Should this baby have been aborted?

[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 ed 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 ed 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 bull . 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 ty 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

[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 bull . 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 ty 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 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 bull 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 bull 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 ty 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 because I am no one and it won't decide anything - but if you need it...enjoy.

if you don't know , 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 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 . 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 Han
Newt G.
Eleanor Roosevelt
Larry Ellison
Eric erson
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 erson 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 re ed/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