| Subject: I'll discuss it with you (why don't we kill our babies?) |
Author:
Ben
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/28/02 5:57pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Sarah Lee made" on 02/28/02 12:47pm
>>from Damoclese: It seems to me that you apply some
>>notion that the sanctity of human life should be held
>>in high regard.
>>
>>>>> who's a smart cookie then!
>
>Beats me, but I can tell you one thing, it's one thing
>to hold a position and justify it; it's another to be
>condescending and pontificate it. So far, you fall
>into the latter.
I have to agree with you here. Ozboy has been more eager to make fun of your position than to give reasons why you shouldn't hold it.
All this brings up an interesting point: since animals are capable of walking away from a dying, deformed baby of their own species, why aren't we? Is it truly because there is some sanctity to human life (if so, I have never seen this proven)? If not, perhaps it could be because of what you mentioned--our culture is deeply ingrained in religion in ways we are not even aware of.
One example I have considered recently of this religious permeation is our language. If someone doesn't believe in God, he has a name: "atheist". But if someone doesn't believe in the god I made up, Baboo, does he have a certain name? No. He just doesn't believe in something that I have no evidence at all for. Yet our society has such far-reaching religious roots, everything is measured in relation to people who _don't_ believe in God. "Atheist". "Non-Christian". These words are relative... they assume that believers in God are right and others are wrong. It's interesting that we even use such words. I reject words like "evolutionist" too, because they serve to propagate the idea that a person _believes_ in evolution rather than just accepting it like any other scientific fact.
Anyway, I digress... back to my original idea. Would it not be better if humans could take a good look at a deformed or retarded child and say, "Hey, this person shouldn't add his genes to the gene pool. We also shouldn't spend thousands upon thousands of dollars taking care of a person who can never contribute to society." Interestingly, students with special needs get far more money than average or above-average students, and which students are more likely to give something back to the world? Is it so far from our minds to gently take the lives of people whose lives may be very low quality anyway? Can we not look at someone whose mother was a crack addict and say, "Why let this person endure what is most likely going to be a horrible life?" We have people with six thousand dollar chairs who go to special tax-funded schools where their main goal for the year is to learn to hold a ball in their hands. While these people are nice to be around for their innocence, are we really doing them a favor by keeping them alive?
Although I do not support a Hitleresque idea of eugenics, I do think that we should not allow everyone to pass on their genes. We should not be after white Anglo-saxon offspring, but we should be after increasingly intelligent, physically fit offspring. What I'm suggesting should probably be a whole new thread in itself. Perhaps I will start one.
Anyway, Damoclese, I agree with your points. As in many things, we have a sort of "feeling" that human life is sacred, but who can offer proof of such a proposition? I think if we could gather our strength and make some tough decisions, the entire human race would ultimately benefit, as would the entire earth.
Ben
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 