Should this baby have been aborted?

[LnGrrrR]

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/surrogacy-kelley-legal-battle/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Interesting moral question. If you knew your baby was going to have severe mental and health problems, would you abort it? What about if you or your loved one were carrying the baby as a surrogate? What if you knew as parents that you couldn't afford the medical treatments necessary to take care of your child? A story worth checking out.

[Halberto]

God doesn't make mistakes.

[Drachen]

God doesn't make mistakes.

Which is why he bestowed the gift of abortion unto us?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

God doesn't make mistakes.

/thread

[whitemamba]

tbh, i am a firm believer in god. Life if Life and it should not be taken away, but i think i would have a hard time raising a child if i knew he was going to be normal. i.e. disease/sickness. i might abort him/her imho, good questiong though always up for debate

[mouse]

God doesn't make mistakes.

which God are you referring too?

[silverblk mystix]

which God are you referring too?

What is this word "god" that is constantly thrown around without having a clue what it means?

[mouse]

What is this word "god" that is constantly thrown around without having a clue what it means?

Because the word God has turned into a pun a punchline a nickname a way to swear. and even the ones who claim they know what god means and the ones who claim they believe in a God have no clue what the word God stands for.

[spursncowboys]

People who changed the world AND were adopted:
Pre Roe v. Wade
Jesse Jackson
Malcolm X
Steve Jobs
Dave Thomas
Marilyn Monroe
Dr Ruth
Bill Clinton
*Mother Teresa*
Gerald Ford
Nancy Reagan
John Hancock
Newt G.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Larry Ellison
Eric Dickerson
Eric Clapton
Michael Bay

Post Roe v. Wade
Snookie

[Woo Bum-kon]

What is this word "god" that is constantly thrown around without having a clue what it means?

Meaning is entirely dependent on the one who uses the word.

[Goliadnative]

Should this baby have been aborted?

Man With Down Syndrome Runs N.M. Restaurant (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2013/03/man-with-down-syndrome-runs-n-m-restaurant/)

[silverblk mystix]

Meaning is entirely dependent on the one who uses the word.


...and in each case...it is entirely inaccurate.

[ploto]

This is what happens when reproduction is turned into business. You have women getting money to donate eggs, doctors making money in fertility clinics, and women being paid to carry babies.

[ploto]

God doesn't make mistakes.
God didn't make this baby - scientists did.

[Woo Bum-kon]

...and in each case...it is entirely inaccurate.

That doesn't make any sense. There is no meaning independent of humanity. The concept of "god" was created by humans in the first place, so your assertion is asinine.

[Stringer_Bell]

Interesting moral question, yes. Ethical question, nay. You can't contract away the fundamental right to choose what happens to your body - so if anyone wanted to raise a stink in a court of law, they'd run into a huge public policy dilemma. According to the CNN report on TV, surrogacy is a billion dollar enterprise - so more power to these rich people and their tainted seeds...and the wonderful capitalists that draw up the contracts. Shit, if we can make adopting and fostering kids into a money-making enterprise, then we owe it to ourselves to take it a step further, not just for America, but for the world.

Sidebar: I thought this lady was cool until it was revealed she came back for more money. Lame.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

God didn't make this baby - scientists did.

Why didn't god stop the scientists from making such an ungodly being?

[ElNono]

People who changed the world AND were adopted:
Pre Roe v. Wade
Jesse Jackson
Malcolm X
Steve Jobs
Dave Thomas
Marilyn Monroe
Dr Ruth
Bill Clinton
*Mother Teresa*
Gerald Ford
Nancy Reagan
John Hancock
Newt G.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Larry Ellison
Eric Dickerson
Eric Clapton
Michael Bay

Post Roe v. Wade
Snookie

Were adoptions outlawed after Roe vs Wade? Not sure I get the point besides of the humorous Snookie part...

[Woo Bum-kon]

God didn't make this baby - scientists did.

God doesn't make any babies, so your point is moot.

[silverblk mystix]

That doesn't make any sense. There is no meaning independent of humanity.

Bullshit. There is reality. Humans placed their "opinions" of what they "guessed" reality was/is. They were just as likely to be wrong or really wrong. It doesn't have much to do with what "god" is or isn't.

The concept of "god" was created by humans in the first place, so your assertion is asinine.


Thanks for helping me make my point. Humans created this concept of god - so there is zero chance that this concept is accurate in any way.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Thanks for helping me make my point. Humans created this concept of god - so there is zero chance that this concept is accurate in any way.

You fail to understand my point. "God" is a concept created by humans. Without humans, the concept does not exist. There is no "god" independent of human thought. You try to act like you know better than everybody else, but you haven't taken a second to ask yourself where this idea of a god comes from. You go on and on about how god is a mystery that is unknowable, but you not once stop and consider god as merely an idea created by humans.

[spursncowboys]

Were adoptions outlawed after Roe vs Wade? Not sure I get the point besides of the humorous Snookie part...
Yeah the snookie one made me laugh too. I did try and find one. But the list stands on it's own. Interpret it how you want.

[silverblk mystix]

You fail to understand my point. "God" is a concept created by humans. Without humans, the concept does not exist.

I understand and actually agree with this.

There is no "god" independent of human thought. You have no certain way of knowing this - neither do I. It does not = to you being right. If you don't know for sure - then you cannot possibly be right - but you can be wrong. There could most definitely be a "god" - whatever that is - independent of human thought. He/she/it could exist and humans could have completely missed it.


You try to act like you know better than everybody else, but you haven't taken a second to ask yourself where this idea of a god comes from.
??You are mistaken - plain and simple. I have certainly delved into that very deeply - and I already agreed with you where the "concept" of "god" comes from...the CONCEPT COMES FROM HUMANS - THE ACTUAL "GOD" - WHATEVER THAT IS ---may still exist independent of humans "OPINIONS" of he/she/it.


You go on and on about how god is a mystery that is unknowable, but you not once stop and consider god as merely an idea created by humans.

??Already agreed with you here---maybe what YOU have failed to even see - is that there might be some type of other force that may ALSO exist - and EXIST completely independent of human OPINION.

[ElNono]

Yeah the snookie one made me laugh too. I did try and find one. But the list stands on it's own. Interpret it how you want.

at first sight, my interpretation is that it makes sense. There's only been 40 years since Roe vs Wade, and there has been many centuries before it... That's what I would expect such a list to look like.

[Woo Bum-kon]

If you don't know for sure - then you cannot possibly be right - but you can be wrong.

That does not logically follow at all. I can randomly guess that there is an odd number of grains of sand on a beach, and be right. Just because I don't know for sure, doesn't mean I can't be right. You fail at the very simplest of reasoning.


THE ACTUAL "GOD" - WHATEVER THAT IS ---may still exist independent of humans "OPINIONS" of he/she/it.

The only reason you even think that is because humans put the concept of "god" into your head. You've been brainwashed into accepting the god as a possibility, and you don't even see it.


??Already agreed with you here---maybe what YOU have failed to even see - is that there might be some type of other force that may ALSO exist - and EXIST completely independent of human OPINION.

See above. You are trying to have it both ways. You use the concept of god given to you by humans to say that there could be a god, then turn around and say that the concept of god that humans gave you is wrong. Without humans, you would have no concept of god, and your attempt to claim that everybody's idea of god is wrong while at the same time claiming that god is unknowable, makes your position completely nonsensical an contradictory.

[silverblk mystix]

That does not logically follow at all. I can randomly guess that there is an odd number of grains of sand on a beach, and be right. Just because I don't know for sure, doesn't mean I can't be right. You fail at the very simplest of reasoning.

Your mistake is to assume that logic has anything to do with this issue. You can most certainly be wrong - when you are taking shots in the dark.



The only reason you even think that is because humans put the concept of "god" into your head. You've been brainwashed into accepting the god as a possibility, and you don't even see it.

You are correct that humans put the concept of god in my head - you are incorrect in that the brainwashing worked. The possibility or impossibility of "god" is just reality. Anything can happen. The fact that I am open to any possibility and the fact that you are closed to one side of possibility - says everything about who is possibly wrong.
You already ruled out one possibility - I haven't - you have a much greater chance of being wrong.


See above. You are trying to have it both ways. Wrong.

You use the concept of god given to you by humans to say that there could be a god, Wrong again.


then turn around and say that the concept of god that humans gave you is wrong. 3 wrongs in a row.


Without humans, you would have no concept of god. wrong again (losing count here) Reality is what informs us. Humans just offer opinions of this reality - usually in fucked up ways. Maybe you are stuck because you believe that only human concepts and human reasoning/logic are the way to live and the way to think but you are not open and awake to see the simple reality in front of you that has been buried by layers of faulty human "teaching."



and your attempt to claim that everybody's idea of god is wrong ---you are making up stuff here---I am basically saying that all of us have this truth inside of us --but sometimes it is buried under layers and layers and layers of false programming. There is most definitely a difference - than in what you just made up.





while at the same time claiming that god is unknowable,---Nothing needs to be claimed --this is a simple self evident truth -no one KNOWS. No one. This simply means that in this reality - in this planet - today - put it in any terms you like---NO ONE KNOWS. If this doesn't make something unknowable - then you are simply unwilling to recognize a simple fact staring you in the face - or you are completely blind and stupid to reality.
The fact that "geniuses" and "scientists" and "philosophers" and "credentialed" humans have been stumped for centuries should give you a clue - but you swallowed whole the "premise" that all things are "logically or scientifically provable" and this is informing your sight. In other words- this "smart" training has made you blind to the most simplest of truths.




makes your position completely nonsensical an contradictory.


Nothing makes more sense - unless - again - you are deficient in the above stated ways.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Your mistake is to assume that logic has anything to do with this issue. You can most certainly be wrong - when you are taking shots in the dark.

And I can most certainly be right, too. You try to add a special exemption for no reason. I can make a claim based off of a guess and be completely right. Just because it is a guess does not make it wrong. Your position that I can't be right without absolute knowledge makes no sense, as I already demonstrated with the grains of sand example. I can guess that there is an odd number of grains of sand on a beach and be right.


You are correct that humans put the concept of god in my head - you are incorrect in that the brainwashing worked. The possibility or impossibility of "god" is just reality. Anything can happen. The fact that I am open to any possibility and the fact that you are closed to one side of possibility - says everything about who is possibly wrong.
You already ruled out one possibility - I haven't - you have a much greater chance of being wrong.

The brainwashing obviously has worked since you are using the label of "god" in the first place. You can call this thing whatever you want, but no, you choose to go with "god," which is a label that human beings put in your head.


wrong again (losing count here) Reality is what informs us. Humans just offer opinions of this reality - usually in fucked up ways. Maybe you are stuck because you believe that only human concepts and human reasoning/logic are the way to live and the way to think but you are not open and awake to see the simple reality in front of you that has been buried by layers of faulty human "teaching."

Complete and utter bullshit. You did not get the concept of god from reality. You got the concept of god from humans and are trying to apply it to reality. Without human beings, YOU would not have the concept of god in your head. Period.


you are making up stuff here---I am basically saying that all of us have this truth inside of us --but sometimes it is buried under layers and layers and layers of false programming. There is most definitely a difference - than in what you just made up.

Jesus Christ, you have pathetic memory. I only need to go back a few posts to find your position on humanity's concept of god.


Thanks for helping me make my point. Humans created this concept of god - so there is zero chance that this concept is accurate in any way.


I didn't make anything up. That's what YOU posted. Stop backpedaling


Nothing needs to be claimed --this is a simple self evident truth -no one KNOWS. No one. This simply means that in this reality - in this planet - today - put it in any terms you like---NO ONE KNOWS. If this doesn't make something unknowable - then you are simply unwilling to recognize a simple fact staring you in the face - or you are completely blind and stupid to reality.

Or you are simply throwing around terms you don't understand. "Unknown" means that something is not known. "Unknowable" means that something cannot be known. Everything that is unknowable is also unknown, but not everything that is unknown is unknowable.

As I have state previously, you fail at basic reasoning.


The fact that "geniuses" and "scientists" and "philosophers" and "credentialed" humans have been stumped for centuries should give you a clue - but you swallowed whole the "premise" that all things are "logically or scientifically provable" and this is informing your sight.

You're an idiot, plain and simple. The burden of proof is for deciding whether one should believe that something is true or not. As I have stated a million times before, lack of evidence in itself is not conclusive evidence that something doesn't exist. All it is used for is critical thinking, so it is ironic that you would tell people to think for themselves while at the same time bashing them for doing it.


In other words- this "smart" training has made you blind to the most simplest of truths.

Not really. You are blind to the most basic human reasoning, which makes your arguments unbelievably shitty and nonsensical.


Nothing makes more sense - unless - again - you are deficient in the above stated ways.

Nah, your position just doesn't make any sense. You claim that this thing (which you label as "god" because humans put the concept of god into your head) that you can't even describe in any way might possibly exist. If you can't give any kind of description, then your position is completely worthless. It doesn't tell anybody anything.

[Leetonidas]

sbm getting euthyphro'd :lol

[ploto]

Why didn't god stop the scientists from making such an ungodly being?

Free will

[silverblk mystix]

And I can most certainly be right, too. You try to add a special exemption for no reason. I can make a claim based off of a guess and be completely right. Just because it is a guess does not make it wrong. Your position that I can't be right without absolute knowledge makes no sense, as I already demonstrated with the grains of sand example. I can guess that there is an odd number of grains of sand on a beach and be right.

When someone has no idea of what he is talking about - which is the case here - and includes all of us - then there is no way you can be right. No one knows. I don't think that can be any simpler - but - presto -it still stumped you. If you equate guessing (stupid beach analogy) with ever knowing what "god" is...then I overrated your level of stupidity - you exceeded "stupid" and went somewhere worse.



The brainwashing obviously has worked since you are using the label of "god" in the first place. You can call this thing whatever you want, but no, you choose to go with "god," which is a label that human beings put in your head.

I have simplified it for you - since there have been a number of threads where I specifically called it "god/truth/freedom/wakefulness/peace/etc" and your panties got bunched up --I figured I would dumb it down and just go with "god"



Complete and utter bullshit. You did not get the concept of god from reality. You got the concept of god from humans and are trying to apply it to reality. Without human beings, YOU would not have the concept of god in your head. Period.

You might be talking about yourself here. If we are discussing a "concept" then - yes - it came from humans. If we are talking beyond this concept --WHATEVER YOU PREFER TO CALL IT - it absolutely came from reality - humans only placed their labels and opinions of what they perceived it to be - and it was all inaccurate.



Jesus Christ, you have pathetic memory. I only need to go back a few posts to find your position on humanity's concept of god.

Again - you want to talk "human concepts" and I am referring to something other - the reality of this unknown thing. Don't try to grasp it - it is out of the realm of human understanding - non of us know. You can keep referring to the human "concept" - but you can leave me out of that discussion because it is meaningless and I have nothing to add to the already proven inaccuracy.



I didn't make anything up. That's what YOU posted. Stop backpedaling



Or you are simply throwing around terms you don't understand. "Unknown" means that something is not known. "Unknowable" means that something cannot be known. Everything that is unknowable is also unknown, but not everything that is unknown is unknowable.

Except for this - WHATEVER YOU PREFER TO NAME IT - reality - this is an unknowable thing. The highest form of knowledge that humans have of this -thing - is that WE DON'T KNOW!- Color it anyway you want - it is unknown and unknowable. Just accept it or bash your head against reality - if it makes you feel more comfortable. It won't change the reality. WE DO NOT KNOW.

As I have state previously, you fail at basic reasoning.


You are still following your programming - that there is something to pass/fail/prove in this matter - and - (see above)



You're an idiot, plain and simple. The burden of proof LOL- PROOF

is for deciding whether one should believe that something is true or not. As I have stated a million times before, lack of evidence in itself is not conclusive evidence that something doesn't exist. All it is used for is critical thinking, so it is ironic that you would tell people to think for themselves while at the same time bashing them for doing it.



Not really. You are blind to the most basic human reasoning, EARTH TO WOO - THIS IS NOT A HUMAN REASONING ISSUE - THIS IS ANOTHER LEVEL AND NO-ONE KNOWS -IT IS UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE -STOP TRYING TO FIT A TRIANGLE IN A SQUARE PEG MR. LITTLE SPECIAL KID -IT WILL NOT EVER FIT -



which makes your arguments unbelievably shitty and nonsensical.



Nah, your position just doesn't make any sense. You claim that this thing (which you label as "god" because humans put the concept of god into your head) that you can't even describe in any way might possibly exist. If you can't give any kind of description, then your position is completely worthless.

My position is probably worthless to people that cannot understand a little simple thing....guess...ready? here you go;

We do not know. Why would anyone think they need a "position" to state the self-evident and obvious truth.


It doesn't tell anybody anything.


Wake up!

[LnGrrrR]

So, I know the whole "Derail this thread because of GAWWWDD" is fun and all, but anyone actually want to talk about the moral/ethical dilemma of aborting a baby known to have severe medical defects? Or whether it makes it more "correct" if you know you can't pay for the treatments the child needs?

Edit: Althought these two statements together made my head want to explode:


We do not know. Why would anyone think they need a "position" to state the self-evident and obvious truth.

Saying that "we do not know" is taking a position, and claiming it's an obvious truth is also taking a position. Also, for someone who says that labels interfere with our ability to interact with reality, I don't know any child that has interacted with any sort of supernatural force, without being told about that force by a parent (ie. kids don't know about "ghosts" until they are informed what those are.)

[Blake]

What is this word "god" that is constantly thrown around without having a clue what it means?

Feel free to discuss the one that you believe put truth inside you.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Free will

Why would god give such evil scientists free will?

[Blake]

So, I know the whole "Derail this thread because of GAWWWDD" is fun and all, but anyone actually want to talk about the moral/ethical dilemma of aborting a baby known to have severe medical defects? Or whether it makes it more "correct" if you know you can't pay for the treatments the child needs?

Edit: Althought these two statements together made my head want to explode:



Saying that "we do not know" is taking a position, and claiming it's an obvious truth is also taking a position.

i didn't read it. What term is the baby at and is adoption not an option for the mom?

[LnGrrrR]

Why would god give such evil scientists free will?

Remember DoK:

God gave people free will, so that he could punish them forever when they decided to exert that free will in a negative fashion. In the same sense, it is certainly fair if you tell your child not to eat anything before dinner, then leave a cookie out on the table. If the child uses his free will, you are morally free to devise whatever sort of punishment you see fit.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

So, I know the whole "Derail this thread because of GAWWWDD" is fun and all, but anyone actually want to talk about the moral/ethical dilemma of aborting a baby known to have severe medical defects? Or whether it makes it more "correct" if you know you can't pay for the treatments the child needs?

Edit: Althought these two statements together made my head want to explode:



Saying that "we do not know" is taking a position, and claiming it's an obvious truth is also taking a position. Also, for someone who says that labels interfere with our ability to interact with reality, I don't know any child that has interacted with any sort of supernatural force, without being told about that force by a parent (ie. kids don't know about "ghosts" until they are informed what those are.)
If the baby is going to have birth defects and you aren't prepared to finance the medical care that would come with the baby, it would be fiscally irresponsible to have the baby. The kind of people who'd have the baby are part of the 47% in this country who are takers and need to live within their means, which unfortunately means getting the abortion.

[LnGrrrR]

i didn't read it. What term is the baby at and is adoption not an option for the mom?

It's a surrogate mom. She got pregnant with a couple's child, then they found out at the ultrasound that it had severe defects. The family it was going to wanted her to abort, since they already had children with difficulties and didn't want to go through the pain of having another child. They were willing to offer 10K, and the woman said no. (She said she would at 15K, but then later said "Oh I couldn't have done it, it was a moment of weakness.") The woman said she wasn't going to abort, and then found a family that was willing to adopt her. The original couple still sees the child.

The surrogate mom had two others kids, btw.

[silverblk mystix]

So, I know the whole "Derail this thread because of GAWWWDD" is fun and all, but anyone actually want to talk about the moral/ethical dilemma of aborting a baby known to have severe medical defects? Or whether it makes it more "correct" if you know you can't pay for the treatments the child needs?

Edit: Althought these two statements together made my head want to explode:



Saying that "we do not know" is taking a position, and claiming it's an obvious truth is also taking a position.

Sounds like you want something to argue about. OK. My position is - WE DON'T KNOW - Didn't mean shit because I am no one and it won't decide anything - but if you need it...enjoy.



Also, for someone who says that labels interfere with our ability to interact with reality, I don't know any child that has interacted with any sort of supernatural force,

this "supernatural thing" is actually human "code" for "we don't know" "we are in the dark" "we are guessing"


without being told about that force by a parent (ie. kids don't know about "ghosts" until they are informed what those are.)

[Woo Bum-kon]

In regards to the OP, does it really matter? The surrogate has the final decision in this matter, and she chose to keep the baby. That's what freedom of choice is all about.


When someone has no idea of what he is talking about - which is the case here - and includes all of us - then there is no way you can be right. No one knows. I don't think that can be any simpler - but - presto -it still stumped you. If you equate guessing (stupid beach analogy) with ever knowing what "god" is...then I overrated your level of stupidity - you exceeded "stupid" and went somewhere worse.

Just because you assert something does not make it true. Your conclusion does not logically follow, because again, I can guess something and be right. You can call my beach analogy stupid and all, but that doesn't in any way refute it. One can be correct on a guess. Just because it's a guess does not mean that it is wrong. You fail to understand the most basic reasoning, and the fact that your only response is to claim that this case is special so you don't have to make any sense, just shows how weak your argument is.


I have simplified it for you - since there have been a number of threads where I specifically called it "god/truth/freedom/wakefulness/peace/etc" and your panties got bunched up --I figured I would dumb it down and just go with "god"

Your simplification does nothing but cause confusion, because "god," "truth," "freedom," "love," etc. are completely different terms with completely different connotations. You lumping these terms together doesn't make any sense.


You might be talking about yourself here. If we are discussing a "concept" then - yes - it came from humans. If we are talking beyond this concept --WHATEVER YOU PREFER TO CALL IT - it absolutely came from reality - humans only placed their labels and opinions of what they perceived it to be - and it was all inaccurate.

No, I am not talking about myself. The reality is that "god" came from humans. Across all of history, humanity has shown that it is incline to believe in the supernatural. You are trying to separate the concept from reality, but you can't. As I previously stated, the concept came from humans. You are trying to apply the concept that humanity has given you to reality. It's that simple.


Again - you want to talk "human concepts" and I am referring to something other - the reality of this unknown thing. Don't try to grasp it - it is out of the realm of human understanding - non of us know. You can keep referring to the human "concept" - but you can leave me out of that discussion because it is meaningless and I have nothing to add to the already proven inaccuracy.

This has nothing to do with the part of my post that you quoted. I claimed that you believe that everybody's concept of god is false. You claimed that I made that up. I provided proof from your own post that I did not make that up. You made a claim and were wrong. Period.


Except for this - WHATEVER YOU PREFER TO NAME IT - reality - this is an unknowable thing. The highest form of knowledge that humans have of this -thing - is that WE DON'T KNOW!- Color it anyway you want - it is unknown and unknowable. Just accept it or bash your head against reality - if it makes you feel more comfortable. It won't change the reality. WE DO NOT KNOW.


Again, you did not actually respond to the point I made. You keep saying "we do not know" over and over again as if I once tried to dispute that fact. I didn't.


You are still following your programming - that there is something to pass/fail/prove in this matter - and - (see above)

You keep spewing this bullshit as if it is a bad thing that I was taught that my arguments should make sense. It is a good thing for one's argument to make sense. If all you are going to do is claim that you shouldn't actually have make sense, then there is no point in this continuing this discussion.


EARTH TO WOO - THIS IS NOT A HUMAN REASONING ISSUE - THIS IS ANOTHER LEVEL AND NO-ONE KNOWS -IT IS UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE -STOP TRYING TO FIT A TRIANGLE IN A SQUARE PEG MR. LITTLE SPECIAL KID -IT WILL NOT EVER FIT -

It is a human reasoning issue. What do you think you are doing right now? You are trying to convince me using an argument (albeit a poor one). You are being a hypocrite, and you don't even see it. You are trying to bash reasoning while using reasoning.

Again, if you can't actually present an argument that makes sense, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.




My position is probably worthless to people that cannot understand a little simple thing....guess...ready? here you go;

We do not know. Why would anyone think they need a "position" to state the self-evident and obvious truth.

No, your position is worthless, period. It doesn't tell anybody anything. You keep trying to pretend that I am somehow against saying that we do not know, but I am not. I am, however, against your lousy position that logic and reasoning magically don't apply when it comes to god. It's been weeks, and you haven't provided a single compelling point that supports your argument. Not a single one.

[silverblk mystix]

In regards to the OP, does it really matter? The surrogate has the final decision in this matter, and she chose to keep the baby. That's what freedom of choice is all about.



Just because you assert something does not make it true. Your conclusion does not logically follow, because again, I can guess something and be right. You can call my beach analogy stupid and all, but that doesn't in any way refute it. One can be correct on a guess. Just because it's a guess does not mean that it is wrong. You fail to understand the most basic reasoning, and the fact that your only response is to claim that this case is special so you don't have to make any sense, just shows how weak your argument is.



Your simplification does nothing but cause confusion, because "god," "truth," "freedom," "love," etc. are completely different terms with completely different connotations. You lumping these terms together doesn't make any sense.



No, I am not talking about myself. The reality is that "god" came from humans. Across all of history, humanity has shown that it is incline to believe in the supernatural. You are trying to separate the concept from reality, but you can't. As I previously stated, the concept came from humans. You are trying to apply the concept that humanity has given you to reality. It's that simple.



This has nothing to do with the part of my post that you quoted. I claimed that you believe that everybody's concept of god is false. You claimed that I made that up. I provided proof from your own post that I did not make that up. You made a claim and were wrong. Period.




Again, you did not actually respond to the point I made. You keep saying "we do not know" over and over again as if I once tried to dispute that fact. I didn't.



You keep spewing this bullshit as if it is a bad thing that I was taught that my arguments should make sense. It is a good thing for one's argument to make sense. If all you are going to do is claim that you shouldn't actually have make sense, then there is no point in this continuing this discussion.



It is a human reasoning issue. What do you think you are doing right now? You are trying to convince me using an argument (albeit a poor one). You are being a hypocrite, and you don't even see it. You are trying to bash reasoning while using reasoning.

Again, if you can't actually present an argument that makes sense, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.



No, your position is worthless, period. It doesn't tell anybody anything. You keep trying to pretend that I am somehow against saying that we do not know, but I am not. I am, however, against your lousy position that logic and reasoning magically don't apply when it comes to god. It's been weeks, and you haven't provided a single compelling point that supports your argument. Not a single one.





Wake up. We don't know means we don't know.

Done wasting my time with you - you won't ever get it.

[Woo Bum-kon]

you won't ever get it.

Says the guy who keeps pushing that strawman. I already dismantled all the terrible points you made in this thread, so your only resort now is to claim that all you are saying is that, "We don't know." I don't think any of the atheists here would claim that they know to a certainty that a god doesn't exist. That shitty thread of yours about brainwashing didn't go on for several pages because people disagreed with the position that humans don't know whether a god exists or not. All you are doing now is arguing a strawman. Your claims cannot stand up on the their own merits, which is why you used every tactic in the book to discredit the people you disagree with instead of the claims themselves.

Maybe you should actually pick up a philosophy book sometime, because you obviously need some help coming up with arguments.

[Blake]

Sounds like you want*something*to argue about. OK. My position is - WE DON'T KNOW - Didn't mean shit because I am no one and it won't decide anything - but if you need it...enjoy.

if you don't know shit, then saying there is some kind of "truth" inside everyone is saying you know truth. You're contradicting yourself. Again.

I'll agree with you that you don't know shit though.

[Blake]

Wake up. We don't know means we don't know.

Done wasting my time with you - you won't ever get it.

You don't know if we haven't all woken up and you are the one still asleep.

Because you don't know shit. According to you.

[Blake]

It's a surrogate mom. She got pregnant with a couple's child, then they found out at the ultrasound that it had severe defects. The family it was going to wanted her to abort, since they already had children with difficulties and didn't want to go through the pain of having another child. They were willing to offer 10K, and the woman said no. (She said she would at 15K, but then later said "Oh I couldn't have done it, it was a moment of weakness.") The woman said she wasn't going to abort, and then found a family that was willing to adopt her. The original couple still sees the child.

The surrogate mom had two others kids, btw.

why wouldn't the same moral rules of abortion apply with a handicapped kid as it would if the kid were perfectly normal?

[mrsmaalox]

People who changed the world AND were adopted:
Pre Roe v. Wade
Jesse Jackson
Malcolm X
Steve Jobs
Dave Thomas
Marilyn Monroe
Dr Ruth
Bill Clinton
*Mother Teresa*
Gerald Ford
Nancy Reagan
John Hancock
Newt G.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Larry Ellison
Eric Dickerson
Eric Clapton
Michael Bay

Post Roe v. Wade
Snookie

Not that it has much to do with this topic, but where'd you find such a misleading list? I read only biographies and from that list only Bay, Thomas, Jobs had completely adoptive families; the others were either raised by family members or by single mothers and eventually adopted by stepfathers or married/aged out of foster care systems. I admit I don't know who Eric Dickerson is.

edit---Don't know or care anything about Snookie either ;)

[LnGrrrR]

why wouldn't the same moral rules of abortion apply with a handicapped kid as it would if the kid were perfectly normal?

One could make a utilitarian argument that you'd be preventing a great deal of suffering by aborting the child instead of having it. Especially if you couldn't afford the treatments he/she would need to give him/her the best chance of survival.

[LnGrrrR]

In regards to the OP, does it really matter? The surrogate has the final decision in this matter, and she chose to keep the baby. That's what freedom of choice is all about.

Actually, the surrogate doesn't necessarily have the final say. In some states, the people providing the genetic material are the parents and have the right to choose. (That's why the woman in the story moved to a different state.) If I read the article right, the mom technically provided no genetic material; her womb was an incubator for a child.

[Woo Bum-kon]

Well, pardon me, then. I didn't know that.

I can see there being an argument about custody after a child is born through a surrogate, but I don't know about this. If the hopeful parents wanted to keep the baby but the surrogate wanted to get rid of it, I would think that they would be justified in wanting to take legal action. Trying to pay the surrogate off to not have the baby is a different matter, though.

[Blake]

One could make a utilitarian argument that you'd be preventing a great deal of suffering by aborting the child instead of having it. Especially if you couldn't afford the treatments he/she would need to give him/her the best chance of survival.

if the doctor makes the determination that the baby will live a short life of extreme suffering late in the pregnancy, that's where the moral dilemma comes in?

What if after the child is born, around the age of 6 months, you want to then put him/her out of his/her misery? Does the utalitarian still have a legitimate argument?

[symple19]

Kill the retarded/crippled/diseased baby so that it doesn't become yet another drain on our healthcare system, regardless of the scenario

then, try again or adopt a fashionable black baby as an accessory

[cantthinkofanything]

Kill the retarded/crippled/diseased baby so that it doesn't become yet another drain on our healthcare system, regardless of the scenario

then, try again or adopt a fashionable black baby as an accessory

People who changed the world AND overcame significant handicaps:

Dan Rather
Bill Cosby
Alex Van Halen
Tina Fey
Natalie Portman
John Ritter
Warren Buffet
Annie Lennox
Dennis Scott
Art Linkletter
Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes)
Benjamin Bratt
Jack Welch
Orville Redenbacher
Tony Dorsett
Chris Burke
Laura Lang
Joey Lauren Adams
Bill Engvall

[Brunodf]

Yeah.

[symple19]

People who changed the world AND overcame significant handicaps:

Dan Rather
Bill Cosby
Alex Van Halen
Tina Fey
Natalie Portman
John Ritter
Warren Buffet
Annie Lennox
Dennis Scott
Art Linkletter
Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes)
Benjamin Bratt
Jack Welch
Orville Redenbacher
Tony Dorsett
Chris Burke
Laura Lang
Joey Lauren Adams
Bill Engvall

:lmao - especially those bolded... Changed the world? Sure about that?

[cantthinkofanything]

:lmao - especially those bolded... Changed the world? Sure about that?

Give me a break. That was just off the top of my head.

[LnGrrrR]

if the doctor makes the determination that the baby will live a short life of extreme suffering late in the pregnancy, that's where the moral dilemma comes in?

What if after the child is born, around the age of 6 months, you want to then put him/her out of his/her misery? Does the utalitarian still have a legitimate argument?

I assume the utilitarian would make that argument, assuming that a) the child was indeed suffering and b) there was no known/achievable solution/fix to the condition.

Personally speaking, I'm very averse/wary of being "ok" with any abortion after the first trimester, and even then I'm not a big fan of the idea. But if I knew that child was going to have huge medical problems? I might. Hard to say until you're in that situation. Another reason why would be that, while a "healthy" baby would take time and money away from my two other children, a child with severe needs would take even more so away from my other two children.

I'm not saying there's a "right" answer by any means. I don't think there's a bright line here.

[LnGrrrR]

Well, pardon me, then. I didn't know that.

I can see there being an argument about custody after a child is born through a surrogate, but I don't know about this. If the hopeful parents wanted to keep the baby but the surrogate wanted to get rid of it, I would think that they would be justified in wanting to take legal action. Trying to pay the surrogate off to not have the baby is a different matter, though.

It's definitely a strange case, because it messes with our perception of what makes one a "parent". Genetic material, or carrying the child? As an FYI, if the surrogate carried the baby to term in the state they were in, the genetic donors had planned on laying claim to the child and giving it up to the state for adoption/foster care.

[LnGrrrR]

People who changed the world AND overcame significant handicaps:

Dan Rather
Bill Cosby
Alex Van Halen
Tina Fey
Natalie Portman
John Ritter
Warren Buffet
Annie Lennox
Dennis Scott
Art Linkletter
Bill Watterson (Calvin & Hobbes)
Benjamin Bratt
Jack Welch
Orville Redenbacher
Tony Dorsett
Chris Burke
Laura Lang
Joey Lauren Adams
Bill Engvall

Did you see the baby in the video/story? I could be wrong (I don't know all of these names), but I don't think any of the above overcame handicaps that large.

[mrsmaalox]

Did you see the baby in the video/story? I could be wrong (I don't know all of these names), but I don't think any of the above overcame handicaps that large.

Yup, most of those have ADHD/dyslexia type disabilities-----totally different from not being able to live an independent quality life disabilities.

They are also not the type of disabilities that would be determined through prenatal testing, so they have no bearing on whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

[Blake]

I assume the utilitarian would make that argument, assuming that a) the child was indeed suffering and b) there was no known/achievable solution/fix to the condition.

Personally speaking, I'm very averse/wary of being "ok" with any abortion after the first trimester, and even then I'm not a big fan of the idea. But if I knew that child was going to have huge medical problems? I might. Hard to say until you're in that situation. Another reason why would be that, while a "healthy" baby would take time and money away from my two other children, a child with severe needs would take even more so away from my other two children.

I'm not saying there's a "right" answer by any means. I don't think there's a bright line here.

if you believe that once a baby is born that killing it is wrong under any circumstance, you have to ask yourself at what point does the abortion become the same thing as killing a newborn.

That's where I don't see the difference between it being healthy or not.

I'd also say that if the utilitarian argued that killing an infant is ok, he would need to leave the debate hall.

[cantthinkofanything]

Did you see the baby in the video/story? I could be wrong (I don't know all of these names), but I don't think any of the above overcame handicaps that large.

I didn't watch the video but did read the story and see the pic. My gut reaction was the the genetic parents were maybe more concerned about their inconvenience and financial drain instead of that of the baby. But then again, the story was pretty much told from the surrogate's point of view. They kind of skipped over her wanting extra money to abort.
]Whatever though, it's impossible to put myself in either party's shoes. But I do have a problem with the genetic parents having any kind of right to make the surrogate get an abortion.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

God didn't make this baby - scientists did.

I can't hear this sentence in anything but Richard Crenna's voice. Silly, I know.

As to the question as by the thread title, yes. The surrogate signed the agreement which left termination rights with the parents. It was their call to make.

[cantthinkofanything]

I can't hear this sentence in anything but Richard Crenna's voice. Silly, I know.

As to the question as by the thread title, yes. The surrogate signed the agreement which left termination rights with the parents. It was their call to make.

IDK. If it's getting boiled down to the agreement, it doesn't seem like they adequately defined the terms of what constituted a "severe fetus abnormality". Although it obviously seems severe, they left the door open for dispute by not further specifying.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

IDK. If it's getting boiled down to the agreement, it doesn't seem like they adequately defined the terms of what constituted a "severe fetus abnormality". Although it obviously seems severe, they left the door open for dispute by not further specifying.

True, and their lawyer sort of admits as much, but at the same time I don't know how you try to narrow down terms like that without just opening more loopholes. I know I'm not saying anything you don't know, but the list of things that can go wrong along the course of prenatal development is staggering and the fact that the patient is inside another human being makes any absolutely definitive diagnosis impossible. Do you go down that impossibly long list and decide which ones are severe and which ones are not? Is there a numerical threshold on the odds to be set that makes a 20% of a major heart defect acceptable when a 25% chance isn't? I guess my objection is that if she was opposed to abortion on moral grounds she shouldn't have signed up this.

[cantthinkofanything]

True, and their lawyer sort of admits as much, but at the same time I don't know how you try to narrow down terms like that without just opening more loopholes. I know I'm not saying anything you don't know, but the list of things that can go wrong along the course of prenatal development is staggering and the fact that the patient is inside another human being makes any absolutely definitive diagnosis impossible. Do you go down that impossibly long list and decide which ones are severe and which ones are not? Is there a numerical threshold on the odds to be set that makes a 20% of a major heart defect acceptable when a 25% chance isn't? I guess my objection is that if she was opposed to abortion on moral grounds she shouldn't have signed up this.

I agree. It'd be damn near impossible to cover everything that could constitute "severe" and also within that, acceptable levels of any particular malady.
Don't know the answer to your question. But until one becomes pregnant, I'm not sure they could definitively say they weren't opposed to abortion. Seems like it'd be a hard contract to enforce if it came down to a jury.

[LnGrrrR]

if you believe that once a baby is born that killing it is wrong under any circumstance, you have to ask yourself at what point does the abortion become the same thing as killing a newborn.

That's where I don't see the difference between it being healthy or not.

I'd also say that if the utilitarian argued that killing an infant is ok, he would need to leave the debate hall.

I think that's the thing most people have the hardest time with about abortion... When is it a "person" and not just a bunch of cells? I'm not sure where that line is. If I had to make one, I'd say first trimester.

As far as killing babies go once born, I would assume the only good answer would be a mercy killing in the event that there was no chance for survival. By extrapolating that idea out, one could say that in order to prevent that child the suffering up until that point, it would be more merciful to abort before the fetus was aware of its existence. Especially if you were relatively sure that you couldn't afford the treatments/medication needed after birth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think you can pinpoint a time when it 'becomes a person.' We don't know shit about the biological basis for consciousness in general to make that statement. OTOH, I believe you can tell definitely when it is 'not a person.' For example, when there is no spine.

[TDMVPDPOY]

catholic church dont believe in abortion cause they always need victims

[phxspurfan]

Nope because we never know it all when it comes to life. Even rocks come alive so no breaking rocks.

[EVAY]

Lots of folks will consider the following statement a cop-out, but it is what I believe:

I can't make that determination for the biological sperm-and-egg donors nor for the womb-vessel. I am glad that I never had to face such a decision. But it would have been MY decision to make, not anyone else's; certainly not a bunch of legislators of either gender. Certainly not a priest who has never had a child nor borne responsibility for one.

Had it been me, I would likely have made the decision if it was during the first trimester. I honestly don't believe there is anything approaching a human life at that point. After that? Man, I don't know. I would have hated it either way. I would have hated having to bear and care for such a poor child/adult, and I don't know that I would have had the moral certitude to abort it, even though I think that MAY be the right decision.

In short, as I said at the beginning, it has to be the decision of the parties directly involved, and all the rest of us can stand back and say "there but for the grace of...",relieved that all we have to do is feel sorry for the folks making the decisions and bearing the result of those decisions.

[EVAY]

catholic church dont believe in abortion cause they always need victims

As much grief as I have given you (deservedly, by the way) in the Spurs forum, I have to say that your observation in this instance appears, unfortunately, perfectly made and expressed.