OPINION

[alexsarahrules]

this video is definitely trying to appear neutral when it's so clear that this is another attempt by georgia so called right to life folks and anti-choice folks to frame the larger discussion and incredibly important conversation that needs to happen around basic human rights and social responsibility and apply these concerns only to the so-called unborn. I was at the judiciary committee meeting where this amendment was rejected by even conservative georgia house members- and for good reason.

[iamjackscolin]

Human life has no innate value, except for that which we place on it.

If a Gazelle, or a Lion, or an elephant doesn't have the right to life, why should we?

[blackberryjuice1]

what about the value of humans after their born. you know, guaranteed health care, abolition of the death penalty, you know, that sort of thing...

I don't see all you anti-abortion people adopting all these babies that get abandoned in the foster care system...

If you people put as much energy into advocating for a guaranteed free high quality health care system as you did about killing a dang fetus, the world would be a better place.

[ciphermax]

These were hard questions and I believe he answered them with honesty. I don't think religion came into play here. I believe that there is a time that even God would not want a baby to suffer though what little time they would have on this earth in order to satisfy the wants of the "Pro-Life"

[prolifeguy83]

Ciphermax, can you back up your assertion that God "doesn't want people to suffer" to the extent that He'd rather they be aborted instead? Please give me at least one passage from scripture that reflects that - otherwise you are placing your human philosophy on God. (something He probably doesn't appreciate much) Sometimes Christians make the same mistake, and they're just as wrong. If we're going to say what God wants, we probably ought to be taking it from the book He wrote.

[ciphermax]

I cannot give you a passage and I am a christian and also human therefor the "human philosophy" comes into play also I think everyone has their own thoughts as to what the "BOOK" means and how they what to live by it. I think Baptist, Methodist, all the churchs in the world think that they have a lock on how GOD whats you to see his "BOOK" by the way I call it the "BIBLE"

[prolifeguy83]

Ciphermax, I understand that different denominations can have different interpretations of what's in the Bible. However, you never answered my question asking for a reference. Otherwise, are you not just throwing out an assertion that God would want some babies to be aborted without any evidence to think that?

[prolifeguy83]

Somewhere between 80 and 90% of babies with mental or physical "defects" are aborted. At that rate, we won't have "Special Olympics" very much longer. I think it's ironic that at events like the Special Olympics, we talk about how inspiring these handicapped kids are, but if they're not born yet, we think they should be killed. Just a thought...

[hughtub]

Children with obvious serious mental and physical defects should be aborted. It's a sin to waste resources on a Downs Syndrome child when you could have a perfectly healthy baby instead. I'm very much against the abortion of babies from intelligence, healthy parents who have no serious defects.

[theonomus]

The compassion of the wicked is cruel. The way of the wicked leads to death. Remember in John 9 where the disciples ask Jesus why a man was blind- was it his sin? Jesus responded that the man was blind "in order that the works of God might be displayed in him." How does God define sin? Ps. 94:16 "Who will stand up for me against evildoers?" vs. 21 "They band themselves together against the life of the righteous, and condemn the innocent to death."

[profg11]

Yes, I believe Adolf Hitler and Margaret Sanger said the same thing as you, "hughtub".

[hughtub]

I don't care what humans said so and so. The highest morality merely reflects the natural order. The morality on an island wouldn't allow for diverting precious limited resources to people who will not increase the survivability of the group. Just b/c we can afford to waste doesn't mean we should. A few hundred years of such eugenics would fantastically improve our lives.

[circuschaser]

you believe "it's a sin to waste resources on a Downs Syndrome child"?

against Whom is it a sin, and what kind of authoritative weight does that Person bring to our questions of right and wrong, and what does that Person have to say about our prerogative to dispose of innocent human life for our own convenience?

[circuschaser]

also, I have to point out that defending the abortions of babies with severe genetic defects on the grounds of "wasted resources" does not provide any compelling legitimacy for your position, as it merely begs the question with regard to whether or not those resources are actually wasted.

no disrespect, but as we consider the energy a parent will spend loving and nurturing a child with debilitating defects, we must ask who you think you are to blithely pronounce those efforts wasted.

[circuschaser]

which of us would speak against the graces made available to the parents of those children by their Creator, and on what ground could we stand in order to discount the perfections attained in their struggle?

[hughtub]

The whole point in having children is to pass on one's genes. It is best to have children be at least equal to the parents, and hopefully have only the most resilient traits of each. Strange that God would create a natural order that favors the healthiest, but would consider it sinful for humans to ensure that our healthiest genes thrive.

[hughtub]

Since humans invented all these religions, humans are in fact the basis of morality. Our perception of "good" and "evil" are merely what those in power define it to be. It's a sin against nature. Nature allows for the healthiest and smartest to reproduce most, and anything that detracts from that is unnatural.

[theonomus]

Dear Hightub, I would hugely enjoy interviewing you next.

[hughtub]

While I do seem to be anti-religion, I'm not. I think religion provides a beneficial moral basis for society, but the more we find out about science, the more religions recede. All of the miracles of religions occur at their origin, oddly.

[ciphermax]

Are you the person that interveiwed this man?

[theonomus]

I am. Hughtub established God as creator. He established religion as man made and unnecessary, being gradually replaced by science. The moral code is based on nature and sin enters in when we go against nature. Hughtub believes that morally all humans inferior to their parents should be exterminated, to do otherwise is to sin. Sin assumes consequence. I wonder what consequence parents of "deformed" children should suffer for the sin of letting their child live.

[justbuildthefence]

Obviously the guy doesn't have a clue - and thats true for most people. So why would anybody take a guess about when it's OK to kill an unborn child. Seems to me a prudent person would want err on the side of caution. " Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.."