Message from @JULZIFICATOR
Discord ID: 469528150435561483
and then body death that naturally follows
teh second one can take really long to happen though
Nobody comes back from being dead for 10 years, but people do come back from a hell of a lot of things that take up notably more time
yes
but thats the thing, which is worse?
instant death
Or suffering to the point where it doesn't even matter anymore
The implication is that the latter is going to occur in some of the richest and most prosperous countries in the world
i mean what would you rather happen?
an embryo getting killed before it can even develop a self
Or a person getting raped repeatedly between ages 5-11
And then to just be cast under the emotionless protection of the state
I think the better solution is to address the latter
where they are little more than a number
and until you have adressed it?
Rather than fatalistically accept it as inevitable
We live right now in a world where we haven't fixed it
when will it? and how many do you wanna force to live through it until it IS fixed?
Well we're currently not at a point where the test tube hypothetical is viable either
test tube hypothetical doesn't prevent the fate AFTER they are birthed
No, but the solution to the problem should be addressing the system
i agree
but until we do?
Like would you say people with severe birth defects should be aborted?
yeah because regardless of if the person is aborted there are other cases liek the death of parents where someone would suffer under that system
yes
Why do you get to decide this?
anything thats debilitating to their life
Until it’s fixed don’t make taxpayers foot the bill.
because:
A. this child will be in need of help their whole life, and i dont want to pay for someone elses lack of judgment
and
B. This child will not have a happy life
so make a choice
Either do it on your own time/money
Or don't bother me about it
Hold on, how are we defining debilitating?
debilitating as in, debilitating
And should Stephen Hawking have been aborted then? In your ideal state?
I dont think he's saying laws should force abortions
Stephen Hawking didn't start debilitated at birth
I think he's saying that he'd prefer if people with (x) wouldnt be born/be aborted
That's my impression anyways
Right but in an instance where you could detect such a debilitation before birth
pop 'em
or pay for it at your own expense
@Scarlet I'm asking specifically about the value judgement, not legal issues
>it's okay to kill one of the greatest scientists of our time because I don't like the welfare state
other scientists came before him, and many will follow
humans are after all a cheap resource