Flawed? Jane's doesn't print "news" they print information. And what better way then to ask a large group of knowledgible people, such as the/. readers?
Collaboration is at the heart of the DARPAnet... oops, I mean Internet.
You have an excellent point. The difference is that in the U.S. abortion (until late term) is legal and infanticide isn't.
Morally, I find that before birth, the fetus is a portion of the mother's body, totally reliant on her. Once birth is completed, you have a self-contained being. This is why in many religions there are death rites for dead babies, but very few ceremonies for miscarriages.
Bartmoss: As much as I enjoy being taken out of context, I have to ask you to find somewhere in my posts where I advocate killing children after birth. I'll save you the time looking, because I didn't. My point is that sometimes we have to make the hard decisions, for ourselves, our childern and our society. All too often we expend great costs on keeping a child alive which should die. I'm not referring to pre-mature babies or conjoined twins, but rather ones that are anasyphallic (no brain, only stem), or have other overriding health issues. I want people to think about this during the pre-natal phase.
Just because we have the technology to extend life, does not necessarily mean that we should always use it. The hard question is when to say enough has been done. It's hard to set emotions aside, but speaking as one who has had to make the choice to remove life support from a loved one... You need to consider what will be better for the person, not what is EASIER on you.
As far as the Hitler comment, I don't condone his actions, but I can understand his motivations. He is one of the greatest leaders of the 20th Century, and also one of the most morally misguided ones (right after Stalin).
You are exactly right in that opinions are like assholes, eveyone's got one. And most people don't want to see anyone else's.
The only opinon that matters in this sense is that of the Parents. As I mentioned, infanticide is still common in less developed nations, especially in China.
You can *not* manage life on a 'return on investment' basis. IMO.
I should be able to manage my OWN life on an ROI basis. (Physician assisted suicide)
I should be able to manage my unborn children on an ROI basis. (Abortion) After all, offsping mainly exist to provide for the continuance of our genetic heritage. Healthy ones have a better chance of achieving that goal.
And as a government, we all should be able to measure our social progams on an ROI basis. If the govenment sinks tons of money into a dying cause, there will be outrage.
Basically the needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the one.
Personally, I would rather my tax dollars go to cancer research or transplant operations rather than keeping a vegtable on life support for the rest of his/her life.
Agreed. It's nice to know that someone actually understood my original post. Any form of censorship, even well intentioned censorship "for the children" is dangerous.
...basically the parents are deciding if THEY want to deal with the burden of raising a child who will not coincide peacefully with our society.
That's all well and good until you realize that the cost of rasing a seriously disabled child are great. This often leaves the parents destitute. Sooner or later the state has to interviene on their behalf, in the form of welfare/disabilty/medicare. So ultimately the parents are making the decision for ALLof us.
In this case, if doctors were to be able to figure out a fetus' social opinions or orientation, would the parents have the right to euthanize the child if he were not to become what they desired, or if he were to become a recluse?
This reminds me of the Orson Welles movie where they try to prevent Hitler from being born... Who is to say that this isn't a good idea.
/DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
Watch out, once we start pre-screening our children, we are on a slippery slope to an Orwellian world. (1984, Gattica).
All those that are proponents of a Pro-Life, no euthansia, movements should especially take a look at this post.
This professor proposes that we kill our defective offspring to ease their suffering. Has the audience ever heard of infanticide? This is a naturally occuring side-effect of those suffering from post-pardum depression. They view their children as defective, and therefore attempt to eliminate them.
This fits right into the 'survial of the fittest' theory. Parents sub-consiously wish to produce the strongest offspring (physically and mentally).
This is noted in Darwin's work. Why should we resist the natural processes of life? The pro-life and religious right would say that to terminate the pregnancy, or let the child die, might deprive the human race of the next Einstein or Hawking. I will tell you this: There will be no anasyphallic genuis, there will be no quadriplegic who can be self-reliant.
So I ask you all this question:
Could you, in good conscience, knowingly bring a severly disabled child into this world? And if so, would you not feel the least bit guilty?
By bestowing a life long burden on the taxpayers to support a child that should have been naturally un-selected, we are in essence creating a life where there should never have been one.
People protesting over an Professor of higher learning? What has this country come to?
I don't necessarily agree with his position on euthanization. That doesn't mean that I have to protest him personally.
Further more, to pressure the school to not offer him tenure is inapproptiate at best. Steve Forbes, et. all, neet to relize that there is a commitment that needs to be made. You can't choose to fund higher learning, and then tell the free-thinkers what to believe.
People who throw away pre-concieved notions and think outside of the box are the most important people to support... Lest free speech, and philisophical development come to a screeching halt.
Yep, you're right... there were over 3000 "script-kiddies" @ Con. Gawd I feel like such a lamer.
I'm looking forward to H2000, as well, but I don't have to put DC down just to elevate myself...nor do I have to resort to anonymously posting flame bait.
I have been constantly confounded by so called 'media' that attempts to find a central theme of DC. The only reason it existed in the first place, was for a bunch of people to get together and hang out. That is still its main focus. Granted there are:
"wild, wild parties -- some open, some whose locations were known only the "right people."
However, the purpose is still the same; now not only the original inner circle meets, but literally hundreds of other groups are doing likewise.
The most accurate theme to apply to DefCon is, "Geek New Year". OK, so we don't have fireworks and dragons, but rather Electonica and the CDC, DOC, DD, et all.
Furthermore, for the author to blast the CDC for its antics is ill informed. He didn't even bother to ask Dildog why he spent the time to code it. Obviously they love publicity. And for them to get into the national media and TV was the Ultimate Hack @ DC7.
If you don't like the smoking...DON'T COME. It's Vegas, smoking is legal, it's 110 outside... go to the damn concession stand... No, better yet, go cover something that your might actually have the ability to grasp.
RANT: Finally, insofar as the social engineering contest goes. We wanted to entertain the real attendees, not to prove that people are uber-31337. Those that violated the spirit of the show by recording the contest, I have no respect for you. /RANT
And for those that wonder about me: Yes, I work for a TLA. And, YES I'm a Goon... and damn proud of it.
Slashdot Mirror
knowledgeable, knowledgeable, knowledgeable!
That will teach me not to post after pulling an all-nighter...
There's a kind of freedom in being completely screwed, because you know things can't possibly get any worse.
--The Freshman
Flawed? Jane's doesn't print "news" they print information. And what better way then to ask a large group of knowledgible people, such as the /. readers?
Collaboration is at the heart of the DARPAnet... oops, I mean Internet.
You have an excellent point. The difference is that in the U.S. abortion (until late term) is legal and infanticide isn't.
Morally, I find that before birth, the fetus is a portion of the mother's body, totally reliant on her. Once birth is completed, you have a self-contained being. This is why in many religions there are death rites for dead babies, but very few ceremonies for miscarriages.
Bartmoss:
As much as I enjoy being taken out of context, I have to ask you to find somewhere in my posts where I advocate killing children after birth.
I'll save you the time looking, because I didn't. My point is that sometimes we have to make the hard decisions, for ourselves, our childern and our society.
All too often we expend great costs on keeping a child alive which should die. I'm not referring to pre-mature babies or conjoined twins, but rather ones that are anasyphallic (no brain, only stem), or have other overriding health issues. I want people to think about this during the pre-natal phase.
Just because we have the technology to extend life, does not necessarily mean that we should always use it. The hard question is when to say enough has been done. It's hard to set emotions aside, but speaking as one who has had to make the choice to remove life support from a loved one... You need to consider what will be better for the person, not what is EASIER on you.
As far as the Hitler comment, I don't condone his actions, but I can understand his motivations. He is one of the greatest leaders of the 20th Century, and also one of the most morally misguided ones (right after Stalin).
The only opinon that matters in this sense is that of the Parents. As I mentioned, infanticide is still common in less developed nations, especially in China.
You can *not* manage life on a 'return on investment' basis. IMO.
I should be able to manage my OWN life on an ROI basis. (Physician assisted suicide)
I should be able to manage my unborn children on an ROI basis. (Abortion) After all, offsping mainly exist to provide for the continuance of our genetic heritage. Healthy ones have a better chance of achieving that goal.
And as a government, we all should be able to measure our social progams on an ROI basis. If the govenment sinks tons of money into a dying cause, there will be outrage.
Basically the needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the one.
Personally, I would rather my tax dollars go to cancer research or transplant operations rather than keeping a vegtable on life support for the rest of his/her life.
Agreed. It's nice to know that someone actually understood my original post. Any form of censorship, even well intentioned censorship "for the children" is dangerous.
...basically the parents are deciding if THEY want to deal with the burden of raising a child who will not coincide peacefully with our society.
/DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
That's all well and good until you realize that the cost of rasing a seriously disabled child are great. This often leaves the parents destitute. Sooner or later the state has to interviene on their behalf, in the form of welfare/disabilty/medicare. So ultimately the parents are making the decision for ALLof us.
In this case, if doctors were to be able to figure out a fetus' social opinions or orientation, would the parents have the right to euthanize the child if he were not to become what they desired, or if he were to become a recluse?
This reminds me of the Orson Welles movie where they try to prevent Hitler from being born... Who is to say that this isn't a good idea.
Watch out, once we start pre-screening our children, we are on a slippery slope to an Orwellian world. (1984, Gattica).
All those that are proponents of a Pro-Life, no euthansia, movements should especially take a look at this post.
This professor proposes that we kill our defective offspring to ease their suffering. Has the audience ever heard of infanticide? This is a naturally occuring side-effect of those suffering from post-pardum depression. They view their children as defective, and therefore attempt to eliminate them.
This fits right into the 'survial of the fittest' theory. Parents sub-consiously wish to produce the strongest offspring (physically and mentally).
This is noted in Darwin's work. Why should we resist the natural processes of life? The pro-life and religious right would say that to terminate the pregnancy, or let the child die, might deprive the human race of the next Einstein or Hawking. I will tell you this: There will be no anasyphallic genuis, there will be no quadriplegic who can be self-reliant.
So I ask you all this question:
Could you, in good conscience, knowingly bring a severly disabled child into this world? And if so, would you not feel the least bit guilty?
By bestowing a life long burden on the taxpayers to support a child that should have been naturally un-selected, we are in essence creating a life where there should never have been one.
People protesting over an Professor of higher learning? What has this country come to?
I don't necessarily agree with his position on euthanization. That doesn't mean that I have to protest him personally.
Further more, to pressure the school to not offer him tenure is inapproptiate at best. Steve Forbes, et. all, neet to relize that there is a commitment that needs to be made. You can't choose to fund higher learning, and then tell the free-thinkers what to believe.
People who throw away pre-concieved notions and think outside of the box are the most important people to support... Lest free speech, and philisophical development come to a screeching halt.
Yep, you're right... there were over 3000 "script-kiddies" @ Con. Gawd I feel like such a lamer.
I'm looking forward to H2000, as well, but I don't have to put DC down just to elevate myself...nor do I have to resort to anonymously posting flame bait.
-Section9
I have been constantly confounded by so called 'media' that attempts to find a central theme of DC. The only reason it existed in the first place, was for a bunch of people to get together and hang out. That is still its main focus. Granted there are:
"wild, wild parties -- some open, some whose locations were known only the "right people."
However, the purpose is still the same; now not only the original inner circle meets, but literally hundreds of other groups are doing likewise.
The most accurate theme to apply to DefCon is, "Geek New Year". OK, so we don't have fireworks and dragons, but rather Electonica and the CDC, DOC, DD, et all.
Furthermore, for the author to blast the CDC for its antics is ill informed. He didn't even bother to ask Dildog why he spent the time to code it. Obviously they love publicity. And for them to get into the national media and TV was the Ultimate Hack @ DC7.
If you don't like the smoking...DON'T COME. It's Vegas, smoking is legal, it's 110 outside... go to the damn concession stand... No, better yet, go cover something that your might actually have the ability to grasp.
RANT:
/RANT
Finally, insofar as the social engineering contest goes. We wanted to entertain the real attendees, not to prove that people are uber-31337. Those that violated the spirit of the show by recording the contest, I have no respect for you.
And for those that wonder about me: Yes, I work for a TLA. And, YES I'm a Goon... and damn proud of it.
A personal favorite from Con.
-Section9