forum Debate. Debate. Debate.

Started March 14, 2019 by Deleted user

tune

Edit topic

Because they're innocent babies, someone loves it, it's MURDER and if people care enough to help them, they'll want to help others

What if the child is not loved? And why is killing someone wrong?

Because they're innocent babies, someone loves it, it's MURDER and if people care enough to help them, they'll want to help others

What if the child is not loved? And why is killing someone wrong?

Well if it wasn't, why would every society have it as a no?

Because they're innocent babies, someone loves it, it's MURDER and if people care enough to help them, they'll want to help others

What if the child is not loved? And why is killing someone wrong?

Well if it wasn't, why would every society have it as a no?

It is the ending of a human life, something we consider sacred. Or if we were all nihilistic, then I guess life doesn't mean anything. It sounds stupid, but The Giver by Lois Lowry touches on the whole killing babies thing. This has just been a jumble of my ideas.

I stand by my point in this. Im neutral leaning towards no, with strict criteria.

But what's the difference here between killing this weak baby and killing an unborn child? (I know, I'm dragging back to the abortion debate. I'm just wondering what the logic here is, but I still don't want to jump back to all of the early debate's point. Logic only, not actually abortion debate.)

If it's not viable and unable to survive on it's own then it is a mercy to let go instead of force it to live a life full of pain and misfortune. That goes for all ages, not just babies.

I think the main problem is that humanity doesn't know what happens after death and they are scared of the prospect of there being nothing, or learning that their religion lied, etc.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Because they're innocent babies, someone loves it, it's MURDER and if people care enough to help them, they'll want to help others

What if the child is not loved? And why is killing someone wrong?

Well if it wasn't, why would every society have it as a no?

It is the ending of a human life, something we consider sacred. Or if we were all nihilistic, then I guess life doesn't mean anything. It sounds stupid, but The Giver by Lois Lowry touches on the whole killing babies thing. This has just been a jumble of my ideas.

^^You can't base morality on what people think or else morality can change with time.

Not all people consider life sacred. Many don't believe in sacred at all.

Because they're innocent babies, someone loves it, it's MURDER and if people care enough to help them, they'll want to help others

What if the child is not loved? And why is killing someone wrong?

Well if it wasn't, why would every society have it as a no?

It is the ending of a human life, something we consider sacred. Or if we were all nihilistic, then I guess life doesn't mean anything. It sounds stupid, but The Giver by Lois Lowry touches on the whole killing babies thing. This has just been a jumble of my ideas.

^^You can't base morality on what people think or else morality can change with time.

Not all people consider life sacred. Many don't believe in sacred at all.

You have a point. It comes down to the fact that most humans don't want a young baby to be killed for having something minor wrong with them, before they have a chance to grow up and become part of society.

Because they're innocent babies, someone loves it, it's MURDER and if people care enough to help them, they'll want to help others

What if the child is not loved? And why is killing someone wrong?

Well if it wasn't, why would every society have it as a no?

It is the ending of a human life, something we consider sacred. Or if we were all nihilistic, then I guess life doesn't mean anything. It sounds stupid, but The Giver by Lois Lowry touches on the whole killing babies thing. This has just been a jumble of my ideas.

^^You can't base morality on what people think or else morality can change with time.

Not all people consider life sacred. Many don't believe in sacred at all.

You have a point. It comes down to the fact that most humans don't want a young baby to be killed for having something minor wrong with them, before they have a chance to grow up and become part of society.

That's why I said most. Not all. Most.

Okay, here's my take:
It's up to the parents.

(I love how in order to convincingly argue the other side you have to argue on the side of literal insanity…)

(Insanity is kind of my thing. I should probably be on that side.)

(I love how in order to convincingly argue the other side you have to argue on the side of literal insanity…)

(Insanity is kind of my thing. I should probably be on that side.)

(Insanity is worth it)

Okay, here's my take:
It's up to the parents.

Deciding morality? No way! They are just people. I mean of course listen while you are too young to make your own moral decisions. And obviously listen to your parents. But they don't have monopoly on morality any more than anyone else.

That's why I said most. Not all. Most.

Explain how you are not counting on democracy to judge morality.

Okay, here's my take:
It's up to the parents.

Deciding morality? No way! They are just people. I mean of course listen while you are too young to make your own moral decisions. And obviously listen to your parents. But they don't have monopoly on morality any more than anyone else.

I meant, if the child would live a life of misery and pain, it should be up to the parent to decide if they should die or not. It's like pulling the plug.

How is anyone supposed to see the future to decide that?

There are some genetic disorders that have been proven to be painful for people with them.

That's why I said most. Not all. Most.

Explain how you are not counting on democracy to judge morality.

Elaborate please. Do you mean to ask why I am not relying on public opinion to judge morality?

It looks like you are relying on the will of the public for moral judgement. Please tell me how you are not.

There are some genetic disorders that have been proven to be painful for people with them.

Very true I am sure. And you assume that will ruin the future of the person with such a disease to such an extent that it would be better for that person to be dead?

Sometimes death is a mercy for those who will not experience life.

Okay but if killing people was okay because they are suffering/will suffer, why would it only apply to babies? what about old folks who get dementia, or diseases you can’t cure? Or people who are suicidal, who don’t even want to live.

Sometimes death is a mercy for those who will not experience life.

Umm… I would like you to think about what you just said.

Okay but if killing people was okay because they are suffering/will suffer, why would it only apply to babies? what about old folks who get dementia, or diseases you can’t cure? Or people who are suicidal, who don’t even want to live.

Exactly! Kill everyone.
_{Playing Devil's advocate is so fun!}

Okay but if killing people was okay because they are suffering/will suffer, why would it only apply to babies? what about old folks who get dementia, or diseases you can’t cure? Or people who are suicidal, who don’t even want to live.

Exactly! Kill everyone.
_{Playing Devil's advocate is so fun!}

_{I know!}

Sometimes death is a mercy for those who will not experience life.

Umm… I would like you to think about what you just said.

Why? My statement makes sense. If someone is going to be hooked up to tubes their entire life, in pain, invalid, and stuck in a hospital room with zero chance of being able to experience what life is outside of that room….death would be a mercy.

Exactly! Kill everyone.

Truth be told: We should.
Start all over. Clean slate.