Say Anything Blog

When we were pregnant with kid #2, the ultrasound gave some results that the doctor felt raised the possibility of Downs.  We were then strongly advised to terminate the pregnancy and try again.  This was something we felt was unthinkable and continued to term.  He is as normal as most 12 year olds, but even if he had been born with Downs, we would not love him any less.

It is not only disgusting at the number of ‘defective’ babies that are aborted, but also the number of perfectly healthy ‘maybes’ that are also disposed of simply because of a 2 vessel cord or short arms.

The desire to “prevent” one thing or the other is the open door to evil.

What if the kid is born and you notice within the first 24 hours that he is severely handicapped… can we just put him out of his misery right there? What about the first 24 days… 24 months… (...) What if we have a 40 year old woman with severe brain damage, can we simply put her out of her misery? Starve her perhaps?

They all sound good to me.

But, to each his own, eh?

As long as it’s not a government doing the killing I don’t have a great ethical problem with it--in fact, murdering or aborting all handicapped children and increasing euthenasia would slow down overpopulation, cut down on global hunger dramatically increase human evolution, pave way for the Übermensch, etc. I just don’t see it as a serious possibility in today’s political climate.

[...] Via Say Anything… [...]

Dave: The next step is classifying anyone who disagrees with you as being “intellectually disabled” and thus eligible to be killed.  What about those who are considered by the authorities to be unattractive or those who are either not smart enough or too smart?  Let’s just kill them, for the good of society, of course.  There is no end to this, once you open that door.

What if the kid is born and you notice within the first 24 hours that he is severely handicapped… can we just put him out of his misery right there?  What about the first 24 days… 24 months… 24 years… What if we have a 40 year old woman with severe brain damage, can we simply put her out of her misery?  Starve her perhaps?  It’d be for their own good, right?

Despicable....

As long as it’s not a government doing the killing I don’t have a great ethical problem with it–in fact, murdering or aborting all handicapped children and increasing euthenasia would slow down overpopulation, cut down on global hunger dramatically increase human evolution, pave way for the Übermensch, etc. I just don’t see it as a serious possibility in today’s political climate.

I’m sure you’d be the first to voleneer, eh Dave?

As long as it’s not a government doing the killing I don’t have a great ethical problem with it–in fact, murdering or aborting all handicapped children and increasing euthenasia would slow down overpopulation, cut down on global hunger dramatically increase human evolution, pave way for the Übermensch, etc. I just don’t see it as a serious possibility in today’s political climate.

Jonathan Swift had a theory for solving all those problems Dave mentioned, plus hunger too.

From what Dave has said here thus far it sure sounds like he’d support it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Killing is OK as long as the govt isn’t doing it?  What is someone wanted to kill you?  Are you OK with that? World hunger is a distribution problem, mostly due to top down govts who suck up the supply.  There is no overpopulation.  Evolution is about reproductive success, which isn’t aided at all by killing.  The Superman is also a myth.
Thank God it isn’t a serious possibility, although we have taken the first step with abortion on demand.

As long as it’s not a government doing the killing I don’t have a great ethical problem with it–in fact, murdering or aborting all handicapped children and increasing euthenasia would slow down overpopulation, cut down on global hunger dramatically increase human evolution, pave way for the Übermensch, etc. I just don’t see it as a serious possibility in today’s political climate.

Kid, you’ve got a lot of growing up to do.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

No, Swift supported killing people who have the ability to plan for the future. I don’t have an ethical problem with killing those who do not have that ability--fetuses, newborns, the mentally handicapped, etc.

If the end result of a killing (say, of a mentally handicapped infant) will be an overall decrease in human suffering, I don’t understand why one would oppose it--after all, that has been the basis for every war fought in American history. (I.e., you believe killing some Iraqis, against their will, will lead to an overall decrease in human suffering, like Saddam’s oppressive regime.)

MI: To me, the flaw in the pro-abort reasoning is that they define it as solely a matter of the rights of the woman.  What about the human fetus in her womb?  What about the rights of the father?  If you ask a pregnant woman who wants to be a mother what is inside of her, she says it’s a baby.  To the woman who had sex, but doesn’t want a child, it’s an inanimate object.  Convenient rationalization.  She wants to do the deed, but not bear the responsibility for her actions.  This is a source of bad things in any area of human endeavor.  Actions have consequences, that’s how we evolve in consciousness.

It never will be, yet that is exactly what will continue to happen as long as abortion remains legal here.

This is to me the fundamental fissure in the traditional conservative perspective: the sovereignty of the individual is held in the highest regard, yet when it comes to morality, there is this impulse to impose a belief set on others.  It seems to me that the ultimate expressions of individual freedom, concerning ethics, spirituality, sexuality, and one’s physical self, are the areas where conservatives are most interested in legislating.

I can think of only one reason why I would want my wife to have an abortion, for her health.  But my regard for my own freedom, and desire to prevent others from impinging on that freedom, prevents me from attempting to involve myself in the affairs of others.  There are plenty of things I don’t like, but accept as part of the visceral reality of life.

You’re evading the question, Dave.  And a scenario is very easy to come up with… Let’s put it this way....

If a man and woman find out their 10 year old son has cancer and only had 2 or so years to live, would you support their decision to put him down? What if he was 15? 5?  Where would you draw the line?

And dont’ pawn it off for government to figure out, I’m trying to figure out what is going through your brain.  So just answer the question honestly, k?

To me, the flaw in the pro-abort reasoning is that they define it as solely a matter of the rights of the woman. What about the human fetus in her womb? What about the rights of the father?

A fair question.  I don’t think anyone has the answers, but I’ll give you my opinions.

In terms of the fetus, it is a wholly dependent being, and, as such, falls within the province of the person carrying it.  The mother, therefore, is the decision-maker for the featus.

In terms of the father, it is more complex, as he can lay genetic and parental claim to the offspring, and has a vested interest (whether he wants it or not).  By this right, the father who opposes the abortion of his offspring should be able to ensure that the child is brought to term.  This poses a question of judicial fairness, however; why should the father’s perspective of keeping the child trump the mother’s of aborting it?  On the flip side, what if the father wants the mother to abort the pregnancy, but the mother doesn’t want to? 

I do not doubt that there are outstanding questions to be raised and answered, including paternal rights, late-term conditions, and physiological impact.  But to outlaw medical abortion would mean a regression to far more barbaric practices that medical abortion was created to end.

No, Rob, but many newborns live in rogue, terror-sponsoring states, and many of them have been “taken out”. When we bombed Dresden in WWII, many babies died, but it took Hitler out of power and ended the Holocaust–it caused an overall decrease in human suffering.

Your analogy would make sense if we were talking about an unborn child dying while a doctor was trying to remove a cancer tumor that was threatening the mother’s life.  Unfortunately, we’re not talking about that.  We’re talking about taking the child’s life because its inconvenient for the mother.

The way you phrase it makes it sound like I support having a third party (ie, a government) making these decisions for the parents. I oppose that. I would support a couple who killed their newborn son because his existence would increase his family’s (or his country’s) suffering.

So a mother who leaves her baby in the dumpster to die because she can’t afford to feed it...you’re ok with that?

The key flaw in his “argument” (wink) was that he was killing rational men. I’m not. We can keep dancing in circles, or you can concede that there exists a crucial difference between Swift’s “proposal” and my proposal.

I think you need to re-read swift.  He was advocating killing impoverished children older than one.  Last time I checked, one-year-olds were not “rational men.”

Swift supported killing those whose existence was inconvenient in order to solve a problem.
Swift didn’t support killing anyone. A technical point.

So...those whose existence are inconvient aren’t someones?

There is a difference between a woman sticking a non-sterile coat hanger in her womb and the surgical removal of a zygote, embryo, or fetus.

Murder is murder, whether you bludgeon somebody to death with a hammer or inject them with poinson.  The relative “messiness” is just details.

Even more different and less barbaric is a pill, taken within 24 hours of intercourse, that evacuates the uterus. But even that is being opposed by the pro-life contingent.

Different issue.  I have no problem with emergency contraception, but lets stay on topic.

But at the end, abortion is always going to be here; making it illegal won’t make it go away.

Murder, MI, will always be with us too.  So will rape and robbery.  Should we make those legal as well?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

So Dave, lets say my kid is dyslexic.  I don’t find out until she’s ten.  Now I’m poor so I can’t afford the therapy and stuff she needs and I know that, because she won’t get a good education without therapy, she’ll be a burden to me later in life as she’ll never get a job.

I should totally get to take her in the back yard and shoot her, right?  Because there is no reason why I should be inconvenienced with her existence.

Right?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I can not possibly fathom a scenario in which that could be an issue, Sphagnum. People would either abort handicapped children right away or commit infanticide so early on that your question would never be considered. It’s an interesting hypothetical question, but more fit for mere speculation that consideration.

I mean, suppose we grew past our general enmity toward infanticide… Can you imagine a situation in which a family would keep a child for, say, six years before deciding to end his life? It’s absurd.

Presumably, though, governments would set laws for that sort of thing, as they have done for everything else. I just don’t see the point in guessing what age will be the cutoff point, personally.

. I would support a couple who killed their newborn son because his existence would increase his family’s (or his country’s) suffering.

Seriously, do you oppose murder laws?  Because my wife increases my families suffering at times… can I kill her?

But at the end, [rape] is always going to be here; making it illegal won’t make it go away.

No, Rob, but many newborns live in rogue, terror-sponsoring states, and many of them have been “taken out”. When we bombed Dresden in WWII, many babies died, but it took Hitler out of power and ended the Holocaust--it caused an overall decrease in human suffering. We both supported that (I think… you don’t strike me as a Vonnegut fan), but why do you not support killing OTHER babies to end OTHER examples of human suffering?

So…you’d be ok with killing off all the handicapped and, say, babies just born to couples making under $18,000 year in order to help solve the worlds povert/hunger problems?

The way you phrase it makes it sound like I support having a third party (ie, a government) making these decisions for the parents. I oppose that. I would support a couple who killed their newborn son because his existence would increase his family’s (or his country’s) suffering.

Swift supported killing those whose existence was inconvenient in order to solve a problem.

The key flaw in his “argument” (wink) was that he was killing rational men. I’m not. We can keep dancing in circles, or you can concede that there exists a crucial difference between Swift’s “proposal” and my proposal.

But to outlaw medical abortion would mean a regression to far more barbaric practices that medical abortion was created to end.

MI, abortion is still barbaric.  You only think its less so because, unfortunately, its gone mainstream.

As for the rest of your points, I see them as trumped by the right the unborn child has to life.  If people don’t want babies, they shouldn’t have sex.  If they do have sex, they should be prepared to accept the consequences.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

No, Swift supported killing people who have the ability to plan for the future.

Swift supported killing those whose existence was inconvenient in order to solve a problem.

I don’t have an ethical problem with killing those who do not have that ability–fetuses, newborns, the mentally handicapped, etc.

So...you’d be ok with killing off all the handicapped and, say, babies just born to couples making under $18,000 year in order to help solve the worlds povert/hunger problems?

You’re pretty sick, kid.

If the end result of a killing (say, of a mentally handicapped infant) will be an overall decrease in human suffering, I don’t understand why one would oppose it–after all, that has been the basis for every war fought in American history. (I.e., you believe killing some Iraqis, against their will, will lead to an overall decrease in human suffering, like Saddam’s oppressive regime.)

You show me a newborn or a downs-kid who is running a rogue, terror-sponsoring state and I’ll be with you in taking it out.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

No, Swift supported killing people who have the ability to plan for the future.

Swift supported killing those whose existence was inconvenient in order to solve a problem.
Swift didn’t support killing anyone.  A technical point.

MI, abortion is still barbaric. You only think its less so because, unfortunately, its gone mainstream.

There is a difference between a woman sticking a non-sterile coat hanger in her womb and the surgical removal of a zygote, embryo, or fetus.  Even more different and less barbaric is a pill, taken within 24 hours of intercourse, that evacuates the uterus.  But even that is being opposed by the pro-life contingent.  I’m all for determining limits on later-term abortions and parental notification.  As I’ve said before, I think we’ll ultimately end up at the embryo/fetus shift, about 12 weeks.  That is not a position that’s popular with some of my lefty friends.  But at the end, abortion is always going to be here; making it illegal won’t make it go away.

But at the end, [poverty/stress/avarice/sunshine] is always going to be here; making it illegal won’t make it go away.

So.... where do you draw that line?  What age does a child become capable of “rational thought”?

Sphagnum: No, unless your wife is an infant or mentally handicapped. I oppose killing those who are capable of rational thought and have the capacity to plan for their own future.

So a mother who leaves her baby in the dumpster to die because she can’t afford to feed it…you’re ok with that?

I would prefer that the infanticide would occur with the least amount of suffering (starving in a dumpster seems to be a particularly cruel way to die), but I wouldn’t have a problem with that general practice, no.

Your analogy would make sense if we were talking about an unborn child dying while a doctor was trying to remove a cancer tumor that was threatening the mother’s life. Unfortunately, we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about taking the child’s life because its inconvenient for the mother.

I can’t, for the life of me, make any sense of what you’re saying. Could you perhaps explain what you’re saying here in different terms? I hope I don’t sound condescending; I honestly don’t know what you mean here.

You support killing babies (without parental consent) in Hiroshima because it helped end the war. I support killing babies (with, and only with, parental consent) if it would help decrease overall human suffering. That’s all I’m trying to establish.

I can’t, for the life of me, make any sense of what you’re saying. Could you perhaps explain what you’re saying here in different terms? I hope I don’t sound condescending; I honestly don’t know what you mean here.

What I’m saying, Dave, is that if children are inadvertantly killed during the course of trying to remove an evil (a tumor, fascism) then that’s an acceptable loss.  I mean, nobody is targeting the kids in those scenarios.  They die because they get in the way.  Nobody wants them to die, it just happens.

In an abortion, however, the kid is the target.  He/she is being killed because its existence might be an inconvenience to the mother.  That, to me, is not acceptable.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I was talking about one specific instance, and no that isn’t even the ONLY reason I would support the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb, but certainly the most compelling…

[...] All that was put off, however, because I was engaged in some of the most fascinating and, frankly, creepy debate I have had in a long, long while…….. Is he demoniacally possessed? Hard to say for sure, but there is some strong evidence that points that way… I was debating a man who believes that as long as someone is not capable of “rational thought”, their live is worthless and can be terminated with parental consent at any time.  I don’t have an ethical problem with killing those who do not have [the ability to plan for the future]–fetuses, newborns, the mentally handicapped, etc. We’re all clumps of cells. If I, a rational man, wanted to sacrifice my life for the sake of science, that would be acceptable. If I am not capable of rational thought (say, I’m just a fetus), my parent(s)should make that decision for me. [...]

I would have suppored the Hiroshima bomb because IT SAVED LIVES, not because it “ended the war”.

I hope you’ve been consistent with that view. I hope the only reason you have ever supported any war was because it would “save lives”, and not for any ideological reasons or benefits.

If that’s so, suppose Saddam had never murdered anyone, but he was just a malevolent dictator who made the lives of the Iraqis a living hell--the rape rooms were up, thieves had their hands cut off, etc. You would then have opposed the war and marched to Washington with Sheehan and Co.? I highly doubt that.

Invading Iraq decreased human suffering. That’s a fact. And if we had to kill innocent babies to do it, so be it.

Where would you draw the line?

Somewhere between 2 and 12.

Better? I am neither a neurologist nor a psychologist so I can’t give you a more exact answer than that.

You support killing babies (without parental consent) in Hiroshima because it helped end the war. I support killing babies (with, and only with, parental consent) if it would help decrease overall human suffering. That’s all I’m trying to establish.

I would have suppored the Hiroshima bomb because IT SAVED LIVES, not because it “ended the war”.

You keep coming back to the “decrese overal human suffering” idea.  As though because life causes suffering it is not worth living…

I assume the ones who advocate the killing of innocent children are just speaking abstractly; none of you would have the stones to do the deed in real life.

I assume the ones who advocate the killing of innocent children are just speaking abstractly; none of you would have the stones to do the deed in real life.

You’re not saying that it takes balls to kill children, right?

Generally speaking, in order to get in the mood to kill someone, you have to make them less than human, in your mind.  That is easy with some ugly guy, harder with a beautiul woman(I am a man), and very hard to do with an innocent child.  I guess it is a little bit easier to do when the child is inside the mother and she is wanting you to do it.  Besides, you get to use a machine.  I was referring to doing it personally, one on one, looking into the eyes of the person you are killing.  You do the math.

So, this discussion and the abortion culture doesn’t matter?
This is how far down the rabbit hole REALLY GOES:

Dear Mom,

Can you believe it’s 2025 already? I’m still writing 24 on nearly everything. Seems just like just yesterday I was sitting in 1st grade celebrating the century change!

I know we haven’t really chatted since Christmas. Sorry. Anyway, I have some difficult news and I really didn’t want to call and talk about it in person.

Ted’s had a promotion, and I keep putting in those crazy hours. You know how I work at it. Yes, we’re still struggling with the bills. Timmy’s been “OK” at kindergarten although he complains about going. But then he wasn’t happy about day care either, so what can I do? He’s been a real problem, Mom. He’s a good kid but quite honestly he’s an unfair burden at this time in our lives. Ted and I have talked this through and finally made a choice. Plenty of other families have made it and are much better off.

Our pastor is supportive and says hard decisions sometimes are necessary. The family is a “system” and the demands of one member shouldn’t be allowed to ruin the whole family. He told us to be prayerful, consider all the factors and do what is right to make the family work. He says that even though he probably wouldn’t do it himself, the decision is a personal one that each family must make on their own. He was kind enough to refer us to a children’s clinic near here, so at least that part’s easy.

I’m not an uncaring mother. I do feel sorry for the little guy. I think he overheard Ted and me talking about it the other night. I turned around and saw him standing at the bottom of the stairs in his pj’s with the little bear you gave him under his arm and his eyes sort of welling up.

Mom, the way he looked at me nearly broke my heart. But I honestly believe this is better for Timmy too. It’s not fair to force him to live in a family that can’t give him the time and attention he deserves. And PLEASE don’t give me the same kind of grief Grandma gave you over your abortions. It’s the same thing, you know.

We’ve told him he’s just going in for a vaccination. Anyway, they say the termination procedure is painless.

I guess it’s just as well you haven’t seen that much of him lately. Give my love to Dad.

Love,

Jane

Now that’s more like it!  If you’re going to write fiction, might as well make it as fantastic as possible.  I’m giving it an A- because there were points where I just couldn’t suspend disbelief long enough.

Gene: You left out the part where they get a nice check back once the organs are harvested.

Killing children will certainly promote the public good!

Killing children will certainly promote the public good!  Let’s get started on it right away!  The sooner the better!

How about the suffering of the children?

[...] This story piqued my interest after a discussion I had with Say Anything reader “Dave” in the comments here last night. L.A. Times - USC student Holly Ashcraft, described by the manager of her apartment building as a sweet young woman from Montana, was charged with murder and child abuse in a Los Angeles courtroom Thursday as questions continued to surround her alleged abandonment of her newborn in a trash bin. [...]

How about the suffering of the children?

In order to “suffer” in any meaningful sense of the term, one must be capable of thinking rationally and planning for the future. Infants and the mentally handicapped can do neither.

So, you view them as less than human.  You are qualified to bew a child killer, for sure.

So, you view them as less than human.

They’re human, they’re just not rational humans. If someone has no concept of the future, by killing them you have not changed that fact. Seeing as we have the technology to kill people without any suffering (ie, lethat injection), and seeing as this type of infanticide will decrease the suffering of rational humans, it appears to be the most humane option.

You are qualified to be a child killer, for sure.

Dave:  I am not like you.  I am not under the illusion that killing children is beneficial to humanity in any way whatsoever.  Whether you know it or not, you are a disciple of Thomas Malthus.  He was wrong in his basic premise about humanity, and so are you.  No obfuscation here.  Killing children is the problem, not the solution.  Clear enough for you?

Robert108: The only way your views can possibly be consistent is if you are a pacifist. If you are NOT a pacifist, you DO believe that, in certain situations, killing children IS beneficial to humanity.

However, to paraphrase Orwell, if you ARE a pacifist, you are pro-Nazi. (Not my words!!!)

Dave:

In order to “suffer” in any meaningful sense of the term, one must be capable of thinking rationally and planning for the future.

Social insects can plan.  Most developed mammals have some capacity for planning.  There’s just nothing that special about planning to make it your gatekeeper of “having a right to live”.

Rationality and suffering are not intertwined in the manner you have suggested.  As many angry political activists have demonstrated, irrationality often increases suffering not decreases it.  Most people who commit suicide to end their suffering harbor a multitude of distorted psychological perceptions (e.g., sense of hopelessness and inability to affect one’s environment).

There is every reason to expect people who can think rationally to feel less suffering. 
It’s my observation that most people make things worse than they really are.  Like FUB attributing the war in Iraq to oil imperialism.  Flawed perceptions like this only increases one’s unhappiness.

Learning to think is an ongoing process.  There have been important developmental cognitive effects out to roughly 27 years of age.  Nor is “planning for the future” in itself indicative of “the ability to think”.  In a social animal, such as humans, there is no need for infants and small children to possess with this ability, since their parents provide for this.  Instead they can devote their energy to learning other cognitive tasks which in the short run will be more useful for them.

If you wanted to discuss cognitive abilities which permit suffering, I would say “long term memory” would be a much better choice.  Most animals have it to some degree, so even that is not sufficient to separate being “human” from “non-human” in the sense of “has an automatic right to life” versus “does not have an automatic right to life”.

Dave:  Your marxist dialectic is bunk.  I am not a pacifist.  I don’t believe killing children for the purposes you favor has any merit at all.  Children die, and it’s regrettable, but that does not justify killing them for eugenic purposes.  Your claims of social benefit are some sort of utopian fantasy; the law of unintended consequences would bite anyone who tried this right on the butt, I predict.  You would cause far more misery than you might “prevent"”.  The truth is, you have no idea what contributions to society these “flawed” humans would make, and no one elected you God to make such decisions.

I refuse to carry on this conversation, but I wish to say my peace before I delete this from my subscription list.

Dave, you must know that I spent about 1/2 of my conscious thought today thinking of you.  Your views are so perverted, I can hardly convince myself you are real.  Every time I see your gravatar or see a comment from “Dave”, I will preface everything you say with the realization that you are have no conscious and not a care in the world for the lives of many of your fellow humans.  The deliberate killing of children is never, ever, EVER justified.  You can color it in pretty words like “infanticide” and justify it with your “lack of future planning” and “rational thought” garbage, but it does not remove the fact that you are indeed standing on a position of deliberately taking the life of the most innocent and dependent among us.  You can also try to hide behind your “personal opposition” to this behavior, but it does not hide the fact that you would stand by as your neighbor kills his children for personal gain nary saying a word…

You may not realize it, but you are a very religious person.  You have your gods like us all, only I believe in a God that is gracious and loving.  Your god is your freedom, intellect, your selfishness… whatever you want to call it, you worship it and are willing to sacrifice children in it’s name.  You are no different than the ancient civilizations who would place their newborns in the red-hot arms of their idols as a sacrifice for rain, good health, etc.  Only you seem to think you are more enlightened.  You actually believe that somehow you are different… but you are not.  You are just as sick as they are and I would pray that someday you would be able to see this.

I hope you get better someday, Dave, I really do.  Until then, realize this is now how you are viewed by myself, and possibly others, on this particular blog.

Children die, and it’s regrettable, but that does not justify killing them for eugenic purposes.

I don’t favor eugenics, nor have I ever implied that I do; if I did, I would have the government commit the infanticide, not the parent(s). I DO favor benevolence and I DO abhor human suffering. By allowing families the option of eliminating certain specific members of their family, I believe it will reduce the suffering of humanity in the long run. If a newborn child is discovered to be afflicted with Downs syndrome, by killing him right away the family is limiting both their suffering, society’s ‘suffering’ (as the child will consume resources which could go to others) and the child’s suffering (as he lacks the cognitive abilities to plan for the future, his painless death will merely end a horrible present situation).

Dave:  Eugenics has nothing to do with who does the killing; it is killing for the purpose of improving the lives of those who are not killed.  I don’t know if you agree with MI that this is an entirely theoretical matter for you.  You seem so hateful that you probably do wish for the deaths of those who you deem to be inferior or lacking in some way that you determine to be kill-worthy.  That is where the evil creeps in.  Your hate purports to ease my suffering.  No, thank you!  I don’t consider a hateful person to be worthy of deciding anything for society. Your thinking is warped by your hatred of everything and everyone who disagrees with your ideology.

Dave, you must know that I spent about 1/2 of my conscious thought today thinking of you.

I cannot imagine letting the opinions of some stranger affect me like that.  It’s an entirely theoretical discussion, there’s no reasonable expectation that Dave is going to put his ideas to the test.

[...] Of course, some people don’t seem to have a problem with this type of activity… [...]

I think it is horrible that someone even takes this up for discussion.