europeans won't make it, too soft and weak, dont using whats their greatest cultural achievement and potential: reason and rationality.

Eugenic measures are a necessity we desperately need and the idea of every potential life being worth saved is just so far away from the reality of human life that it can't be argued in another than religious or pseudoreligious way.
Eugenics is one of the many crimes perpetrated by science, progress and democracy because of which many should keep their mouth shut up about religious and antidemocratic's crimes in the past.



Abortion if being done in an unprofessional way can be very dangerous. Thats another reason why we shouldnt ban it, because illegal abortions often result in dead, heavily injured or infertile women.
Legal abortion doesn't reduce women's death. Before the legalization of abortion in the USA there were 100000 to 200000 ilegal abortions per year. After its legalization the number of abortions has been increasing up to 1.600.000. Women's death has not been reduced but increased out of proportion.

[Pallantides]

Defective children must be thrown in the wolf pit
...luckily I was fat healthy and squinty eyed baby:D.

[Agrippa]

And you are forgetting obviously the most important one: the child who cannot express himself yet.

= no person, but just potential one.


"In the first constituent cell of a human person, in other words, in the fertilized ovule, there is a human being".
Jean Rostand, biologist and Nobel Prize

If you have a meatbag with a fried brain, thats a "human being" too, yet not person in the same sense as a normal functioning individual with a functioning developed personality obviously.

Obviously its the start of human life, but its that in such an undifferentiated state, that it feels no pain and has no consciousness, which makes it just a potential future human person, yet being just a pile of cells with more or less potential.

How can any sane person even dare to compare a fully developed human person with a real personality with that embryonic pile of cells for other than religious/pseudoreligious and weak moralistic considerations?


Because she caused him to be.

Exactly. She caused it, its her potential child and she can cause him to not be. Its her decision.


Irrelevant, there is the right of life above all.

Says who? Santa Claus? Every cow has more of a personality than the embryonic pile of cells..


They claim it's a religious matter especially while referring to Christians. There need to be said though that when Christianity had not yet been established, Hipocrates, considered the father of medicine, condemned abortion

Christianity without Greek-Roman philosophy would have been just a religious sect from the desert with no chance of success. Obviously European Christianity was heavily influenced especially by Stoic thought.

Among those were many who said that the human life begins earlist with birth and patria potestas and infanticide were widely in use at that time anyway - for good (deformed, unfit, problematic situation etc.) and bad (saving, lazy, hedonistic etc.)...


, and presently there are activist atheists that defend life

Pseudoreligious = secular moral based on or developed from religious reasoning and morals with little other considerations.

F.e. most Cultural Marxists are atheists, but their ideology would have been almost unthinkable without the slave moral of Christianity, especially Neo-Christian revival.


not to mention Ghandi, icon of so many progessive minds.

Ghandi was religious and he had a problem with reality, both if its about how humans function, how the world is and finally what plans are useful. He was strictly against castes and ethnic, religious differences - had a view on the world and mankind which has no base in the physical and biological reality of this world, nor would it have been a salvation...

He had his merits, without a doubt, but in comparison to others, he was rather irrational. More rational leaders in India and China f.e. know very well that overpopulation is a problem and different means were used...


Rather than a religious matter it is a philosophical, biological, political, legal and moral issue.

Indeed. But the moral should be useful for the people - help them to organise their life on a higher level rather than being a burden.

Nobody being forced to abort, I would only recommend it if we have too many people in a region already or the potential offspring would be of low genetic quality.

But if someone decides to abort, thats their decision, only the parents have the right to decide that. Mother and father.

The only problem I see is, if one partner wants the child, the other doesn't, thats something I'm digging on - still.

Though I favour the mother, obviously because she has to carry it, has a far greater investment, the father should be involved as well one way or another.

I rather stick to a more reasonable approach like that of some of the greatest thinkers like Aristotle and Plato, as well as Roman Law:

As Michael Gorman puts it in Abortion and the Early Church, the Roman empire was paradoxically "profamily but not fundamentally antiabortion. That the fetus is not a person was fundamental to Roman law. Even when born, the child was valued primarily not for itself but for its usefulness to the father, the family and especially the state."

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/604581

Whats really paradoxical is, that the Christian Church was antifamily and antiabortion - thats because of its individualistic religious approach.

Which helped in certain fields, but was highly detrimental in others, compare:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12370

Anti-family, anti-biology, anti-group oriented in certain respects. In others Christian culture did a good job, but these things needed a correction, desperately for quite some time already.

Now the Evangelicals, Neochristians and Cultural Marxists summed up the worst of both worlds and added destructive idiocy for a slave population - with nothing useful being left.

We really need a turn, not just in that field...

[Amapola]

= no person, but just potential one.



If you have a meatbag with a fried brain, thats a "human being" too, yet not person in the same sense as a normal functioning individual with a functioning developed personality obviously.

Obviously its the start of human life, but its that in such an undifferentiated state, that it feels no pain and has no consciousness, which makes it just a potential future human person, yet being just a pile of cells with more or less potential.

How can any sane person even dare to compare a fully developed human person with a real personality with that embryonic pile of cells for other than religious/pseudoreligious and weak moralistic considerations?



Exactly. She caused it, its her potential child and she can cause him to not be. Its her decision.

Just basing on molecular biology:

Let's see in an easy way how new life starts: once the sperm has entered the ovule a chemical reaction is produced whose aim is "sealing" the membrane. After 12 hours, mother and father's gametes meet and melt into a big "hug" in which they share their genetical material. Half genoma, is contributed by each, which on meeting they give place to a big cell unit with a characteristic phenotype, a new and "unique" being. Since the moment a being has a different genetic code to their parent's, we speak of a human being, a person. It's the first stage of life but he already has all the genetic info of an adult.

What is potential about it?

It's not in vain that according to the doctor Bernard Nathason, abortists tend to come from the "slums" of the medical profession.

[Agrippa]

What is potential about it?

Thats just a blueprint, a "work in progress". Now the genetic plan is fixed, but nothing being build or function as in the normal human organism of a developed child, yet a normal adult.

Not even the organs are there, nothing, its just a plan which starts to copy and produce itself.

If the architect made a plan for a house, thats how it starts, but the house isn't there. Or can you live in the blueprint?

Material being needed, workforce, time, everything has to be build up step by step and if you stop early, nothing but a ruin is there, if you stop late, its an unfinished thing - like the "natural abort" or premature birth in humans which are not able to survive on their own.

Not ready yet.

Just if everything is at its place, everything being ready and made, you can live in that house - earlist. Usually many things have to be done first to make it a comfortable place to live in after the structure was build...

The same with a human person and developed human personality. Unless nothing is ready, nothing lives in the pile of cells comparable to what we are, its lower than an animal, we all were in this state, but developed on - then we were potential life, now we are persons with developed personalities, a consciousness etc.

Probably we will get lost again, go down to something lower than an animal again because of injuries, a horrible disease - just age, I don't know, many possibilities.

But what really functioning humans are about is the time in between obviously.

[Amapola]

Thats just a blueprint, a "work in progress". Now the genetic plan is fixed, but nothing being build or function as in the normal human organism of a developed child, yet a normal adult.

Not even the organs are there, nothing, its just a plan which starts to copy and produce itself.

If the architect made a plan for a house, thats how it starts, but the house isn't there. Or can you live in the blueprint?

Material being needed, workforce, time, everything has to be build up step by step and if you stop early, nothing but a ruin is there, if you stop late, its an unfinished thing - like the "natural abort" or premature birth in humans which are not able to survive on their own.

Not ready yet.

Just if everything is at its place, everything being ready and made, you can live in that house - earlist. Usually many things have to be done first to make it a comfortable place to live in after the structure was build...

The same with a human person and developed human personality. Unless nothing is ready, nothing lives in the pile of cells comparable to what we are, its lower than an animal, we all were in this state, but developed on - then we were potential life, now we are persons with developed personalities, a consciousness etc.

Probably we will get lost again, go down to something lower than an animal again because of injuries, a horrible disease - just age, I don't know, many possibilities.

But what really functioning humans are about is the time in between obviously.

It is not a work in progress but a process with different stages and stage numer 1 of the process of life is conception; it obviously ends with death. There is not an imaginary line where you can define life, I mean you can be in a more advanced stage of life and have little hands and feet OR not but you can't be more alive or less alive. You are dead or alive, period.

[Radojica]

Agrippa, most of the time I like your posts, but with this I don't agree with you. Since the down of life on Earth everything is starting with one cell organism, everything, organism! From one cell organisms to multicellular organisms. We would not be here changing opinions in case that was not the case. It has to start from somewhere and you cannot say it is not worth saving because it has no personality. For God's sake, I know dozen of people who are adults, but still are acting like brainless idiots, so, let's kill them and make more room for other with personalities. God knows how many Einsteins and Nikola Tesla's have been killed so far, because someone is thinking that has right to take the life. Comparison might sound a bit stupid, but you didn't know the chocolate is sweet and good before you tasted it, didn't you?

[Agrippa]

Agrippa, most of the time I like your posts, but with this I don't agree with you. Since the down of life on Earth everything is starting with one cell organism, everything, organism! From one cell organisms to multicellular organisms.

Of course, I never said life doesnt start there, thats not the question, it never was.

The question is when we deal with a human person, a developed personality which should be protected with all rights every member of the group should have.

Life starts with a cell - correct. Probably even with the spermium and egg which live on themselves for quite some time too. But obviously not every spermium or ovum being saved neither...


It has to start from somewhere and you cannot say it is not worth saving because it has no personality.

No, no, I didnt said its not worth saving, it might be worth saving if we need more people and it has good genes. Its just not a human person which is automatically under protection and has a right of physical integrity etc.

Obviously you can't even torture it, in an early stage at least, unless you say you can torture a tree or a sea urchin or the like - because thats comparable.


For God's sake, I know dozen of people who are adults, but still are acting like brainless idiots, so, let's kill them and make more room for other with personalities.

Wow, well, thats murder then and you eliminate a real person, a personality, "a soul" or how you want to call it.

Some people might deserve that, probably, but its in any case far away from something like a pile of cells for which we dont even have to think about protection, because its just the potential for a person.


God knows how many Einsteins and Nikola Tesla's have been killed so far, because someone is thinking that has right to take the life.

Well, Einstein did many bad things too ;)

But Tesla - ok, thats accepted.

I get what you mean. Don't forget, we talked originally about the abortion of defect children - if "that something" can't see, smell, speak, think etc. like a person and never will, but will be just "a suffering something", that won't become another Rutherford, Darwin, Heisenberg, Watson or Tesla...

Thats out of question.

Actually the abortion of such defective embryos or fetuses will just prevent suffering, false investment and making it easier and faster possible for the couple to get the next, this time hopefully a healthy child, probably another genius like you said above.

This means it makes space free for a better individual without eliminating a real person. An action without victims and only benefits for all, even the defective fetus which suffering life would have been just a useless pain and suffering for itself and the environment.

Also I said, I wouldn't recommend abortion if a region gets not enough children (all European populations are shrinking) and the possible outcome, the genetic quality being good.

Thats a recommendation and I fight for that, but I think its wrong to force a woman and man to get a child they don't want. For what should that be good?


Comparison might sound a bit stupid, but you didn't know the chocolate is sweet and good before you tasted it, didn't you?

Unless you see the parents, know how they are and that they won't care, nor have good genetic traits - or even more clearly if you tested the embryo or fetus for defects and negative traits and those show up.

Then you know, like an expired or poisoned chocolate, that eating means harm. Even if it tastes alright at first, once you ate it, you might even die from that mistake or at least get very sick from it.

No Eugenic measures and Individualist morals even for unborns means to die off, because thats anti-life, not pro-life, since it doesnt know what life or humans are about nor the biological principles determining it.

[Amapola]

Honestly, I don't have time for that right now... but I will come back later to fight a bit more for the defence of life and the innocent :)

My last saying about the "potenciality" LoL of life is that there are only individual human beings. The concept of human life is abstract.

You don't step towards human life, once life exists there is a developing towards different stages until death comes.

You are not a bit alive or a bit dead, nor a bit pregnant.

You are alive and you grow. Nobody ever questions you when your pregnancy test is positive, because you are not going towards pregnancy but you are preganant OR not.

Life is the same, and only death can oppose to it.

The rest is relativism, personal interests and lack of morals.

[Agrippa]

You are alive and you grow. Nobody ever questions you when your pregnancy test is positive, because you are not going towards pregnancy but you are preganant OR not.

Obviously, if you get a "natural abort" and the embryo or fetus dies, its a huge difference whether this happens in the 1st or 6th month, wouldn't you agree?

In most countries there is a "Fristenlösung" = Fristenlösung means that women have the unconditional right to have an abortion within the first three months of pregnancy.

In that time, not even the sexual and organic differentiation is fully developed, its still "in formation".

That means the later fetus being protected by the law anyway, unless there are more serious reasons for an abortion.

In my personal opinion, as I said before, even a spermium and ovum are parts of human life - so is the zygote which being produced in a laboratory with in vitro fertilisation - often frozen afterwards, being nonperishable like frozen peas.

Thats the start of a human life, but its not a person or in any way comparable to a real subject - out of the woman, it can't survive at any rate, so it belongs solely to the woman, being part of it and no independent life so far.

If you want to say the late fetus and newborn is independent life - earlist from the stage when it can survive outside of the womb on its own.

If thats the case, the measures of protection are higher, the reasons for eliminating the fetus must have a higher priority, since the woman must give birth to it anyway and the differentiation is already more advanced.

By the way, what would you say if the woman will die while giving birth to a defected child? Still do nothing? Being against medical abortions? Against saving the woman which dies just because of a worthless fetus which will never be a real human person?

Or if the woman was brutally raped by a group of Negrids - still no abortion allowed?

[Toni]

The most beautiful trial of 20ieth century:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors'_Trial

:thumb001:

[Radojica]

Agrippa, let me ask you something. Have you ever made a contact with those "defected" kids, or adults, as you are naming them (ok, defected fetuses, but that can be applied to children and adults too)? Have you ever tried to talk to someone who is suffering from Autism, Cerebral paralysis, Down syndrome, Hyperactive children? I am naming disorders which are the most frequent (there are more, of course). Well, I did when i was voluntarily working in one NGO who is dealing with people who are impeded in development and there is nothing defective in them. Some of them are not the brightest kids, true, but some of them are geniuses in the true meaning of that word. In intelligent way their brains are not perfect ones, but emotionally they are and they can be the sweetest and the best persons in the world. Some of them are finishing faculties or getting Phd's (I personally know one girl who had the best marks in the school, she was better than "normal" people). They can take care about themselves, they can work, enjoy in life and everything which life is bringing. Some of them, NOT ALL, who have harder disorders, are hospitalized, but so are the people who are not impeded in development.

Blind and deaf people are the persons who also were "defected", but I don't see them ruining the world, or making this place worst than it is.

u2NmPVg_2qM

Look what one "defected" person once made.

here is another "defected" person.

http://krembanan.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/stephen-hawking.jpg

Your eugenic ideas are nothing but immoral and in case that prevail, the world would not even exist anymore (All hail Hitler and other assholes who supported that), or at least would not be beautiful as it is!

[Agrippa]

First of all, you lump all kind of defects together, which are not at all comparable. F.e. a mild form of Autism might indeed be a favourable trait in certain proportions or personality configurations, because those variants can develop high level special abilities.

Thats something I already mentioned otherwise, that some genetic predispositions and dispositions might have a good and a bad side. In such cases one has to be more careful to not eliminate good potential - very hard task for the future with more research being needed.

As for the other defects, I don't hate those people, they are just suffering from deficits. F.e. Hawking was a healthy person which just happened to have a horrible defect from which he suffers. Obviously he never wanted that, he tried to walk on his feet as long as possible, at the end creeping on the floor like a worm.
This horrible defect can't be cured now - unfortunately, because if possible I would always want to help such individuals, but our means are limited.

However, I would even say he should get children probably, because he has good genes overall, after all it's just a small defect in his genome. What I mean is that we can select prenatally those embryos of Hawking for example, which DO NOT HAVE THAT SPECIFIC DEFECT, so his good genes can live on, the defect disappears.

Obviously, if he is as intelligent as he is supposed to be, he would never want anyone suffering from the same horrible disease he has. And there is only one way to prevent that and keeping the individual really healthy, even if a medical treatment is available, this still means dependence and this dependency might spread genetically, which is an essentially bad thing too - so the only real solution is to eliminate the defect gene.

Unless we can use germline genetic therapy, there is just one way, namely eliminating the defect embryo.

Who says that his brother wouldnt have been a genius like him - but one having a better live and still being able to stand on his own feet rather than being an awful cripple Hawking himself NEVER WANTED TO BE!


Look what one "defected" person once made (Beethoven was deaf since the birth,but I am sure you already know that).

I know. So what? If he would have been deaf from birth, he would have never made his great opus!

And just imagine his horror when he recognised that he became deaf!

So what is your conclusion? A genetically defect embryo which will be a deaf person from birth will be the next Beethoven or what?


Agrippa, let me ask you something. Have you ever made a contact with those "defected" kids, or adults, as you are naming them (ok, defected fetuses, but that can be applied to children and adults too)? Have you ever tried to talk to someone who is suffering from Autism, Cerebral paralysis, Down syndrome, Hyperactive children?

Yes, many of them are suffering or troublesome beings and I feel sorry for them, as well as for the social environment. Bad luck that it happened, but fortunately we will be able to prevent such horrible things from happening in the future.


In intelligent way their brains are not perfect ones, but emotionally they are and they can be the sweetest and the best persons in the world.

Obviously, many of them are so defect, they can't control themselves, therefore they are purely emotional on a very low level - thats not a developed modern human, not the normal standard. Some might think thats "sweet", but so do some ladies which want a degenerated dog breed, which suffers from its various defects, because of the paedomorphy and its "a sweet puppy". Humans need to have a certain biological and social standard for their evaluations.

Having mercy is one thing, feeling sorry another, but allowing problems, defects and suffering to spread, again something very different.


Some of them are finishing faculties or getting Phd's (I personally know one girl who had the best marks in the school, she was better than "normal" people).

Nice, obviously it was no Down Syndrome girl I guess...


They can take care about themselves, they can work, enjoy in life and everything which life is bringing.

Thats good.


Some of them, NOT ALL, who have harder disorders, are hospitalized, but so are the people who are not impeded in development.

Blind and deaf people are the persons who also were "defected", but I don't see them ruining the world, or making this place worst than it is.

Well, you look at it the wrong way. Existing persons are under protection as long as the group can provide that without suffering losses of significance.

Currently we have a rather wealthy society in a Techno-Civilisation, so obviously humanitarianism and care is no big issue for all persons, I'm all in favour of that as long as they are not dangerous for normal group members. I want a social and humane policy.

But fact is, we need capable people with a good potential, both for our group, our bloodlines, our survival and further developed. So we should rather care the most to enhance our status rather than breeding our people down until they are totally dependent and unable to develop on in a meaningful way.

If you have the choice, and we have always a choice, the healthy child with a good potential has the No. 1 priority. As for the others, we can care for them now, but we should rather prevent such defects from coming into existence in the first place.

[Radojica]

First of all, you lump all kind of defects together, which are not at all comparable. F.e. a mild form of Autism might indeed be a favourable trait in certain proportions, because those variants can develop high level special abilities.

ANd how are you going to know if the child is going to have the mild form of Autism, or the heavy one? Looking in the beans, crystal ball?


Thats something I already mentioned otherwise, that some genetic predispositions and dispositions might have a good and a bad side.

From my mother's side my grandmother, grand-uncle and my mother were suffering from cancer. I might get the cancer too, but I might live long and healthy life and die in 100, the one can never know.


As for the other defects, I don't hate those people, they are just suffering from deficits. F.e. Hawking was a healthy person which just happened to have a horrible defect from which he suffers. Obviously he never wanted that, he tried to walk on his feet as long as possible, at the end creeping on the floor like a worm.
This horrible defect can't be cured now - unfortunately, because if possible I would always want to help such individuals, but our means are limited.

I don't say you hate them, but making assumptions that if there is a chance that a child could be impeded in the life and therefore should be killed. As for Stephen Hawking, that only means that something is wrong with his genes, since he eventually got ill and ended like he did.


However, I would even say he should get children probably, because he has good genes overall, after all it's just a small defect in his genome. What I mean is that we can select prenatally those embryos of Hawking for example, which DO NOT HAVE THAT SPECIFIC DEFECT so his good genes can live on, the defect disappears.

How do you know that his children won't end up like him, or even die in childhood after years "wasted" on breeding? Maybe it is small genome, but in his child those mutations could be bigger which could be seen after the child is born. Some environment influence could trigger the mutations and there you go.


Obviously, if he has as intelligent as he is supposed to be, he would never want anyone suffering from the same horrible disease he has. And there is only one way to prevent that and keeping the individual really healthy, even if a medical treatment is available, this still means dependence and this dependency might spread genetically, which is an essentially bad thing to - so the only real solution is to eliminate the defect gene.[QUOTE]

Tell me, are you totally independent in every aspect of your life?! Did you grew up by yourself, without your mother and father? In some wildness? Are you telling me that old people should be eliminated because they depend on society, family members?

[QUOTE=Agrippa;214252]Who says that his brother wouldnt have been a genius like him - but one having a better live and still being able to stand on his own feet rather than being an awful cripple Hawking himself NEVER WANTED TO BE!

Neither those people who were born impeded in development, but they still have the right to live like every other person.


I know. So what? If he would have been deaf from birth, he would have never made his great opus!

He made some of his the greatest works after he went deaf completely which only proves that they can contribute to the society in general.


And just imagine his horror when he recognised that he became deaf!

And just imagine the horror of the mother who is carryng defected embryo and is told that she should "clean" herself because it is not worth the time


So what is your conclusion? A genetically defect embryo which will be a deaf person from birth will be the next Beethoven or what?

My point is that you could never know person could do if you don't allow to try.




Yes, many of them are suffering or troublesome beings and I feel sorry for them.

I am not feeling sorry about them, there is nothing to sorry about.


Obviously, many of them are so defect, they can't control themselves, therefore they are purely emotional - thats not a developed modern human, not the normal standard. Some might think thats "sweet", but so do some ladies which want a degenerated dog breed, which suffers from its various defects because of the paedomorphy and its "a sweet puppy". Humans need to have a certain biological and social standard for their evaluations.

They can think, write, talk, dance, play, joke, cry, feel sorry and happy. What is else that you want? The average IQ of people with Down syndrome is around 60 and it goes up to 90.


Having mercy is one thing, feeling sorry another, but allowing problems, defects and suffering to spread, again something different.

That has nothing to do with mercy or feeling sorry, but with understanding that they are not piece of trash, but humans who have all the right to live like you and me.


Nice, obviously it was no Down Syndrome girl I guess...

Cerebral parlays and is from her childhood in wheelchairs.


Thats good.

Another argument that they should not be killed and abandoned.


Well, you look at it the wrong way. Existing persons are under protection as long as the group can provide that without suffering losses of significance.

Again, should old people be killed because they are old?


Currently we have a rather wealthy society in a Techno-Civilisation, so obviously humanity and care is no big issue.

Read again my previous sentence.


But fact is, we need capable people with a good potential, both for our group, our bloodlines, our survival and further developed. So we should rather care the most to enhance our status rather than breeding our people down until they are totally dependent and unable to develop on in a meaningful way.

Agree here, but that is still not the reason to kill them.


If you have the choice, and we have always a choice, the healthy child with a good potential has the No. 1 priority. As for the others, we can care for them now, but we should rather prevent such defects from coming into existence in the first place.

There is millions and millions of children and adults who are impeded in development and a very few parents who gave up of them.

Sad thing is that there are millions of normal healthy children who are in the streets, hungry, thirsty and yet our society like don't care about them. Even if we have the meanings they are abandoned. Your ideas are not holding the water at all.

[Agrippa]

ANd how are you going to know if the child is going to have the mild form of Autism, or the heavy one? Looking in the beans, crystal ball?

I added above:
Thats something I already mentioned otherwise, that some genetic predispositions and dispositions might have a good and a bad side. In such cases one has to be more careful to not eliminate good potential - very hard task for the future with more research being needed.


From my mother's side my grandmother, grand-uncle and my mother were suffering from cancer. I might get the cancer too, but I might live long and healthy life and die in 100, the one can never know.

Yup, but we can work on that, so that we can know in the future and you can decide whether you protect your future family from that menace or not.

I would, you should too. It's in your interest, the interest of your family, in the interest of the group and the healthy child to come.


How do you know that his children won't end up like him, or even die in childhood after years "wasted" on breeding? Maybe it is small genome, but in his child those mutations could be bigger which could be seen after the child is born. Some environment influence could trigger the mutations and there you go.

You can only select, change, promote or eliminate what's known.

So if we know that this mutation causes his degeneration, we can test the embryo for it and if the embryo doesnt have it. In fact, in vitro you can test even before we might speak of an embryo proper, without any higher organisatsion, namely the blastocyst - just taking away one or two cells, which doesnt hurt it - test those cells, then you know and can implant or not.

There is no chance for his childen having that defect then - probably some other undetected, but since we will improve our abilities for penatal screening, this won't be an issue in the future.

So you can actually guarantee that his children won't get the same defect - but being otherwise normal children born out of his semen...


Tell me, are you totally independent in every aspect of your life?! Did you grew up by yourself, without your mother and father? In some wildness? Are you telling me that old people should be eliminated because they depend on society, family members?

First of all, humans are a social and cultural species, this means we are all dependent on each other, I write about myself being a Progressive Collectivist, so obviously I know that.

There are even good dependencies, normal human ones, other less normal, still ok. But then you have those which have such a reduced potential, that their quality is very, very low. Those might have, like some mild Autists, special abilities which balance the defect out, but most haven't.

Otherwise just imagine you have an accident and lying down in the woods. Now you are totally dependent on your medication, lets say Insuline. This means just a simple accident and a shortage of your medication for a limited time can mean your death.

This sort of dependency can be prevented, your sufferent can be prevented, by eliminating the genetic causes for the disease.

As for "the old". There are many old persons in many different conditions. Some are highly valuable for the group, others earned the respect of it, though being not as valuable any more.

I say the same thing as I did before, we live in a wealthy Techno-Civilisation, we can afford to care for them. If a desperate situation comes, obviously the young have to be saved and cared for first, because they are the future, the old ones the past. Let's just hope such a situation will never come!

Otherwise, I'm for Euthanasia, so old people should get the care they need and being able to live a life in dignity as long as THEY WANT, if they don't want to live any longer, they are free to go, which means active Euthanasia AT WILL - not forced one!


He made some of his the greatest works after he went deaf completely which only proves that they can contribute to the society in general.

Come on. He wouldn't have been able to do so if being born deaf. If he wouldnt become deaf, he would have made great works too or probably even better ones, who knows...

Additionally anyone can have a horrible accident or disease and becoming a cripple, thats fate, I hate it, but so is life. We might be able to help much more people with modern medical techniques in the future, so that the suffering and numbers of handicapped will constantly decrease.
But to enhance our populations genpool and future individual and collective potential, especially in such a situation Eugenic measures are needed to prevent negative genetic traits from spreading.


And just imagine the horror of the mother who is carryng defected embryo and is told that she should "clean" herself because it is not worth the time

Thats fate, nobody wants something like that to happen, but it happens and its still better to make a clean thing for the good of the mother, father, social environment and their future, rather from letting something even more horrible happening.

And if the mother doesn't want that, well, she might be held responsible in one way or another, but as long as the majority is reasonable and participates, individuals can decide otherwise, so they just ruin their own offspring and will be selected out that way probably, will lie further and further behind of those which participate.

One day, the children of one of those might actually sue the parents for their irresponsible behaviour, probably that will be a lesson for those which don't get it...


My point is that you could never know person could do if you don't allow to try.

In the case of someone like Hawking in the future, you know he will get the horrible disease at a certain age, will suffer horribly, might fight with himself over suicide and finally become a helpless cripple.

So thats something you know, you can't say otherwise. And show says, that the healthy child, which came up because of the second attempt of the parents, the mother getting pregnant earlier than if she would have carried on the defect, being the genius - even a healthy one!

Like you said, you can never know, you can just know who will have the horrible defect or negative traits and who's not. Simple as that, clear and simple decision.

Some months after the abortion a women can get pregnant again. Just imagine a healthy and gifted child being the result of the second attempt! A normal, functioning and good family, new group member being the result, not a defected one...


I am not feeling sorry about them, there is nothing to sorry about.

Well, then you must live in a delusion probably...


They can think, write, talk, dance, play, joke, cry, feel sorry and happy. What is else that you want? The average IQ of people with Down syndrome is around 60 and it goes up to 90.

And they have a lot of physical defects, need oftentimes constant medical care, are unattractive, not intelligent, can't participate in various efforts of the group and might in a worst case even reproduce the defect.

Say what you want, they are nowhere even close to a higher level normal group member and thats what we have to choose from: This defect or a healthy, normal, valuable group member coming into existence just some months later!


That has nothing to do with mercy or feeling sorry, but with understanding that they are not piece of trash, but humans who have all the right to live like you and me.

Well, thats again religious or pseudoreligious talk, because you missed the reality of life and basic biological principles.

People in the past knew more about it than todays Christian and Cultural Marxist inspired people, rationality has to prevail in the future.

I agree though, that they have their right to live, but not in the same way as a group member which could achieve something great or secure our survival obviously...

Its not about them having no rights or considered trash like you say, but priorities. They are no priority as other's are, still, if we can, we should care, out of mercy and humanitarianism.


Cerebral parlays and is from her childhood in wheelchairs.

Too bad we can't cure her. Probably it will be possible in the future...


Agree here, but that is still not the reason to kill them.

Them implies existing persons with a consciousness, with all human feelings, a certain intellectual level etc. If thats present, we deal with a person with all rights for protection as long as the circumstances allow it, if not, then not.

Obviously an embryo is not a person in the same sense as the intelligent girl in the wheelchair.


There is millions and millions of children and adults who are impeded in development and a very few parents who gave up of them.

Obviously, humans are instinctive creatures, mothers being flooded with hormons, not acting rational all the time, childlike characteristics work psychologically as well etc. And of course, once a person exists, hope lives on even more desperately.

Thats a basic human problem and quality the same time, because we were biologically programmed to act that way, so we don't abandon a potential offspring or kin too easily.

Simple put, the exceptions were no issue, like it is with seriously ill, extremely suffering persons which still try to live on, though their life is over and nothing but pain and suffering can be expected. Thats the case which is not interesting for evolution, because if humans would give up too fast, they won't make it at all - whether they suffer or die in vain is no issue from the evolutionary, but just the individual and collective human perspective.

Now in a civilisation this "exceptions" can become more frequent, last but not least because of medical care, which is a blessing, but also a problem and threat, because natural selection doesn't work any more like it should.

Natural selection though doesn't work for a long term plan anyway, it means just short term oriented adaptation to the current environment. So there is always the threat of a dead end or unfavourable development in evolution.

Since humans can plan, have reason and modern techniques, they can also avoid dead ends and part of that being to stop the spread of negative and promote the spread of positive traits - nothing else is Eugenic - and Euphenic on a cultural and social level.

I'm all in favour of both. f.e. Euphenic means for the girl in a wheelchair that we care for her, give her as much help and try to better her situation as far as possible - as long as we can afford it without heavy losses.

The Eugenic would mean - if she would be able to get pregnant and give birth to a child, that we control whether her embryo has the defect too at least.

So that means we do the utmost for those which exist and those to come equally. Eugenic and Euphenic measures.


Sad thing is that there are millions of normal healthy children who are in the streets, hungry, thirsty and yet our society like don't care about them. Even if we have the meanings they are abandoned. Your ideas are not holding the water at all.

Well, obviously I care first for my kin and group, then the others.

Always in priorities.

I wouldn't help foreign elements, the more foreign the worse, especially not of a lower level, to infiltrate my population and substitute its people, genes and culture.

But seriously, I would try to change that too obviously, after all, I want to eliminate Liberalcapitalism, one sided, meaningless exploitation and superstition etc.

As long as it's not against my, my kins, group, race, species interests to help someone, but probably even on the contrary, I would fight for changing the conditions and help other people too - higher priorities and interests save = no problem.

[The Lawspeaker]

I personally believe that people with severe defects should be advised (no one should ever be forced) to undergo sterilization. This wouldn't go for someone with a mild form of Autism or the like but more severe defects. Of course sterilization has to be carried on a voluntarily basis. For those that cannot make such a decision (because of impaired mental capabilities) it should be explained and the decision should be left to his/her guardian.

No doctor or judge should ever have the power to force a person to be sterilized as it would desecrate the right of ownership over ones own body.

When it comes to abortion: when a couple is expecting a handicapped child I truly believe that a doctor should advise them on the matter and whether or not they choose to follow his/her advise is their good right.

And when it comes to euthanasia. I believe that those that are now wasting away in (mental) institutions should be given the chance to step out of this life with dignity. Such a step should be voluntary and if a person has no family nor the mental capacity to understand it then perhaps then his/her guardian will decide. I truly believe that euthanasia or "voluntarily termination of life" should be conducted by means of administering a gas that causes hypoxia. Which is painless and renders a person unconscious in 10 to 15 seconds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuWs7Fx0sSs&feature=related). (killing the person in less then a minute).

Of course that final step should be taken in the full company of those that wish to bid the person farewell and in relatively pleasant surroundings.

[Agrippa]

I personally believe that people with severe defects should be advised to undergo sterilization. This wouldn't go for someone with a mild form of Autism or the like but more severe defects. Of course sterilization has to be carried on a voluntarily basis. For those that cannot make such a decision it should be explained and the decision should be left to his/her guardian.

No doctor or judge should ever have the power to force a person to be sterilized as it would desecrate the right of ownership over ones own body.

When it comes to abortion: when a couple is expecting a handicapped child I truly believe that a doctor should advise them on the matter and whether or not they choose to follow his/her advise is their good right.

In general I can largely agree with that, though I dont think we can generalise that, especially because of the more "dramatic cases".

I know of cases in which really asocial families with regular child abuse, living from welfare and having various defects don't stop to get chidren. 4 live already in state institutions and they still go on with producing more...

That are really extreme cases, but they appear and I doubt all of them are reasonable enough.

What I can imagine is to pay them a bonus for sterilisation, especially in those cases with clear genetic deficits which can't be eliminated easily by prenatal selection and/or the full inability to raise children properly. Many of those don't really plan children, they just produce them with their sexually promiscuitive behaviour, so they don't really care that much about whether they get more children or not.

Actually I can imagine a bonus system in both ways:
+ Bonus for positive variants to get more children
+ Bonus for negative variants to get less children/sterilised.
- Higher taxes/malus for positive variants which decide to stay childless
- Malus for those which get more children, though those they have are (more than one) problem cases and they can't care for those children properly EVEN with the help of the state and group

Goal is not primarily to punish, but balance things out, especially for the positive variants too, which now have no real advantage from founding a family for their social status and financial position, but just costs. Even more so in an Individualised environment in which the children don't really belong to them and the group is just a mass - an egoistic and greedy one even - too. That must be reverted, so that those which found a family gain a higher status without financial losses in comparison to childless persons and couples.

On the other hand, the spread of asocial and defective individuals and families is nothing desirable, so they should be encouraged to have a strict family planning and being rewarded for accepting that they f.e. stop to get more children, especially if those existing show serious problems and defects, the parents are not able to care for them in an acceptable manner etc.

F.e. they get their welfare cheque + something regularly for agreeing on being sterilised.

Thats nothing for people which are "normal social cases" or slightly problematic, but really the asocial subjects which have nothing desirable or serious defects.

As long as their numbers can be kept low otherwise, they shouldn't be forced neither, unless they are really cases like I described - I know personally of such, really dumb, ugly, sick people which produced 6+ children with various partners, often child abuse involved, the children usually lower level and they just don't stop and don't care.
If the state takes away the children because the parent(s) are a threat to their well being, they just "make the next one..." - and of course, the collective has to pay and care everything for them, sometimes for many generations, because they socially and biologically reproduce "their cases".

One has to look at such in detail and use all medical and Euphenic measures, as well as the bonus-malus system to get them on line and only in drastic cases in which they show absolutely no realisation and cooperation, one has to consider coercive measurements, at least as long as they live in the group area.

Because if I would have a state, I would organise a real community in networks and the people should cooperate and participate - a real Gemeinschaft (collective) not just Gesellschaft (society).

But people which don't want to participate, for whatever reason, might live in communities of their own. F.e. I would care little about people like the Amish, which pose no threat and can live in their way if they want.

As long as you live in the networks, profit from the group, you have to follow its rules or accept the consequences.

This means, I would probably organise independent areas for communities which want to live in another way, its up to them. They just have to pose no threat and stick largely to their own, especially if its ideological, so that they can't influence the main group in a negative way.

In my opinion, what really matters is the greater whole and therefore what the majority does - as long as they do the right thing, a minority can do something else if not interfering with longer term plans.

But if you want the benefits of our group, social organisation and network, you have to conform to it too, which means participation in Eugenic and Euphenic programs, at least for the more drastic cases, on the longer run too. Hard to imagine a healthy group social network unit with a family which thinks its good to get defect children and raise them in a Cultural Marxist/Neochristian way among good and valuable group members with real virtues...

Thats a long term vision though, today society is no community or collective - no Gemeinschaft but just a bunch of individuals which have no values and goals in a sick society in which no good, but just bad competition in the Liberalcapitalist structures determines people's behaviour.

[SardiniaAtlantis]

Crazy.