Pyrian on 7/11/2006 at 05:06
Quote Posted by Thief13x
...I need not mention that 70% chance or not, the doctors were 100% wrong.
That doesn't make any sense. At
most they were 70% wrong - and that's assuming they were wrong at all, which they may not have been.
Thief13x on 7/11/2006 at 05:16
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Are you sure they weren't talking about you?
Oh snap, PMS again, somone get the tampons for her QUICK
Pyrian, they were 100% wrong in recommending an abortion, I still can't understand why somone would be so quick to recommend such a thing thats all.
SD on 7/11/2006 at 08:14
You do understand that a 70% chance of being born retarded means a 30% chance of not being retarded, right?
Thirith on 7/11/2006 at 09:23
As far as I'm concerned, it's cruel not to permit euthanasia in the case of babies born with teh sort of massive defects (half a brain, no spine etc.) that will make them suffer for their short lives. It's doubly cruel to do so in the name of some shadowy ethics. Laws could easily make a clear difference between these cases and infants who may have a 70% chance of being moderately retarded.
Vigil on 7/11/2006 at 10:16
Quote Posted by Thief13x
I need not mention that 70% chance or not, the doctors were 100% wrong. Now try telling me that i'm just arguing a slippery slope.
With a 99% chance of being right about something, 1% of the time you're 100% wrong. What point did you think you were making with that?
In any case, the fact that the probable diagnosis can turn out to be wrong is one of the arguments
for allowing post-natal euthanasia - to allow parents and doctors to "wait and see" if a diagnosed birth defect (or high probability thereof) actually turns out to be the case without taking a 70/30 risk. Your sister's case particular case would probably not have been covered by the euthanasia proposal however, unless the mental retardation would have been present, really major (not moderate) and diagnosable with certainty at birth.
Convict on 7/11/2006 at 13:42
Quote Posted by Renegen
Care to elaborate? Natural selection is just a way to favor some traits over others, this case it was not physical size or intelligence, it was the ability to provide for the mother's children. And what's this reverse natural selection? What does that even mean?
In our society if you are wealthier then you tend to have fewer children.
If we define success and ability to provide for one's children by income alone (perhaps simplistically) then you might think that the richer you are the more children you would have. Since this is actually the reverse I used the term reverse natural selection to refer to people who don't have the successful trait (wealth) having more children.
You might argue (what I think is) semantics that there is no genetic trait for income but income levels are quite influenced by one's parental income levels. Additionally I avoid the use of the term 'survival of the fittest' since when you define 'fittest' in terms of a hard end-point you end up with who has the most children and when you define survival (which is genetic survival not individual survival) with a hard end-point you also end up with who has the most children. This makes survival of the fittest tautology.
SD on 7/11/2006 at 18:32
The term for that post is "verbal diarrhoea".
TheGreatGodPan on 7/11/2006 at 19:57
Convict, it's not "reverse natural selection" it's just that a trait associated with high fitness in the past is no longer that way today.
As I mentioned before when talking about "The Return of Patriarchy" I think the way things are currently are a fluke and that evolution will overcome birth control and family planning once given enough time.
Agent Monkeysee on 7/11/2006 at 20:50
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
As I mentioned before when talking about "The Return of Patriarchy" I think the way things are currently are a fluke and that evolution will overcome birth control and family planning once given enough time.
I'd like to know how you think that's even a sane thing to say.
Convict on 7/11/2006 at 21:12
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
The term for that post is "verbal diarrhoea".
Perhaps constructive criticism is a better method of debate - actually stating why you disagree with something rather than a blanket "no ur rong".
