“He said if a woman cannot afford and does not want to have a child with Downs Syndrome then it is moral.”

so, ‘morality’ for you boils down to what is affordable and convenient…how truly pathetic

For instance, you said his whole argument was based on the idea that retarded people are useless, which indicates that you do not pay too close attention to what you read. Not only that, but he basically told you he is not saying that all women should abort all children with Down’s Syndrome, and you know damn well that that is a fantastic stretch to say that. He said if a woman cannot afford and does not want to have a child with Downs Syndrome then it is moral.

So yeah, I dunno why I’m even writing this. You’ll probably just say I’m a nazi or something.

Birth at the beginning of life and a permanent lack of human consciousness at the end of life is the proper and just dividing line between an entity that possesses human rights and an entity that does not. To claim that birth is not a proper dividing line is to claim that once a woman becomes pregnant, her body is not her own and if you think otherwise, you have not proven your case.

“Morgan -

The point I made, stands, that if there is no God in the universe there really isn’t any horror or outrage you can “objectively” express about anything men do to each other..

That’s a patently false statement. Morals and laws were not first developed in relation to God, but in relation to each other in decent society. God was added later to provide an “enforcer,” but there is no doubt that you can “objectively” determine what basic precepts of human relations are required to maintain civilization even sans a belief in the divine. Were that not the case, then atheists would be incapable of forming moral judgments or being outraged at depravity. Since that obviously isn’t true, then your thesis falls flat on its face.

People can disagree how far to define the requirements of human decency in each particular society, but to say that there is “NO” basis for horror or outrage absent divinity is a step way too far.”

Wow. That’s a really long way to say that you don’t know what “objective” means.

-Zirbert

Here we are debating whether children should be aborted in the womb for their physical abnormalities. Who’s advocating this happen? The secularist types. Who’s saying it shouldn’t? The religious types. How and why is it justified? Because the unborn don’t have a voice and it’s easy to define them out of existence.

Why don’t we start debating what this is *really* all about: It comes far easier to the human psyche to oppress others, to deny their rights, after engaging in some rationalization to define the victims as non-people. Christians, Jews, African-Americans, Indians, and now the unborn.

I don’t see this. Link to your source please.

Article:

Physically attached to a woman in the manner a fetus is, the woman’s right to regulate the processes of her own body is controlling. Unattached and physically independent, the fetus is thus transformed; it is a person no different from anyone else and enjoys all the individual rights of personhood.

Radio interview here. It’s about 30:30. He is directly challenged with the scenario “eight months and twenty-nine days” — he gives it the green light.

With regard to the baby that is inside the mother but capable of surviving should it be delivered prematurely — Provenzo is inconsistent. And he’s not alone. Certain people are so anxious to be pro-choice, to “affirm the morality of aborting,” and they understand that since this is life and death, in order to make this look ethical, they must define carefully. But they don’t.

“Worship of God and worship of the group each lead to tyranny and death.”

Again, statements completely against the reality of what happened. In Russia, elimination of religion was a top priority. The results were tyranny and destruction. Hitler worked feverishly to pull the children away from the church, leading to war. China, Korea, Viet Nam – every place where a concerted effort has been made to eliminate religion has resulted in a totalitarian state rich in paranoia.

If you look back through history, you will find that most human cultures had warlike tendencies and governments that tended toward the tyrannical. The difference in Judeo-Christian cultures is that they slowly progressed towards societies that valued freedom and law. For example, one of the great indictments against Christianity is that it was used to justify slavery. The truth is that almost every culture embraced slavery at one time or another. It is still a fact in some places today. Christian cultures worked to eliminate it, albeit in a slow manner. Strange that they get all of the blame but none of the credit.

Isn’t that what they say when they know that they are running out of ammo?

The problem with Nick’s philosophy is first of all that it only considers the mother (I talk about the rights of the fetus in my posts “If Abortion is about pro-choice, where was mine?” and “The Abortion – Capital Punishment Dilemma”) secondly he sees a Down Syndrome person as not being “productive” – hey Adolf if that is your point of reference, you would have to kill a whole bunch of lazy asses out there, who are not productive – maybe even yourself depending on who sets the standard – it is very offensive what you say Nick – but I assume you don’t know much about history – don’t ever say something like that in Europe they might lock you up) and it is quite un-American because you question the unalienable right to life. Everybody is eligible to live.

Your ideas are old and tested and they have killed millions of people in Europe, just over 60 years ago. Read up on it, think about it, you might change the way you throw big words around like they have no deeper meaning.

TAP