Is This Where Godless Philosophy Natural Leads?

[ZackMartin]

Listen Zack, I'm not going to argue semantics. We are speaking of killing babies with disabilities (the specific disability is not relevant). And we are speaking of killing kids with Down's for instance that could survive and have relatively happy lives - and why not go after autistic children - they usually present early enough - what logical argument would prevent us from applying this standard to them? These are the very people I spend those eight years caring for, so I'm more than a little emotional.

The article was about euthanasia for infants, not euthanasia for older children. The article was based on the assumption that infants don't have minds capable of understanding the distinction between being alive and dead, and thus can't possibly have preferences to be alive or dead. Obviously many children do have this understanding - so are out of the scope of the author's logic.

The authors are rather explicit that they don't propose to know where the boundary between infants (lacking minds of the relevant sort) and children (possessing such minds) actually lies. This just goes to shows, they have zero plans to put this into practice at present, because you couldn't possibly do it the way they outline until you had devised a way of answering that question. It's a set of philosophical questions, not a policy proposal. You seem uninterested in understanding what they actually had to say though - you only seem to care about what you've decided other people are saying, rather than what they actually mean.

Like I said - this is what the Nazis did.

You keep on making overly simplistic comparisons of things to Nazism. It's not that I think such comparisons are never legitimate, but they need to be based on a detailed understanding of what exactly the Nazis did and didn't do, and what exactly the thing you are comparing to the Nazis involves, and you seem to both lack any such detailed understanding, and simply not be interested in gaining one. You don't appear to care much about the facts - repeatedly I've pointed out factual errors you've committed, but it doesn't seem to matter to you, like talking points are more important than facts.

You are in good company.

Now you are just being offensive

[Leonhard]

...I was in the trenches all those years caring for the very people you would kill.

Okay Seer, stop accusing people of supporting something they haven't done! Unless you can show specifically where Zack said that he wanted disabled children killed or advocated for its legality you have better retract this.

[CodewordConduit]

BTW - I was in the field from 89 to 97 - we only ever called it mental illness, mental retardation was out of fashion then. And I don't know what doctors of today call it or the distinctions they make. I didn't hold a degree in this field - I was in the trenches all those years caring for the very people you would kill.

Bang out of order. I assign care support workers and registered nurses to people with disabilities (mental health, acute/chronic medical etc), and everyone, Christian or not, in this field genuinely cares about our clients. I'm running round the office like a blue-bottomed fly half the time trying to get cover for 1-2-1s or understaffed wards for people who need 24 hour care, and their assigned CSW/ITU-Trained or other band 5 couldn't make it. I'm scared for them! Get off your high horse and stop insinuating that we are murderers. We even have special criteria allowing any nurse (notably theatres) registered with us to opt out of TOPS (termination of pregnancy services), as a basic right to respect their religious or moral beliefs. Just stop it seer!

[seer]

The article was about euthanasia for infants, not euthanasia for older children. The article was based on the assumption that infants don't have minds capable of understanding the distinction between being alive and dead, and thus can't possibly have preferences to be alive or dead. Obviously many children do have this understanding - so are out of the scope of the author's logic.

But why stop at babies? So what if their minds are capable of understanding the distinction between being alive and dead? That is a completely arbitrary standard. The standard that the authors use was if they were a burden to society or the parents.

The authors are rather explicit that they don't propose to know where the boundary between infants (lacking minds of the relevant sort) and children (possessing such minds) actually lies. This just goes to shows, they have zero plans to put this into practice at present, because you couldn't possibly do it the way they outline until you had devised a way of answering that question. It's a set of philosophical questions, not a policy proposal. You seem uninterested in understanding what they actually had to say though - you only seem to care about what you've decided other people are saying, rather than what they actually mean.

Nonsense Zack - I know exactly what the authors are saying. They are making a case for killing disabled babies.

You keep on making overly simplistic comparisons of things to Nazism. It's not that I think such comparisons are never legitimate, but they need to be based on a detailed understanding of what exactly the Nazis did and didn't do, and what exactly the thing you are comparing to the Nazis involves, and you seem to both lack any such detailed understanding, and simply not be interested in gaining one. You don't appear to care much about the facts - repeatedly I've pointed out factual errors you've committed, but it doesn't seem to matter to you, like talking points are more important than facts.

Actually I probably know way more about what the Nazis did than you - And the Nazis did have a program to kill mentally and physically disabled babies - I linked that in this thread. How is what the authors are speaking about any different? Isn't the bottom line the death of babies?

Now you are just being offensive

I find this whole idea offensive. Are you really a Christian Zack? What do you think God would rather we do - kill disabled babies, or love and care for them. Which act is less selfish?

[seer]

Bang out of order. I assign care support workers and registered nurses to people with disabilities (mental health, acute/chronic medical etc), and everyone, Christian or not, in this field genuinely cares about our clients. I'm running round the office like a blue-bottomed fly half the time trying to get cover for 1-2-1s or understaffed wards for people who need 24 hour care, and their assigned CSW/ITU-Trained or other band 5 couldn't make it. I'm scared for them! Get off your high horse and stop insinuating that we are murderers. We even have special criteria allowing any nurse (notably theatres) registered with us to opt out of TOPS (termination of pregnancy services), as a basic right to respect their religious or moral beliefs. Just stop it seer!

I have no idea what you are getting at. Who did I call murderers?

[Chrawnus]

I find this whole idea offensive. Are you really a Christian Zack? What do you think God would rather we do - kill disabled babies, or love and care for them. Which act is less selfish?

I'm pretty sure he's made it clear that he's not a Christian.

[Leonhard]

I disagree. We are created in the image of God. That is inherent - but it would not be inherent or of any consequence if God did not value us, or create us with that inherent value. So we always come back to God.

Then wouldn't our value be extrinsic if its based on God's judgement?

There seems to be a tension between asserting that our value comes solely from God (something he decided by a free will choice), and asserting that its something we just have intrinsically solely by being humans. If we have our value intrinsically, then how could God possibly have chosen not to value us? If its extrinsic, depending on God's choice in how to create us, then how can you assert that its intrinsic value? Looks like a contradiction.

[CodewordConduit]

I have no idea what you are getting at. Who did I call murderers?

You basically just stated that you were a care support worker specialising in mental health for 8 years, helping the people that we (Godless atheists) would have euthanized?

Sorry if I misunderstood, I have flu-like symptoms atm, but I think it's just a cold.

[seer]

Okay Seer, stop accusing people of supporting something they haven't done! Unless you can show specifically where Zack said that he wanted disabled children killed, or advocated for its legality, you have better retract this.

Post #11

Personally, I'm a theist, but I'm sympathetic to the case for infant euthanasia, provided strong safeguards are in place - both parents should be requesting it, with free and informed consent present, and multiple (say three) senior doctors should be required to support the decision.

[seer]

You basically just stated that you were a care support worker specialising in mental health for 8 years, helping the people that we (Godless atheists) would have euthanized?

That is silly, I worked with a lot of very caring unbelievers. But the guys in this article, and the ones who generally support this, are godless. Feel better...

[ZackMartin]

Unless you can show specifically where Zack said that he wanted disabled children killed, or advocated for its legality, you have better retract this.

No one is talking about compulsory killing of anybody, which is what the Nazis practiced. The discussion is about, if there is parental consent, and the agreement of senior doctors, whether it could be moral for there to be infant euthanasia as an option, not as something compulsory (i.e. if either the parents or the doctors disagreed, it would not happen). And then, no one is proposing it be legalised either, they are simply talking about whether, from a philosophical viewpoint, such an arrangement could be moral. Even if one concludes, as an abstract question of philosophy, it might be moral (and I'm not concluding that - while I think the arguments have some merit, I'm not convinced they are right), that doesn't mean one necessarily endorses its legalisation as a policy position (I don't), because even if it is morally permissible under strict conditions in the abstract, there are real risks of it occurring outside those conditions in practice, and one would need to have clear safeguards to prevent that, and no one has made any clear proposal as to what those safeguards might be. This paper, which is part of a very interesting abstract philosophical discussion about ethics, is being misrepresented as a proposal to change the law or government policy, when it isn't anything of the sort.

[Leonhard]

Post #11

Expressing sympathy is not the same thing as supporting something. Dizzle has expressed sympathy for theonomy and laws based on the OT, but that doesn't mean that she supports stoning incorrigible children and homosexuals. I'm sympathetic to euthanasia for people who want to end their life, who are rational and of sound mind and are suffering from ailments which are insufferable. However I have never supported any laws in that direction, and I denounce doctors who break the law to give patients that.

[Leonhard]

Uh Zack did you accidentally quote me instead of Seer?

[CodewordConduit]

That is silly, I worked with a lot of very caring unbelievers. But the guys in this article, and the ones who generally support this, are godless. Feel better...

I think your thread title threw me off course a little, and thanks for the kind wishes.

Fwiw, I'm of the "if they're in pain give them as much pain relief as they need so that they can't feel it anymore" school of thought. Wouldn't support euthanizing a baby just because they were "different", but not in pain. Not for a second. Apologies for the confusion, I just realized I can go have more painkillers now as it's been 4 hours, heh

[Leonhard]

That is silly, I worked with a lot of very caring unbelievers. But the guys in this article, and the ones who generally support this, are godless. Feel better...

Poisoning the well fallacy