08 Jan 07
Originally posted by Remora91Will they also remove her clitoris ?
ivanhoe, every time I post an arguement you couldn't otherwise defend you call it an appeal to sympathy. I'd like to here some other reasons why you're against this.
Most people who have a nine year old with 3 month old capabilities dumped on them would have no idea how to care for it. Most people can't lift their own weight. And given her disabilities, ...[text shortened]... ex organs removed. It doesn't hurt her, and actually saves her some pain in the long run.
08 Jan 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeYour quote:
X says `.... saying that it was the natural way that society works.`
Again a straw man.
X says ´ ..... that you believe that the same appeals to emotion that Remora used will be used to justify the killing of human beings.´
Now this interpretation is not a straw man and is therefore acceptable to me.
However, it has nothing to do with belief. These arguments are already being used to kill human beings. I´m talking about facts.
"the difference between a slippery slope argument and the path a societal development takes."
So I said the way society works where you said the path societal development takes. Same thrust.
And now you've tried to change the subject when it looks like things aren't going your way, where exactly is the same logic being used to killing human beings (if you mention abortion, so help me, I will kill three infants and a dog in your name)?
08 Jan 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat? No really what? Do you even think at all?
Will they also remove her clitoris ?
We're talking about a procedure that will aid her parents in caring for her. Obviously removing her clitoris wouldn't help that so why would they do it? Or are you just throwing out statements?
08 Jan 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou forgot the `natural` part. I never claimed anything about a `natural` development.
Your quote:
"the difference between a slippery slope argument and the path a societal development takes."
So I said the way society works where you said the path societal development takes. Same thrust.
And now you've tried to change the subject when it looks like things aren't going your way, where exactly is the same logic being used to killing huma ...[text shortened]... ngs (if you mention abortion, so help me, I will kill three infants and a dog in your name)?
X says ... `... And now you've tried to change the subject when it looks like things aren't going your way, .... `
Don´t try to be clever, Sister X.
This `logic` is being used in the Netherlands. If you´re interested in this subject, I can advise you to look up and study the facts and events surrounding the `Groninger Protocol`.
08 Jan 07
Originally posted by XanthosNZStop acting, sister X. I want to know the answer to the question, that´s why I asked. Do you know the answer ?
What? No really what? Do you even think at all?
We're talking about a procedure that will aid her parents in caring for her. Obviously removing her clitoris wouldn't help that so why would they do it? Or are you just throwing out statements?
08 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeIf you read my post, and not just the last paragraph, you would see plenty of arguements which are "reasonable" by your standards. What I'm asking you to do is to please stop focusing on that last paragraph if it bothers you so much and focus on my other arguements. It doesn't contaminate my whole post, ivanhoe.
We were talking about your ways of reasoning which intend to make these medical acts morally acceptable. I objected to these ways of reasoning. If you insist on using these irrational Appeals to Emotion than I´m afraid we will never be on the same wavelength.
... and by the way, whose shoes ?
And I'm looking through the parents and the child's eyes. Who's shoes are you in (oh wait, you aren't)?
08 Jan 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat's not the same. The Groninger Protocol is used when a newborn will be (in the informed opinion of medical staff and parents) in unbearable suffering for the rest of their life with no prospect of real improvement.
This `logic` is being used in the Netherlands. If you´re interested in this subject, I can advise you to look up and study the facts and events surrounding the `Groninger Protocol`.
That's not the same as in this case where the procedures were undertaken to allow the parents of the child to more easily look after her.
08 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeJesus, ivanhoe. Who knows! Maybe they'll chop off her toes too since she can't walk!
Any links to prove this ?
Stop avoiding the subject and address my "logical" arguements in my first post. If you can't think of any comebacks then please just say so. But stop asking irrelevant questions that waste everybody's time.
Edit: Thank you XanthosNZ.
08 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZX says ..... in unbearable suffering for the rest of their life with no prospect of real improvement.
That's not the same. The Groninger Protocol is used when a newborn will be (in the informed opinion of medical staff and parents) in unbearable suffering for the rest of their life with no prospect of real improvement.
That's not the same as in this case where the procedures were undertaken to allow the parents of the child to more easily look after her.
That´s what they claim, but collegues have argued that the human beings being killed ( .... they are after all human beings, don´t you agree ?) do not suffer at all in the way they, the killers, claim.
... by the way, the above claim of unbearable suffering is an Appeal to Emotion, an Appeal to Pity.
Sister X says ..... That's not the same
Of course it´s not the same. The argument they use to morally accept the act in question is an Appeal to Emotion, an Appeal to Pity ... the argument they (and Remora) are using is the same. In both cases it is an irrational and therefore unacceptable way of reasoning.
08 Jan 07
1 edit
Sister X says ..... That's not the same as in this case where the procedures were undertaken to allow the parents of the child to more easily look after her.
From the website you gave .... The "Ashley Treatment" is intended to improve our daughter's quality of life and not to convenience her caregivers.
http://ashleytreatment.spaces.live.com/blog)
... I´ll read the rest later.
08 Jan 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeTalk about a complete inability to debate ivanhoe. You bounce from point to point like a misguided pinball and you leave more posts hanging than the new Iraqi government.
Sister X says ..... That's not the same as in this case where the procedures were undertaken to allow the parents of the child to more easily look after her.
From the website you gave .... The "Ashley Treatment" is intended to improve our daughter's quality of life and not to convenience her caregivers.
... I´ll read the rest later.
You went on about removal of the clitoris and now you're off on something else. Something else that you are wrong about. First you claim that the Groninger Protocol is the same as what is being used here. I produce evidence showing it isn't (read http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/10/959 if want more). Then you claim that in fact it isn't being used like that. Well frankly, that doesn't do anything to invalidate the Groninger Protocol.
And then we're off to the races with you calling the mention of unbearable suffering an appeal to emotion. Not everything that evokes emotion is appeal to emotion ivanhoe. And if you read the medical literature you'll note that I quoted that phrase directly from it.
And now we are up to your latest post where you quote the blog I posted saying that the treatment is aimed to improve the quality of the daughter's life. Sure, it improves her life by making it easier for her caregivers to care for her. They don't have to deal with menstration, turning over a fully grown adult to prevent bed sores or protecting her from molestation. So it makes her easier to care for and this means it is easier to give her a better quality of life. One leads to the other.