[Uplillacype]

Jesus Christ, I just realized what is going on in this thread.


Asher... is making sense.

I need to lie down in a dark, cool room, and reassess my outlook of the universe.

Asher makes sense a lot of the time. You have to in order to be a good troll; otherwise you're just another Kidicious.

I'm not getting any love for the awesome thread title.

I think it's great.

[koebforfrn]

Originally posted by Patroklos
It is easy, so why do you have such a hard time applying that rational evenly through all situations? Because the same conditions do not hold?

Are fetuses not alive? You may be able to argue they are not human yet, but they are alive. Depends on your definition of alive. Under-developed organisms being kept alive by machines on the fast-track to death is "alive" in some books -- not in mine.

If I kill all the HIV infected people in Africa will the disease not stop spreading? Will the countries in question not be able to feed their populations amongst other things? If we are playing the numbers, removing the HIV population is the only logical solution. This is not practical in any way, nor is it an extension of the same logic except in that you seem to think I enjoy murdering people...

And of course the most important distinction between the two scenarios is who is choosing to kill you, some one else or you? That is where your comparison is woefully lacking. It doesn't matter. Do you understand the concept of a rational decision? It doesn't matter who makes the decision, because only one really makes sense.

So the children are automatically ****ed if your in charge of the sinking ship then, right? What? I'd put the children in the boat. It's the rational decision.

However, the odds for four of them is zero. I glad you feel justified in volunteering to forfeit their lives for others. You would have made a great infantry officer in WWI. What do you not understand? Seriously. Four of them are going to die anyway. The question is, why do you want the other two to die as well? That's a bit odd to me. You're the only one here that's in favour of having zero survivors -- or you don't understand the science behind this here...

Interesting, since all had/have a chance at life, how are they doomed? Because they were all born WAY TOO prematurely due to complications arising from having all six fetuses. Perhaps this is the part that you still do not understand.

The reason all of them are on the fast track to death right now is because they refused to abort several of them. The reason they are all premature is there was so many of them. They are too young to be viable in any meaningful way. They will never become fully developed human beings. All of them are doomed because of this decision that you support.

What if all the fetuses were equal Asher? What do you do then? They are never equal. Don't waste my time.

[drycleden]

Because the same conditions do not hold? That's because we are both using different goal posts. That's fine for you and me, I enjoy discussing the hypotheticals with you.

But I doubt those parents give a **** about your goal posts, probably even less of a **** than you give about theirs.

Depends on your definition of alive. Under-developed organisms being kept alive by machines on the fast-track to death is "alive" in some books -- not in mine. Note the goal posts. And your opinion on the matter is no more valid than anyone elses, using any qualifier be it religion or science.

This is not practical in any way, nor is it an extension of the same logic except in that you seem to think I enjoy murdering people... Sure it is, escpecially for someone who can make the hard decisions like yourself And I don't think you enjoy murdering people, I think you like saving people. So go out and save all those Africans doomed to be infected by HIV and suffer the guaranteed death that would ensue.

It doesn't matter. Do you understand the concept of a rational decision? It doesn't matter who makes the decision, because only one really makes sense. So how many rational decisions do you let other people make for you? I hope you don't smoke or drink alcohol, there are some rational decisions about that people don't make on purpose.

What? I'd put the children in the boat. It's the rational decision. That doesn't hold true, the children are the least likely to survive. Not as smart, strong, or developed. Not a rational decision. Maybe you have a "spiritual" of other moral bias to make such an irrational decision

What do you not understand? Seriously. Four of them are going to die anyway. The question is, why do you want the other two to die as well? That's a bit odd to me. You're the only one here that's in favor of having zero survivors -- or you don't understand the science behind this here... They were going to die anyway? Aren't three still alive? Sure they may die anyway, but would they have had any chance at all if we cut them into pieces in the womb and sucked them out with a tube? I think their chances are much better this way, at least for four of them.

Because they were all born WAY TOO prematurely due to complications arising from having all six fetuses. Perhaps this is the part that you still do not understand. Got it. But again, why is your utilitarian tendency only applicable in this case?

They are never equal. Don't waste my time. Yes, I agree. It would be a waste of your time to justify your stance given such a variable. But your position should still hold true, right? Or could you not make the hard decision?

[scoundtrack]

Both families declined, chosing to leave the outcome "in God's hands." The Morrisons are committed Christians who met at Bethany College of Missions and married in 2005. http://www.bcom.org/about-us/beliefs/

They aren't Catholics, Asher as much as you would like them to be. They are evangelical protestants. I'm surprised if you would bother to quote where they attended that you didn't bother to look up what was the affiliation of their church.

Oh, and why is their religion relevant to you when you think everyone who believes in God is insane? This thread isn't about this poor family, it's about you getting to have a hate-on for Christians.

I'm done here Asher, I got what I was looking for. I'm just sorry this family's tragedy is being used by you in this fashion. Regardless as to what you or other people believe, this family lost three of their children, and you are blaming them for the tragedy. I think we can do better then this.

[tarmpriopay]

No one is glad. **** off with your strawmen. And what do you care about the other two anyway? Your a pro-choice guy, how is these two premies dieing now any different from the thousands of 5 month old fetuses that will be aborted from the womb this year ?

[Ebjjrxrd]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And what do you care about the other two anyway? Your a pro-choice guy, how is these two premies dieing now any different from the thousands of 5 month old fetuses that will be aborted from the womb this year ? Because they were wanted. They'd presumably have a home and a family.

[Narcodran]

I enjoy the real world. You should come on down. dodge. juke. dodge.

Again, your being purposely obtuse. You can argue with a religious person all day about why their belief in a soul doesn't make a fetus a person. Obviously your used to that, maybe that is why you are a complete fish out of water now that you have encountered something different.

There is no medical of scientific reason for determining when a fetus is a human. So we are simply operating from two different assumptions. But valid. Neither with any more claim to the real world other than what you or I believe.

My goal is the best outcome: that is, the most survival possible with the best possible health. Again, I am glad you are willing to sacrifice others without even a consultation. I take it back, you would have been more at home on the Soviet side of Stalingrad than the Somme.

Sometimes in nature, everyone cannot win. Deal with it. Agreed, so when are we flying to Africa to keep those aid organizations from interfering with nature? Another reason why these people made the right decision, using your logic.

I'm very shocked you don't know my opinion about smokers... So you do irrationally use alcohol knowing it has health consequences? And you would be happy if someone made the rational choice to force you to stop that?

I do what I can. I donate insane amounts of horsepower to HIV treatment research (PS3, 8800 Ultra, core 2 quad extreme). I bet that will help out in about 20 years when a cure is found, and 100 years after that when Africa can get its hands on it.

But why wait Asher? Lets go now. You and me. Sure we will kill 100 million people today, but we will save 500 million from being infected and dieing over the next 120 years while we wait for a cure. And developing/buying that much cure would be to economically hindering anyway, killing them now and not worrying about the cure is much more utilitarian. They are going to die anyway.

Again, it's a hard decision, but it's a simple one unless you believe in some stupid fantasy like divine intervention. Save 2, or kill them all. It is simple, but until you can sort out your own inconsistency in application I can't trust you to make that simple decision, let alone a hard one.

If its numbers it's numbers. If it is not it's not. Don't be shy in applying your superior solution to all the worlds problems!

"Smart, strong, or developed"? You're sitting on a boat. Who is smart enough to catch fish? Figure out a way to signal a plane? Who has the strength to survive in exposure for a month? You didn't specify the age of the children, do you think a three year old's level of development is equal to the task in the same way a 25 year old's is?

Your counter scenario sucked, and it is shredding your argument.

A minor quibble in your eyes, apparently... It is a tragedy if any of them die, but since your willing to just hack up four of them with no remorse in the first place, who are you to lecture about such a thing?

Are they? Do the math.

~99% survival for a full-term birth (x2)
~1% survival for a 20-22week birth. (x6) Ummm..., you forgot something there that proves your disingenuous argement nicely.

Pleas tac on "0% chance of survival (not really the term to use if you actually kill them is it? ) (x4)" to that first metric.

Again, it is so nice that those other four decided to sacrifice their lives for their fellow sextuplets. Real courage, and such a good application of those numbers you like so much Asher. Oh wait...

Because murdering people in Africa will not save any lives. Eliminating HIV in Africa won't save lives?

Given that it does not apply to the real world, it is a waste of time. Your choice, or rather inability, to answer that question makes your argument in this thread laughable, and I know you have already realized this.

[olivelappers]

Pat-

Imagine a situation in which identical baby twins are trapped in a burning building. They're positioned in such a way that, by saving one of them, debris will fall on the other and kill that child. However, if you do nothing, there's a very small chance that they'll both be able to wriggle out of the burning building and into safety. There's a 1% chance of both of them wriggling their way to safety if you don't act, but a 99% chance that they both die in the fire.

Do you save one child, knowing that you'll doom the other, or do you refrain from acting, knowing that both will almost certainly die but hoping against hope that both beat the 1% odds and survive?

[megasprut]

Originally posted by Patroklos
How medically sound and scientific!

So when we are done with Africa we can take our chain guns and machetes to the orphanages? You are unreal. How often are you going to flog this dead horse?

I might as well accuse you of being a pedophile for liking children. It's just as sound a conclusion.

[Peapeuddedbaw]

You are unreal. Your the one who thinks you become a human being through the good feelings of people wanting you and wanting to give you a home.

Ever hear of transubstantiation?

And you claim Christians are weird? That's like, Scientology type stuff Asher.

It can't be said enough:

ASHER

[Aw1HhC0m]

Look...I'm a "Hard Core" Christian and I understand that given the circumstances there was only one logical choice. Guynemer's post on the reality of the situation for the children is the crux of the matter. Absolutely it is a difficult choice for anyone to voluntarily terminate the lives of their children, but in life you are faced with difficult choices.

IMHO, it is not anti-Christian to make a choice to save lives that would assuredly be lost otherwise.

Now, as far as Christian's being insane...we'll see.

[Anaerbguagree]

Look kids who are born in the second trimester (as sextuplets inevitably are) are more miscarriages than children. Keeping such miscarriages alive is more unnatural and cruel than anything else that's been discussed on this thread. Hell, if I had just one kid that was born 22 weeks premature you better believe I'd be against the kind of surgery that would be necessary to keep it alive.

[Ervntewc]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Your the one who thinks you become a human being through the good feelings of people wanting you and wanting to give you a home. Strawman.

People become human when they become capable of thought and sentient. 20 week old fetuses are not.

Whether a child should be brought into the world depends on if he's going to be accepted into a loving home.

I'm not surprised you cannot tell the difference.

[PPActionnGuys]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I would try and save both W, and probably die myself in the effort. I am sure if you ask enough police officers, firefighters, and soldier/sailors you will find that choice to be very common. Only among idiots who let both of their children die.

Just because stupidity is common doesn't make it right.

[ireleda]

Originally posted by PLATO

If allowing oneself to be influenced by Christianity is the definition of insane, then I would submit that everyone participating in this thread is insane, for that is the subject that is really under discussion here.

Does not follow at all. Christians are insane because they throw rationality out the window in favour of a God that does not exist to save their children's lives. The children then die.

It's no different than putting your child out on the street, alone, for 2 months and saying "If God loves him, he'll stay alive".

Meanwhile, critiquing people who let such stupidity influence their judgement to the detriment of their children is not insane...it is sane.

[seicslybearee]

Originally posted by Asher

Does not follow at all. Christians are insane because they throw rationality out the window in favour of a God that does not exist to save their children's lives. The children then die.

It's no different than putting your child out on the street, alone, for 2 months and saying "If God loves him, he'll stay alive".

Meanwhile, critiquing people who let such stupidity influence their judgement to the detriment of their children is not insane...it is sane. I believe I already stated my answer to this several posts back. In addition, I also believe that I have shown how this was not a "Christian" decision, but rather a personal value judgement. I am Christian and would not have made their choice. Therefore you cannot simply say that this was a Christian decision and ridicule it on that basis.

If we were to extrapolate your generalization of religion, then we should also assume that all muslims are terrorist simply because some choose to be.

[Eromaveabeara]

Originally posted by PLATO


In fact, if they were aware of the facts that Guynemer pointed out, then they are nearly criminal in their decision if you ask me. Whoa whoa. The parents likely had no idea they were going to deliver when they did. If they had lasted a bit longer--say, 24 weeks gestation--the outlook would be considerably better, if not exactly sunny.

The doctors, however, have much to answer for.

(Again, this is assuming the "4.5 months early" bit is true.)