|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:02 am
WatersMoon110 divineseraph Responsible? Since when has killing a human being been responsible? Especially when that human being is there due to consensual actions? Yes, the fetus is in a woman's bodily domain (by her actions), but why is it responsible to kill the fetus? You cannot do this with any other type of human encounter, though it would make things a lot simpler. Grandma can't get up the stairs? Kill her and be done with it, her quality of life isn't good and won't be for the rest of her life anyway, especially if you jsut dump her into a nursing home. Why wouldn't killing a burdonsome elder be responsible? Because an older person isn't living inside someone else's body? Because an older person is able to still think and make choices about their own life? Because bringing a child into the world is an expensive and somewhat risking choice? Because there is no immediate way to remove an unborn human from a pregnant woman's body before medical viability that doesn't result in its death? Of course you don't think that abortion is a responsible action! You're Pro-Life, and if you thought that, you'd be Pro-Choice, now wouldn't you? *grin* Well, an older person, say one with Alzheimers, can easily be invading on one's time, money and lifestyle. What is thought, anyway? Throw away the myth and mysticism and it's really just electrical processes in the brain, much similar to a computer's calculations. Besides, cows think and act, this doesn't stop their slaughter. And it doesn't matter if they can think or feel, they are still leeching off of people's time and money. Do you know how much assisted living costs? How much dialasis costs? How much the pills and doctors cost, just to maintain an old person, who's life is of suffering and who will die soon anyway? Of course you don't think killing the elderly is responsible, you're pro-elder. Can I throw my own grin at you? By the way, I'm definitely not for killing elderly people, but I AM arguing from a Pro-Elder-killing (There's undoubtedly some twist of the english language to make that sound good, but I'm not going to search for it) stance to point out similarities of excluding a group of people acceptable to kill.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 3:15 pm
divineseraph Well, an older person, say one with Alzheimers, can easily be invading on one's time, money and lifestyle. What is thought, anyway? Throw away the myth and mysticism and it's really just electrical processes in the brain, much similar to a computer's calculations. Besides, cows think and act, this doesn't stop their slaughter. And it doesn't matter if they can think or feel, they are still leeching off of people's time and money. Do you know how much assisted living costs? How much dialasis costs? How much the pills and doctors cost, just to maintain an old person, who's life is of suffering and who will die soon anyway? Of course you don't think killing the elderly is responsible, you're pro-elder. Can I throw my own grin at you? By the way, I'm definitely not for killing elderly people, but I AM arguing from a Pro-Elder-killing (There's undoubtedly some twist of the english language to make that sound good, but I'm not going to search for it) stance to point out similarities of excluding a group of people acceptable to kill. Anyone (responsible and/or trained) can take care of an older person. There is also government financial help available to pay some or all of the costs (though there is also some help for pregnant women and mothers of young children!). Only the body of the pregnant woman can keep the unborn human alive (and, as such, I feel she needs to agree to it being there). I'm very glad that neither of us wants to kill older people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:03 pm
WatersMoon110 divineseraph Well, an older person, say one with Alzheimers, can easily be invading on one's time, money and lifestyle. What is thought, anyway? Throw away the myth and mysticism and it's really just electrical processes in the brain, much similar to a computer's calculations. Besides, cows think and act, this doesn't stop their slaughter. And it doesn't matter if they can think or feel, they are still leeching off of people's time and money. Do you know how much assisted living costs? How much dialasis costs? How much the pills and doctors cost, just to maintain an old person, who's life is of suffering and who will die soon anyway? Of course you don't think killing the elderly is responsible, you're pro-elder. Can I throw my own grin at you? By the way, I'm definitely not for killing elderly people, but I AM arguing from a Pro-Elder-killing (There's undoubtedly some twist of the english language to make that sound good, but I'm not going to search for it) stance to point out similarities of excluding a group of people acceptable to kill. Anyone (responsible and/or trained) can take care of an older person. There is also government financial help available to pay some or all of the costs (though there is also some help for pregnant women and mothers of young children!). Only the body of the pregnant woman can keep the unborn human alive (and, as such, I feel she needs to agree to it being there). I'm very glad that neither of us wants to kill older people. Well, only assisted living or direct aid from a relative or other person can keep an old person alive. Why not allow killing them as a viable third option, alongside giving them up for someone else to take care of of helping them yourself? What stance would you pick if law was passed alowing the killing of elders due to monetary or conveneince issues? would you pick the pro-life-of-the-elder side, or the pro-choice-of-the-relative side? We can assume that for this case, should an elder be found too burdonsom, they are removed from personhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:49 pm
Do you want your first response removed, since you have a double post going on? divineseraph Well, only assisted living or direct aid from a relative or other person can keep a diseased (Mental issues included, such as Alzheimers, not Teburculosis or anything) old person alive. Why not allow killing them as a viable third option, alongside giving them up for someone else to take care of of helping them yourself? What stance would you pick if law was passed alowing the killing of elders due to monetary or conveneince issues? would you pick the pro-life-of-the-elder side, or the pro-choice-of-the-relative side? We can assume that for this case, should an elder be found too burdonsom, they are removed from personhood. An older person can be removed from someone's case without killing them. An unborn human cannot, until medical viability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 8:18 pm
WatersMoon110 Do you want your first response removed, since you have a double post going on? divineseraph Well, only assisted living or direct aid from a relative or other person can keep a diseased (Mental issues included, such as Alzheimers, not Teburculosis or anything) old person alive. Why not allow killing them as a viable third option, alongside giving them up for someone else to take care of of helping them yourself? What stance would you pick if law was passed alowing the killing of elders due to monetary or conveneince issues? would you pick the pro-life-of-the-elder side, or the pro-choice-of-the-relative side? We can assume that for this case, should an elder be found too burdonsom, they are removed from personhood. An older person can be removed from someone's case without killing them. An unborn human cannot, until medical viability. But thid could take a while... months to finalize plans, get them moved in...and they still leech from your money... You cannot simple will an elder into a home andh ave it done in an hour. It is much similar to how a fetus will be born and put into adoption, but (and here is the key), not yet. The elder can be put in a home, but it isn't currently. But either way, you avoid the question. Where would you stand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:19 am
divineseraph WatersMoon110 Do you want your first response removed, since you have a double post going on? divineseraph Well, only assisted living or direct aid from a relative or other person can keep a diseased (Mental issues included, such as Alzheimers, not Teburculosis or anything) old person alive. Why not allow killing them as a viable third option, alongside giving them up for someone else to take care of of helping them yourself? What stance would you pick if law was passed alowing the killing of elders due to monetary or conveneince issues? would you pick the pro-life-of-the-elder side, or the pro-choice-of-the-relative side? We can assume that for this case, should an elder be found too burdonsom, they are removed from personhood. An older person can be removed from someone's case without killing them. An unborn human cannot, until medical viability. But thid could take a while... months to finalize plans, get them moved in...and they still leech from your money... You cannot simple will an elder into a home andh ave it done in an hour. It is much similar to how a fetus will be born and put into adoption, but (and here is the key), not yet. The elder can be put in a home, but it isn't currently. But either way, you avoid the question. Where would you stand? Unless an older person (or any age of human) is living inside and off of someone's body, I do not feel it is moral to kill them (except in self defense, when there is no other option). An older person can be moved into a hospital very quickly, if there is no place for them in a retirement community or home. An unborn human CANNOT be removed from a pregnant woman's body and given to a hospital to care for, until at the earliest 23 weeks (and, even then, the chances of survival are minimal). This isn't about what things might or might not cost. Unless an older person is hooked up to your body for survival I do not feel it is comparable to pregnancy. Despite how annoying you might find it that older persons can sometimes need care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:59 pm
WatersMoon110 divineseraph WatersMoon110 Do you want your first response removed, since you have a double post going on? divineseraph Well, only assisted living or direct aid from a relative or other person can keep a diseased (Mental issues included, such as Alzheimers, not Teburculosis or anything) old person alive. Why not allow killing them as a viable third option, alongside giving them up for someone else to take care of of helping them yourself? What stance would you pick if law was passed alowing the killing of elders due to monetary or conveneince issues? would you pick the pro-life-of-the-elder side, or the pro-choice-of-the-relative side? We can assume that for this case, should an elder be found too burdonsom, they are removed from personhood. An older person can be removed from someone's case without killing them. An unborn human cannot, until medical viability. But thid could take a while... months to finalize plans, get them moved in...and they still leech from your money... You cannot simple will an elder into a home andh ave it done in an hour. It is much similar to how a fetus will be born and put into adoption, but (and here is the key), not yet. The elder can be put in a home, but it isn't currently. But either way, you avoid the question. Where would you stand? Unless an older person (or any age of human) is living inside and off of someone's body, I do not feel it is moral to kill them (except in self defense, when there is no other option). An older person can be moved into a hospital very quickly, if there is no place for them in a retirement community or home. An unborn human CANNOT be removed from a pregnant woman's body and given to a hospital to care for, until at the earliest 23 weeks (and, even then, the chances of survival are minimal). This isn't about what things might or might not cost. Unless an older person is hooked up to your body for survival I do not feel it is comparable to pregnancy. Despite how annoying you might find it that older persons can sometimes need care. But who would you be to determine those morals to be absolute?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:54 pm
divineseraph But who would you be to determine those morals to be absolute? Could you explain what you mean? I'm not sure exactly what you are asking me. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:53 am
WatersMoon110 divineseraph But who would you be to determine those morals to be absolute? Could you explain what you mean? I'm not sure exactly what you are asking me. Thanks! Well, who are you to say that such moral values should be legeslated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:43 am
The thing is, a fetus is living off you because that's how nature intended it. I mean, it's not a naturalistic fallacy, it's not oppressive, it just is how it is. It's eternal. Women carry babies. Because abortion and social values give them an out, doesn't mean the nature of women and the nature of babies is inherently oppressive. It's foundational biology that women carry children. You're not doing your fetus a favor by carrying it to term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:01 am
divineseraph WatersMoon110 divineseraph But who would you be to determine those morals to be absolute? Could you explain what you mean? I'm not sure exactly what you are asking me. Thanks! Well, who are you to say that such moral values should be legeslated? You mean the laws the way they are?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:10 am
Erasmuses The thing is, a fetus is living off you because that's how nature intended it. I mean, it's not a naturalistic fallacy, it's not oppressive, it just is how it is. It's eternal. Women carry babies. Because abortion and social values give them an out, doesn't mean the nature of women and the nature of babies is inherently oppressive. It's foundational biology that women carry children. You're not doing your fetus a favor by carrying it to term. I suppose you could see it that way. However, I think that one is doing unborn and born children "a favor" by raising them, if one is raising them well. Just because something happens "naturally" (though human beings are a part of nature, and so everything we do is, by definition, "natural"), that means it should be allowed to happen uninterrupted? I can't say that I ascribe to that idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:58 pm
WatersMoon110 divineseraph WatersMoon110 divineseraph But who would you be to determine those morals to be absolute? Could you explain what you mean? I'm not sure exactly what you are asking me. Thanks! Well, who are you to say that such moral values should be legeslated? You mean the laws the way they are? Yes. Should they be changed to exlude bothersome elderly from protection, would you fight that law?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:51 am
divineseraph WatersMoon110 divineseraph WatersMoon110 divineseraph But who would you be to determine those morals to be absolute? Could you explain what you mean? I'm not sure exactly what you are asking me. Thanks! Well, who are you to say that such moral values should be legeslated? You mean the laws the way they are? Yes. Should they be changed to exlude bothersome elderly from protection, would you fight that law? I don't see that as a law that anyone would attempt to pass (since older people have the right to vote, after all). I don't think I would need to fight it, because I don't think it's a law that could pass. Most Congress People are older, after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
