dartagnan wrote:My question was simple. If you knew a baby would have DS or some other genetic deficiency, would you think it is wrong for the mother to have the baby?
This is a simple yes/no question.
I stand by my original response, which was nope. I think it is up to mother of the child. I also try not to look at decisions as right or wrong; I tend to take a "best interest" approach. I know this doesn't always work, but I'm still learning. I haven't read Provenzo's stance on the matter...just the parts that have been posted in this thread. Based on that, I don't think that his position is representative of an overall atheist position.
dblagent007 wrote:Most believers I know believe (1) that there is a God and (2) that natural processes tend to operate in accordance with nature (imperfections and all) except in the rare instances when God intervenes, which may or may not be through yet another natural process.
That's convenient. It gives God an easy out when things go wrong and praises him when things work out. A nice approach.
If you bring a kid into the world you can't take care of, do the taxpayers have the moral responsibility to take care of them?
This is a question for all babies, not just the ones with DS. People have babies they can't financially support all the time. Would atheists pass legislation to prevent humans from exercising their procreative rights?
I'll answer your question, but first tell me what exactly are "procreative rights". Is it a "procreative right" to have children that you are incapable of supporting?
I noticed you didn't answer my question. If you bring a kid into the world you can't take care of, do the taxpayers have the moral responsibility to take care of them?
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
dblagent007 wrote:The responsibility for children begins with the parents. If they fail, the responsibility expands to ever enlarging groups (e.g., extended family, community, church, youth groups, etc.) until the government is the group of last resort. Killing the child is not the answer.
Does it bother you then that when BYU students get pregnent the LDS Church sends them to Medicaid to finance the birth of the child rather than checking with the parents and then picking up the check?
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
dblagent007 wrote: Yes it is morally responsible to bring a child into the world because a child is a person that has a worth that transcends his parent's financial condition at the moment.
The responsibility for children begins with the parents. If they fail, the responsibility expands to ever enlarging groups (e.g., extended family, community, church, youth groups, etc.) until the government is the group of last resort. Killing the child is not the answer.
Says who? You? Got news for you, the government, us by proxy, is the one picking up the slack. I don't see extended families and churches raising anyone's down syndrome babies. What I DO see is a lot of down syndrome babies getting government assistance, though. This is an incredible burden on society that gets little in return other than some warm fuzzies experienced by people like you who aren't raising anyone else's down syndrom babies. By "you" I mean your kind, en masse, raising all the down syndrome babies not wanted by society.
For example, my girlfriend's son will receive FREE medical care, from the government, until he is 18 years old. A church isn't giving him anything. Extended family isn't, either. The US taxpayer is picking up the slack for an illegal immigrant woman who has produced 9 kids by several different fathers at a tremendous cost to us, our society, and for what? She keeps doing what she does, and she keeps passing the burden onto society. Where are all the Christians stepping up and caring for her babies? One atheist and one Muslim family have stepped up for two out of nine kids, and that's it. The rest have been raised by the state.
In the end, for the longevity and viability of a society worth keeping, sterilizing this woman after two kids would have been a good thing. Why does a good society bear the burden of rearing someone else's unwanted and uncared for children? Because it gives some people warm fuzzies? That's crazy. That is CRAZY.
What is your point? Undesirable babies should be killed? Or mothers should undergo forced sterilized?
dblagent007 wrote:Most believers I know believe (1) that there is a God and (2) that natural processes tend to operate in accordance with nature (imperfections and all) except in the rare instances when God intervenes, which may or may not be through yet another natural process.
That's convenient.
Yes, it is. But probably not as convenient as creating a straw man that God actively directs everything like the Wizard of Oz and then knocking that straw man all apart.
It gives God an easy out when things go wrong and praises him when things work out. A nice approach.
dblagent007 wrote:The responsibility for children begins with the parents. If they fail, the responsibility expands to ever enlarging groups (e.g., extended family, community, church, youth groups, etc.) until the government is the group of last resort. Killing the child is not the answer.
Does it bother you then that when BYU students get pregnent the LDS Church sends them to Medicaid to finance the birth of the child rather than checking with the parents and then picking up the check?
When I was at BYU, all students had to have medical insurance and for married students it had to cover having a child. I haven't heard about students being referred to Medicaid.
I am aware that some students outside of BYU have turned to Medicaid to pay for the cost of having children. If that was truly the student's last resort, then I am not going to fault them for it (regardless of whether they are Mormon or not). If they're parents live in a $2M house and they did that then, yes, I would be a little upset.
Sharpen the hatchet. There's another one that doesn't deserve to live.
No, you completely missed the point! We should celebrate the fact that somebody who didn't have the means to support a baby had one anyway. Three cheers for people exercising their reproductive rights!
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
