At some point KKKorporate AmeriKKKa will make this mandatory.  You know, insurance companies will put pressure on people to engage in termination.

Disgusting!

Just a suggestion, but comparing those you disagree with to hate groups is usually not a good way to make your point.

I am comparing them to groups that suppress rights and that uphold a "legitimate" social order based on exclusion.  It is an apt comparison.

Comparing philosophers to hate groups, however tempting a potential Godwin may be, is not really all that apt.

Godwin's rule is perfectly logical.  If the Holocaust did not come up during times of grave outrage then I would say that something was wrong with the world.

Actually, something *IS* wrong with the world because outrage has died.

Maybe the future rests with Bigfoot as the future of the hominid line.

Will these "philosophers" who want to cull humanity start with themselves?

Discussing eugenics naturally and necessarily leads to Hitler.  The specific reason mentioned by the philosophers for a woman wanting to kill a newborn is because of downs syndrome or similar.  Godwin doesn't come into play.  

This is what I think abut abortion and infanticide.

A.  You want a reason abortion should be legal all the way up to birth?  The baby is no longer a body part.  Simple enough, but it makes so many people uncomfortable because it looks like a baby.  It isn't a baby until it comes out.  Not that this has an effect on the number of abortions at this stage, since the same emotional response that gets even pro-choicers to ban such late-stage abortions also restricts the number of such abortions to people who are in extreme need.  People who go on and on about "abortion on demand" and talk about how lightly such a decision can be made at the end-stage of pregnancy need to prove their dark picture of human nature.  I'm not going to be uncomfortable about late-stage abortion being legal until someone proves to me that a majority of women are so fickle that they'd go through the health risks and general discomfort of pregnancy for eight or eight and a half months then just change their mind, AND so psychopathic that something (even a body part) which looks like a baby carries no emotional response.  Not that it would be a compelling reason if you could prove that, but let's try to look at women as human beings.  That includes prochoice women.

B.  Some people like to use developmental criteria, and feel that this makes them morally superior to people who take no notice of such things.  A nice neat line at birth is considered an extreme position.  Yet, using developmental criteria opens the door to taking that after birth.  It's not abortion that does this, it's the notion that abortion should depend on particular aspects of the fetus.  The fetus should have nothing to do with abortion.  Take the fetus out of the equation and infanticide can no longer come in.  Neither can eugenics.  Godwin can now be invoked.  

C.  Finally, let's go ahead and talk about infanticide.  Either a woman wants a baby or she doesn't.  If she doesn't, then by whatever means she becomes pregnant let her get rid of it.  If we truly need more detail, then we can safely refer to the "reasonable person" doctrine.  A reasonable person would expect someone who didn't want to raise a child to either have an abortion or give the child away after it is born.  So we don't allow infanticide.  Edit: and no compelling reason to re-evaluate it's moral status has been presented. /edit

The reason it seems more complex than this is because some people get so passionate about forcing their religious beliefs on others, that to say that we should accept the law as it is somehow becomes an extreme left-wing position.  This is almost unique among laws, usually supporting the law is conservative (if not necessarily authoritarian) changing the law is leftist (if not necessarily liberal or secular).  But no, in this one case though it is already the law, pro-choice is "radical leftist," limited choice is centrist or even liberal, and banning abortion altogether is moderate conservative.  We have allowed foolish princes to rewrite our political dialogue.

This post was last modified: 03-05-2012 05:52 AM by Lang.

Discussion of eugenics in this thread;

1. Where is it?
   
2. How does it not lead to a Godwin?
   

Does your view hold up to evidence-based reasoning?
Maybe a basic verbal challenge or two?

Last I checked, Godwin was the inappropriate invocation of hitler or the nazis.  

As I said, the philosophers themselves mentioned that somebody might be born with down syndrome undiagnosed, and they want a second chance to eliminate them.

As I've suggested before, I believe social darwinism works in favor of (autistic) neurodiversity. I could elaborate on this, but I'm going to wait on a few replies, first.

I take it eugenics in America is what derailed the last thread?

Actually, I thought this was a good subject to discuss, but it deserved its own thread. Basically, when does Godwin's Law not apply?

As I learned it, Godwin's rule means the probability of an inappropriate reference to Hitler, the Nazis, or the Holocaust approaches one as a discussion continues.  

It seems Kapper's deffinition is different.  But it's very difficult to avoid discussion of such things when the OP (of the old thread) very explicitly mentions the murder of disabled people.  Clearly Eugenics is topical in such a thread.  And eugenics leads inevitably to Hitler in real life, so how is an internet discussion to avoid it?

I'm a Irish socialist and wats dis?

lulz
BEER CANNON!

(@2:08)

Umm...I am not the author of this thread.  If you are going to split the thread, I'd at least appreciate the proper author being credited for the second half as well.