Samantha Brick & Aborting Down's Syndrome babies...

grindle

SocSocPol wrote: »

Well since "Civil Society" is an accepted term for organized non governmental organizations within society, eg Trade Unions, Business Associations etc neither of which I belong to , I'm not sure what the duties are.

I meant civil society as a shorthand for civilised society, the way Greek philosophy would have it - apparently the term has been usurped and transformed to mean non-governmental (but officiate-style) organisations.

kowloon

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Neither do a large percentage of mentally capable people

I'd go further and say that some very capable people actively detract from society.

SocSocPol

grindle wrote: »

I meant civil society as a shorthand for civilised society, the way Greek philosophy would have it - apparently the term has been usurped and transformed to mean non-governmental (but officiate-style) organisations.

Well since you are clearly a neo-liberal little I could say would change your mind.
But I would point you towards Adam Smiths views of societal obligations in regards to his "Linen Shirt" quote, or indeed to John Rawls view on the need for society to ameliorate the effects of what he describes as the effects of a "Natural Lottery".
In both cases these Liberal thinkers agreed that society OWES a duty to those who through no fault of their own are born at a disadvantage.

bhovaspack

grindle wrote: »

I'm walking around with money in my bank, and someone who I don't know decides to spend a portion of it on what they want to spend it on, what they consider worthwhile.
That's plain language, and that's how taxation works. It's pretty analogous. Make sense?

You left out the bit about representative democracy; you may not like it or agree with it, but you happen to live under a variant of this system.

I and many others happen to agree with government aid for certain people who require it; on the other hand, I travel by bike and train almost exclusively, so I don't like having to pay for the upkeep of roads or the various associated costs.

Nor do I like having to subsidize the GAA, since I personally gain no pleasure or tangible benefit from its existence.

It turns out that this same strange person that you speak of makes decisions on my earnings too!

What's the solution?

Well, an a la carte taxation system where I only pay for what I want and you pay for what you want would not function, in my view, and would cost even more tax money to regulate and run. Have you ever tried sharing a house with flatmates who insist that bills are divided based on individual usage and want? It does not work.

I would like to hear what you propose as an alternative. From what you've posted so far, it sounds like you're aspiring to a liberal utopia where we move around in individual pod capsules where we can grow our own food and administer to our own health needs without ever needing to interact with or rely on anyone else.

It's a nice idea.

As for the pro-DS-birther thing... isn't that what these opposing factions are doing? Debating whether or not to keep a DS baby?

I imagine that the majority of the people here would not consider themselves to belong to a faction, though obviously some would. Personally, I'm not debating whether or not someone should keep their baby. It's absolutely none of my business whether they do or not.

grindle

SocSocPol wrote: »

In both cases these Liberal thinkers agreed that society OWES a duty to those who through no fault of their own are born at a disadvantage.

Society also has it's own duty to itself, to guarantee it's own future. Thanks to medical advances we can now detect severe abnormalities before a child is born, and it's possible to abort.
What if the ratio of disabilities were to rise? What if there were another Thalidomide disaster, on a larger scale?
Would society have to plod along the same course, ensuring it's own starvation to fulfil it's duty to the least-fortunate, or would it suddenly become the rational choice to do something about it and remove the problem (although I don't like the idea of society making that choice - much better if a person could see a problem and fix the problem)?

Those born at a disadvantage exist through no fault of their own - they exist through the fault/choice of their parents (which I know is a heavily emotional issue, and probably harshly-worded). Just an opinion, like Smith's or Rawls'.

bhovaspack wrote: »

I would like to hear what you propose as an alternative. From what you've posted so far, it sounds like you're aspiring to a liberal utopia where we move around in individual pod capsules where we can grow our own food and administer to our own health needs without ever needing to interact with or rely on anyone else.

I'm quite happy living in this world, despite what I wish. I know that each person has their own wishes - that's what stokes debate. Wishes firing against eachother.
There is no ideal that would work for everyone, just as I've said many times, we're all trying to occupy a very small patch in the middle of a complex Venn diagram. Shades of grey, lowest common denominator.
Any one person living in their own ideal world is living in everybody else's fascist state.

bhovaspack wrote: »

I imagine that the majority of the people here would not consider themselves to belong to a faction, though obviously some would. Personally, I'm not debating whether or not someone should keep their baby. It's absolutely none of my business whether they do or not.

I just started in this thread wondering why anyone would keep one and stating why I wouldn't. The only way it is my business is a depleting of my wages.
If that didn't happen, I wouldn't care if I was surrounded by them.
Unless I was in bed, surrounded by them. I'd find that vaguely creepy.

SerialComplaint

CruelCoin wrote: »

Example:
I scuba quite a bit. I am fully aware i could have an horrific accident which could leave me disabled. I know the risks in advance, as did the DS mother in the OP.
Do i go ahead with it anyway and should the worst happen allow the taxpayer to pick up the tab? No. Why? Its selfish. It's deeply irresponsible to expect others to pay your way.

What i do is pay for mega powerful insurance which will make sure the taxpayer never pays a cent for any diving accident i have.

And do you benefit from tax relief on this mega powerful insurance, or any health insurance?

SocSocPol

grindle wrote: »

Society also has it's own duty to itself, to guarantee it's own future. Thanks to medical advances we can now detect severe abnormalities before a child is born, and it's possible to abort.
What if the ratio of disabilities were to rise? What if there were another Thalidomide disaster, on a larger scale?
Would society have to plod along the same course, ensuring it's own starvation to fulfil it's duty to the least-fortunate, or would it suddenly become the rational choice to do something about it and remove the problem (although I don't like the idea of society making that choice - much better if a person could see a problem and fix the problem)?

Those born at a disadvantage exist through no fault of their own - they exist through the fault/choice of their parents (which I know is a heavily emotional issue, and probably harshly-worded). Just an opinion, like Smith's or Rawls'.


I'm quite happy living in this world, despite what I wish. I know that each person has their own wishes - that's what stokes debate. Wishes firing against eachother.
There is no ideal that would work for everyone, just as I've said many times, we're all trying to occupy a very small patch in the middle of a complex Venn diagram. Shades of grey, lowest common denominator.
Any one person living in their own ideal world is living in everybody else's fascist state.

I just started in this thread wondering why anyone would keep one and stating why I wouldn't. The only way it is my business is a depleting of my wages.
If that didn't happen, I wouldn't care if I was surrounded by them.
Unless I was in bed, surrounded by them. I'd find that vaguely creepy.

Thank you for Boards.ie most evasive post,lots of "what if" and " but what" but no substantive response to my post,in response to which you were quoting, clearly you have little if any understanding of the issues raised in my post.

CruelCoin

SocSocPol wrote: »

Libertarian crap!
There is such a thing as society, you benifit from belonging to it, you have a duty to others within it.
Even Adam Smyth recognised that.

Whose society?

Are we talking lefties, righties, do i get a choice?
Are we talking the real society (right-wing) or the constitutional society (left-wing)?
There is nothing present in the current society which could not exist in other types of society.
As for duty to others, that sounds very much like a case of "ours not to reason why, ours but to do or die.". I'm being told what my duties are in society, usually by the vocal minority who in this case are demanding that their un-productive, nonfunctional children be afforded the same rights and privileges as the rest of us, a concept i reject.

CruelCoin

SerialComplaint wrote: »

And do you benefit from tax relief on this mega powerful insurance, or any health insurance?

Nope, i choose not to claim it.

As i said, i pay my own way, as should you all.

SerialComplaint

CruelCoin wrote: »

Nope, i choose not to claim it.

As i said, i pay my own way, as should you all.

But isn't it tax relief at source? So you benefit from it whether you claim it or not?

CruelCoin

SerialComplaint wrote: »

But isn't it tax relief at source? So you benefit from it whether you claim it or not?

Maybe it is. Sorry, i assumed you meant tax credits, which i have not claimed if i have any for that purpose.

SerialComplaint

CruelCoin wrote: »

Maybe it is. Sorry, i assumed you meant tax credits, which i have not claimed if i have any for that purpose.

OK, so we're all paying for your insurance for your selfish hobby. How can you impose that load on the rest of us. You should be paying for yourself, right?

CruelCoin

SerialComplaint wrote: »

OK, so we're all paying for your insurance for your selfish hobby. How can you impose that load on the rest of us. You should be paying for yourself, right?

The alternative being i take no insurance at all, and let you pay everything?

This goes back to my previous posts. I do what i can to mitigate my financial impact on society. Those who know they are going to have a DS baby, and choose not to abort, are doing nothing to avoid the impact.

Also, the scuba insurance i had originally used as an example is a British policy, as Irish ones are not fit for purpose, so no money from your pocket for that one.

SerialComplaint

CruelCoin wrote: »

The alternative being i take no insurance at all, and let you pay everything?

This goes back to my previous posts. I do what i can to mitigate my financial impact on society. Those who know they are going to have a DS baby, and choose not to abort, are doing nothing to avoid the impact.

Also, the scuba insurance i had originally used as an example is a British policy, as Irish ones are not fit for purpose, so no money from your pocket for that one.

The alternative for you is that stop scuba diving. You know that scuba diving has a significant accident rate, and you choose to continue it. You are doing nothing to avoid the impact. You have to stop scuba diving, to avoid those extra costs on the Irish or British taxpayer. That's the logic of your position - right?

SocSocPol

CruelCoin wrote: »

Whose society?

Are we talking lefties, righties, do i get a choice?
Are we talking the real society (right-wing) or the constitutional society (left-wing)?
There is nothing present in the current society which could not exist in other types of society.
As for duty to others, that sounds very much like a case of "ours not to reason why, ours but to do or die.". I'm being told what my duties are in society, usually by the vocal minority who in this case are demanding that their un-productive, nonfunctional children be afforded the same rights and privileges as the rest of us, a concept i reject.

Notwithstanding that the opening lines of your post are gibberish, your definition of those with even mild intellectual impairment as "un-productive, nonfunctional children" is both insulting , abusive and trollish.
And yes I do believe that said people are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us.

CruelCoin

SocSocPol wrote: »

Notwithstanding that the opening lines of your post are gibberish, your definition of those with even mild intellectual impairment as "un-productive, nonfunctional children" is both insulting , abusive and trollish.
And yes I do believe that said people are entitled to the same rights as the rest of us.

At no point did i say that DS children were "mildly impaired".
I have no issue with Dyslexics for example, as they can perform equally well with their own impairment.
Its not a tar brush and a bit unfair to equate my "unproductive, nonfunctional children" comment as meaning i hold the same opinion of all disabilities.

I think the main issue here is maybe you would define a society's progress in humane terms, while i would measure it solely on technological and economical progress.

OldNotWIse

LordSmeg wrote: »

Could also argue that having a child to begin with is one of the most cruel and selfish things a human being can do.

Your creating consciousness in a being set for a life of confusion and misery. Just because your parents doomed you to a life of existence doesnt mean you can subject some other poor being to it to make yourself feel better.

Given the choice personally I'd have picked abortion for myself to avoid all this unnecessary bother.

Er...some of us like our lives :rolleyes:

Scioch

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Er...some of us like our lives :rolleyes:

Some people enjoy aspects of their lives but life as a whole in the grand scheme of things in irrelevant and an unnecessary source of torment.

To create a self aware being and subject them to life on this planet in this society where they will struggle and grow and fight and cry and feel pain and anguish on the back of the fact you "want" a child is quite selfish and cruel.

OldNotWIse

LordSmeg wrote: »

Some people enjoy aspects of their lives but life as a whole in the grand scheme of things in irrelevant and an unnecessary source of torment.

To create a self aware being and subject them to life on this planet in this society where they will struggle and grow and fight and cry and feel pain and anguish on the back of the fact you "want" a child is quite selfish and cruel.

Ok.... Am I the only happy person????

CruelCoin

LordSmeg wrote: »

Life as a whole in the grand scheme of things in irrelevant and an unnecessary source of torment.

Speak for yourself! Quiet happy tyvm!

Mind you, a universe filled with sterile white light wouldn't be bad. Not good, but not bad either.

Scioch

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Ok.... Am I the only happy person????

Your happy sometimes and unhappy other times. Happiness only applies to whatever your experiencing now. You dont look back over 20/30/40 years and say "I was unhappy" or "I was happy".

Happiness may also be nothing but the lack of unhappiness. These feelings are little more than tools to enable us to survive. Previously it was hunger, pain, cold, sexual urges that motivated us. Now its gotten more complex with the development of self awareness. Motivation is no longer that basic, you have social pressure and worries, self esteem issues, worry over the future, regret of the past. Its a minefield of torment and confusion which ends with death and nothingness anyway.

Pointless really.

Ray Palmer

As there are so many people here with close relationships with ds people maybe you can answer my question. Do ds people want to be like other people without ds?

That would partially give you a gauge on how they feel on their own situation.

OldNotWIse

LordSmeg wrote: »

Your happy sometimes and unhappy other times. Happiness only applies to whatever your experiencing now. You dont look back over 20/30/40 years and say "I was unhappy" or "I was happy".

Happiness may also be nothing but the lack of unhappiness. These feelings are little more than tools to enable us to survive. Previously it was hunger, pain, cold, sexual urges that motivated us. Now its gotten more complex with the development of self awareness. Motivation is no longer that basic, you have social pressure and worries, self esteem issues, worry over the future, regret of the past. Its a minefield of torment and confusion which ends with death and nothingness anyway.

Pointless really.

Wow, how did I ever survive without you telling me about the status of my emotional being. Baffles me how some people on here think they can speak for others without ever having met them. Quite arrogant when you consider it.

Scioch

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Wow, how did I ever survive without you telling me about the status of my emotional being. Baffles me how some people on here think they can speak for others without ever having met them. Quite arrogant when you consider it.

Arrogant is thinking you are special and unique and different from the other 7 billion of us. We are all the same, biological robots continuing patterns of actions that have been going for millions of years.

Happiness is not some magical gift and proof that life as a self aware being is relevant, its biological feedback to tell you your not dying a slow and painful death. The thing is though we all die anyway, all this leads to death and then it all becomes as irrelevant as before you were born. So to me the creation of a self aware being is an infinitely bigger decision than the termination of one.

OldNotWIse

LordSmeg wrote: »

Arrogant is thinking you are special and unique and different from the other 7 billion of us. We are all the same, biological robots continuing patterns of actions that have been going for millions of years.

Happiness is not some magical gift and proof that life as a self aware being is relevant, its biological feedback to tell you your not dying a slow and painful death. The thing is though we all die anyway, all this leads to death and then it all becomes as irrelevant as before you were born. So to me the creation of a self aware being is an infinitely bigger decision than the termination of one.

When did you switch from whether or not our lives are happy to whether or not our lives are relevant? Relevant to what? And what makes you so special that you can tell 7 billion people that they are irrelevant and miserable? Get over yourself.

Scioch

OldNotWIse wrote: »

When did you switch from whether or not our lives are happy to whether or not our lives are relevant? Relevant to what? And what makes you so special that you can tell 7 billion people that they are irrelevant and miserable? Get over yourself.

I didnt switch, you were using the fact you felt happy to make the argument life was good. Its the same point whether I argue that the happiness you feel now doesnt apply to your entire life or that that happiness has any other relevance to life or existence other than as feedback to know your not suffering.

For someone so happy your very narky, perhaps life isnt all rainbows and sunshine after all ?

I'm nothing special, I'm the same as everyone else using the same logic and reason to explain my experiences as they use to explain theirs. Question is what makes you so special that you dont have to discuss or argue anything ? Your ignoring everything I'm saying by calling me arrogant and claiming I cant possibly speak for anyone other than myself, telling me to get over myself. Why not argue the point instead ?

People are all the same, they are biological creatures with a set number of characteristics and behaviours that enable them to survive and reproduce. No matter how great the environment human beings will continue to grow and adapt so that those basic motivations of pain, cold, hunger, fear will change to create more complex forms of those to enable a person to continually better themselves and their surroundings.

So no matter how great your life is or how happy you think you are you can never be that way all the time, you will find pain and misery somewhere. Thirds world problems is an example, no matter how good you have it there is always something to make you miserable. Because its built in to existence itself.

OldNotWIse

LordSmeg wrote: »

I didnt switch, you were using the fact you felt happy to make the argument life was good. Its the same point whether I argue that the happiness you feel now doesnt apply to your entire life or that that happiness has any other relevance to life or existence other than as feedback to know your not suffering.

For someone so happy your very narky, perhaps life isnt all rainbows and sunshine after all ?

I'm nothing special, I'm the same as everyone else using the same logic and reason to explain my experiences as they use to explain theirs. Question is what makes you so special that you dont have to discuss or argue anything ? Your ignoring everything I'm saying by calling me arrogant and claiming I cant possibly speak for anyone other than myself, telling me to get over myself. Why not argue the point instead ?

People are all the same, they are biological creatures with a set number of characteristics and behaviours that enable them to survive and reproduce. No matter how great the environment human beings will continue to grow and adapt so that those basic motivations of pain, cold, hunger, fear will change to create more complex forms of those to enable a person to continually better themselves and their surroundings.

So no matter how great your life is or how happy you think you are you can never be that way all the time, you will find pain and misery somewhere. Thirds world problems is an example, no matter how good you have it there is always something to make you miserable. Because its built in to existence itself.

Narky??? Really? So you use the fact that someone answers you back to validate your own posts? I dont allow nameless posters to dictate my moods to me - perhaps that's why I am happy however feel free to tell er...the entire world that their happiness is nothing more than an irrelevant daydream simply because we are mortal.

I'm glad we did this

Scioch

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Narky??? Really? So you use the fact that someone answers you back to validate your own posts? I dont allow nameless posters to dictate my moods to me - perhaps that's why I am happy however feel free to tell er...the entire world that their happiness is nothing more than an irrelevant daydream simply because we are mortal.

I'm glad we did this

And once again you ignore the actual argument to focus on some petty tit for tat thing.

Do you have anything of interest to offer to this discussion or would addressing points and discussing things shatter the whole ignorance is bliss thing you have going on there ?

OldNotWIse

LordSmeg wrote: »

And once again you ignore the actual argument to focus on some petty tit for tat thing.

Do you have anything of interest to offer to this discussion or would addressing points and discussing things shatter the whole ignorance is bliss thing you have going on there ?

Ignorant now?

Do you have anything to offer here? You've managed to turn an abortion debate into you essentially standing on a podium telling us that all 7 billion people in the world are miserable simply because we are mortal or we might feel cold or hungry from time to time, and when someone dares to challenge this you call them narky, arrogant, ignorant - yes you have clearly brought more to the table...:D

Scioch

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Ignorant now?

Do you have anything to offer here? You've managed to turn an abortion debate into you essentially standing on a podium telling us that all 7 billion people in the world are miserable simply because we are mortal or we might feel cold or hungry from time to time, and when someone dares to challenge this you call them narky, arrogant, ignorant - yes you have clearly brought more to the table...:D

I've explained my argument but you refuse to address it. You havent challenged anything, you have failed to even remotely address the argument let alone offer an alternative view. "Your wrong" doesnt really cut it I'm afraid.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Er...some of us like our lives :rolleyes:

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Ok.... Am I the only happy person????

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Wow, how did I ever survive without you telling me about the status of my emotional being. Baffles me how some people on here think they can speak for others without ever having met them. Quite arrogant when you consider it.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

When did you switch from whether or not our lives are happy to whether or not our lives are relevant? Relevant to what? And what makes you so special that you can tell 7 billion people that they are irrelevant and miserable? Get over yourself.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Narky??? Really? So you use the fact that someone answers you back to validate your own posts? I dont allow nameless posters to dictate my moods to me - perhaps that's why I am happy however feel free to tell er...the entire world that their happiness is nothing more than an irrelevant daydream simply because we are mortal.

I'm glad we did this

You dont seem like the happy go lucky type and to be honest I'd probably have gotten a better discussion out of a turnip. I'm not sure this is going anywhere. Trying to discuss things rationally and reasonably is pretty pointless when the other side can do nothing but try to shout you down out of pure ignorance.

Good day.