I Can't Explain Why We Shouldn't Murder Disabled Children

[Luigi]

Very interesting blog. I have no idea who this guy is. But he makes a couple of interesting points that may have some interest to Debate Table posters about why it's so hard to have a productive debate these days.

 

http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/22/i-cant-explain-why-we-shouldnt-murder-disabled-children/

[CatherineM]

There are children who are deemed to be too disabled to lead normal lives, who doctors recommend abortion for, who are later born completely normal. I'm one. There would be lots more, except doctors who do an abortion and find they have aborted a healthy child aren't going to mention that to the parents.

Who gets to decide when someone is too disabled to live? My husband and I would both be first in line for the gas chambers.

[Luigi]

Well, and I like his point that, if murdering children is acceptable, then everything is acceptable. And I like his point that, if people having a discussion don't have at least a few shared base concepts, then it's impossible for either side to convince the other.

 

And I think that's the problem with a lot of debate these days - here on the board or in the real world.

 

[NotreDame]

Well, and I like his point that, if murdering children is acceptable, then everything is acceptable. And I like his point that, if people having a discussion don't have at least a few shared base concepts, then it's impossible for either side to convince the other.

 

And I think that's the problem with a lot of debate these days - here on the board or in the real world.

 

Unfortunately, Luigi, we are in a world where people increasingly think it *is* ok to murder, *ahem*, euthanize disabled children:

 

Belgians vote to legalize euthanasia for children

 

As Christians, like it or not, this and many other issues which were previously unthinkable, are debates we are going to have to have. 

[4588686]

Unfortunately, Luigi, we are in a world where people increasingly think it *is* ok to murder, *ahem*, euthanize disabled children:

 

Belgians vote to legalize euthanasia for children

 

As Christians, like it or not, this and many other issues which were previously unthinkable, are debates we are going to have to have. 

 

There is a huge difference between the state saying that people have a right to end their own lives and the state dictating whose life is ended.

 

Edited December 23, 2013 by Hasan

[Lilllabettt]

Hmm yes except in  this case the state is not allowing people to choose to end their own lives, right?

The state is allowing people to choose to end other peoples' lives.

 

The problem Hassan is that the law is based on metaphysics.

If it were based on science, human rights would be extended to all biological human beings ... not simply those who attain a mystical state of personhood the first moment they breath magical earth air.

 

Edited December 23, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[4588686]

Hmm yes except in  this case the state is not allowing people to choose to end their own lives, right?

The state is allowing people to choose to end other peoples' lives.

 

No.  That's not what the article says.  

[4588686]

And science does not have much to say on what constitutes a human person since the cognitive science are still fairly young and cannot give any sort of complete or satisfying account of what consciousness is.  That does not, however, have any bearing on the article which NotreDame cited.

[NotreDame]

There is a huge difference between the state saying that people have a right to end their own lives and the state dictating whose life is ended.

 

it is a great tregedy that for the first time in over 1000 years Christians are having to actually back up their moral and metaphysical claims before having those unfounded assertions codified into law.

 

Yes, there is a difference, and regardless of whether that's what is happening in Belgium, I won't be surprised if, in 20 years, we are debating the latter point.

 

And thanks for helping make the point to Luigi that Christians (especially Catholics) need to be prepared to debate these ideas.

[NotreDame]

And science does not have much to say on what constitutes a human person since the cognitive science are still fairly young and cannot give any sort of complete or satisfying account of what consciousness is.  That does not, however, have any bearing on the article which NotreDame cited.

 

Fortunately I would rely on - what did you call it? - Game theory and 2nd order logic to make my points in these areas, not any biological science.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Very interesting blog. I have no idea who this guy is. But he makes a couple of interesting points that may have some interest to Debate Table posters about why it's so hard to have a productive debate these days.

 

http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/22/i-cant-explain-why-we-shouldnt-murder-disabled-children/

 

I didn't read it but I bet that article sux.

 

[Lilllabettt]

No.  That's not what the article says.  

 

It's saying that kids, who aren't competent to vote, can competently decide when its time to die. That makes sense.

 

 

And science does not have much to say on what constitutes a human person since the cognitive science are still fairly young and cannot give any sort of complete or satisfying account of what consciousness is.

 

 

so, we aren't sure who is a human person. but just in case lets restrict the definition as much as possible. after all its much better for a hundred  innocent people to die than for one woman to be forced to feed a cell blob against her will. 

[Kateri89]

I didn't read it but I bet that article sucks.

 

Fixed.  Actually it was quite good.  He definitely makes a very simple, profound point.  I especially like the part where he says that nowadays hospitals can be sued for not killing your baby.  It's a lawsuit-loving culture to begin with, and to think that hospitals and doctors can be sued for making errors that jeopardize a patient's health as well as not enabling the parents to kill their own child is preposterous.  If a hospital could be sued for killing a child, who gets to sue the parents for killing the child?

[4588686]

It's saying that kids, who aren't competent to vote, can competently decide when its time to die. That makes sense.

 

 

 

so, we aren't sure who is a human person. but just in case lets restrict the definition as much as possible. after all its much better for a hundred  innocent people to die than for one woman to be forced to feed a cell blob against her will. 

 

 

It it may it may not be a good idea.  But it is a very different proposition from the one you initially claimed it was making. 

 

Im in actually much in favor of expanding the class of persons.  Whales and some of the higher apes should probably have much stronger legal protections that recognize their self-awareness and emotional complexity.

 

As for abortion, that is a much more difficult issue since the issues in question is the right of a female person to retain autonomy over her body.  You apparently don't think that's an important issue.  But the assertion that a just fertilized egg is a person with interests and self-awareness is just not intellectually serious.  Once that fertilized egg begins to develop inside the mother then the abortion issue is one that becomes a lot mor morally complicated.  But if your starting point is that a just fertilized egg is a person in the same sense that the mother is a person then there isn't any point to carrying this conversation any further because there's no reasoning with an entirely faith based position.

[4588686]

Fortunately I would rely on - what did you call it? - Game theory and 2nd order logic to make my points in these areas, not any biological science.

 

 

 

I dont don't see light game theory or higher order logic could bring to this issue.