"Good mothers", would put a pillow over the head of her baby...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by fivepoint, Oct 5, 2010.

  1. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #1
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RAAhTL4Arg

    I guess my biggest question (besides really!?!) would be what level of agony? Does this mean simply a child with down syndrome or similar disorder? Or the agony of living a life of being 'unwanted' as was in the first quote? This seems to be a rather horrifying statement to make in public. What are your thoughts? Is this video from the BBC just taken out of context, or just the ramblings of a loon, or is there some foundation of moral truth here in your opinion?
     
  2. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #2
    You're conflating two different things "If a baby’s going to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother." quite a reasonable statement I would have thought,the other quote "If I were the mother of a suffering child – I mean a deeply suffering child – I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face… If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would." is referring to something else hence"I mean a deeply suffering child" I would hope any human being would take the very difficult decision to put any human being suffering to that extent out of their suffering (it's probably wildly optimistic of me to think most would do this).She certainly wasn't talking of killing children with Down's Syndrome or other really rather mild problems,more like a child with little brain function and horrendously painful physical symptoms.Instead of a tricky philosophical or moral question people in this type of situation are presented with a stark choice,do I help this person or do I not? Having known one person who spent years trying to kill themselves and only finally succeeded by setting their house on fire (they did not have the physical ability to do anything else) and then being presented by another friend in extreme agony from which they were released by the adjustment of a automatic painkiller dispenser I feel the person who did that was a true friend and a good humanist.
     
  3. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #3
    Nice post Peterkro :).
     
  4. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #4
    I posted them as separate quotes but also to tied them together - not to conflate them, but rather to understand the individual's worldview as a whole... under the hopes that one quote might actually help explain or further develop the other. You're quite right that each statement is unique, and has different moral implications. In this specific quote, what bothers me most are the words 'totally unwanted'. In light of the latter quote in which we get a better idea for the value she places on young human life outside the womb, this would lead me to believe that she perceives it to me 'ok' for a mother to decide in the 9th month (for example) to decide that the innocent in utero baby should be killed or not. If so, I and many others find that to be incredibly ammoral - to end a life simply because it is 'unwanted.'



    Right, and here is the underlying fundamental question (which I posed in the OP): "what level of agony?" By phrasing it as such as a 'deeply suffering child', it makes the statement more palatable, but the question remains what does she consider deeply suffering. We know that many advocates for eugenics, etc. would have vastly different opinions on this issue than you or I may have. Give her apparent perspective on late-term abortions being ok if the baby was 'unwanted', it's not too far of a jump to assume she might have a considerably different definition than most people in society. Furthermore, a pillow? I am a proponent of assisted euthanasia as an example of personal freedom in many cases but one person deciding completely for another, under their own preconceived notion of 'suffering', with no rule of law or justice using a far-from-scientific, drawn out and painful method of killing... is incredibly difficult to justify (although I'm sure some will try ) and hardly something I'd imagine a sane person would advocate passionately on national television. This lady is obviously a few bricks short of a full load, both in intelligence and in morality if you as me.
     
  5. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #5
    I watched the short clip and didn't notice any mention of late term abortion (I may be wrong and as my internet connection is bolloxed at the moment I'm not going to check).The "a pillow" bit I assume is a figure of speech (killing a child is probably a possibility although as a method of killing it owes more to Hollywood than the real world),if a mother takes a decision it is best for the child to die and in light of there being no legal remedies available in most places (although in a lot of cases the medical profession may hint or even outright give an opinion on what they think is the best course of action) and assuming this isn't a case of mental illness in the mother I for one would support her actions.It is not ideal obviously but until a better solution is arrived at it's the best we have.The rights and wrongs are for outsiders to consider a loving mother is not thinking of herself at times like these but of the best for her child.
     
  6. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #6
    Why don't you send an email to Virginia Ironside and ask her?
     
  7. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #7
    I've always told my family that if I'm badly injured, especially mentally, and there's no cure, to end it nice and quickly. No protracted discussions, just pull the plug and move on. I have no desire to live as an invalid and no desire to put strain on my family.

    Was nice to see they put a pretty girl in some sort of Christian fancy dress. Her rolling eyes argument was more effective than the usual 'invisible man told me you're wrong'.
     
  8. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #8
    Wait till unwanted becomes "because they're gay". In some societies if they could detect it I know what they would do.
     
  9. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #9

    What has being gay got to do with severely disabled newborns?
     
  10. AAPLaday Guest

    AAPLaday

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester UK
    #10
    Yeah i thought she seemed quite nice too, she could certainly bash my bishop :D
     
  11. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #11
    A morbid yet interesting and relevant point. Proponents of abortion cases which are based on some sort of justification that the child would live a 'tough' life or that 'no one wants them' or that they will 'suffer' may support those positions in part because they have no personal attachment to those ailments. They see someone who's poor, or who lived a life harder than their own and come to the conclusion that that life may not have been worth living (although the subject of the question would almost certainly disagree wholeheartedly). Perhaps if the justification for the killing/abortion was a bit more close to home their positions may change a bit.

    If there was a gene or lack of a gene found which could predict homosexuality 100% of the time, and families began to abort babies based on on this fact, would the same pro-choice advocates still be pro-choice? Would the number of homosexuals who consider themselves to be pro-choice decline rapidly?
     
  12. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #12
    Who are these people :confused:?

    There is categorically no "gene" or "lack of gene" (whatever that means) for homosexuality. It is a combination of genetics and environment.
     
  13. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #13
    You think someone's environment helps determine their homo or heterosexuality?
     
  14. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #14
    I don't just think it. It has been determined through many studies on sexuality.
     
  15. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #15
    So you (the studies) are saying that many homosexuals aren't born predisposed to homosexuality, that something in their life in their environment growing up causes the homosexuality? And if so, in those instances, does not the genetic variability still represent a requirement in the actual homosexuality?
     
  16. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #16
    No that's not even remotely close to what I (or the studies) said. The predisposition is genetic. It is a combination of genetics and environment.
     
  17. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #17
    Ok, so then your point is entirely moot and the main point still remains. If there's a way to determine which in-utero babies were predisposed to homosexuality and a new movement arose where people were aborting their babies whenever this genetic predisposition occurred, would the same pro-choice advocates still be pro-choice? Would the number of homosexuals who consider themselves to be pro-choice decline rapidly? Perhaps this would be better posed as a new thread instead of an off-topic discussion here.
     
  18. niuniu macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #18

    This point is moot funnily enough. As the topic is about disability, not prejudice.
     
  19. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #19
    Pro-choice advocates would argue that decision is completely up to the mother. The justification is her own decision. If she considers predisposition to homosexuality to be a disability or to indicate a life of 'suffering' then with their logic the decision would be up to her.
     
  20. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #20
    No it's not. You quite clearly claimed:
    Which was an erroneous statement that I took issue with. It has now morphed into:
    You've shifted the goalposts entirely.
     
  21. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #21
    Yes it is. The goalposts have not moved at all, maybe they changed color, or were purchased from a different goal-post company, but they most certainly have not moved. Regardless, the question is fundamentally the same.

    The only change you've caused to my question was the move from 'gene or missing gene' to 'genetically predisposed' which was the obvious intent of the original issue. You're skirting the issue.
     
  22. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #22
    It would still be her choice. It's always her choice.
     
  23. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #23
    The difference between "a test that can determine 100%" and a test that can suggest a "predisposition" is as different as night and day. It dilutes your hypothetical to irrelevance.
     
  24. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #24
    @ the underlined:

    Those are two entirely different scenarios and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

    If you have something to say, just say it. This posting style of yours where you continuously change the phrasings to avoid something gets really old.
     
  25. fivepoint thread starter macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #25
    Hahaha, OMG. :D The accuracy of the test doesn't matter! The bottom line is that there is a test being made and based on the results of that test (whether it's 100% or 50%) individuals who are genetically predisposed to homosexuality are being hypothetically targeted and destroyed by society's mothers. The question that you keep avoiding and skirting around at all costs... is whether you think this is ok or not.

    Hey NT1440 - Here's a quick tip - if you actually think there's a substantive difference between the two... then answer the question both ways! You guys are so transparently unwilling or unable to answer the question that it's almost laughable at this point.

    Queso gave an answer - at least he's willing to deal with the actual issue.
     

Share This Page