Jesus take the wheel: Sextuplets keep dying

[Patroklos]

Because the same conditions do not hold?

That's because we are both using different goal posts. That's fine for you and me, I enjoy discussing the hypotheticals with you.

But I doubt those parents give a **** about your goal posts, probably even less of a **** than you give about theirs.

Depends on your definition of alive. Under-developed organisms being kept alive by machines on the fast-track to death is "alive" in some books -- not in mine.

Note the goal posts. And your opinion on the matter is no more valid than anyone elses, using any qualifier be it religion or science.

This is not practical in any way, nor is it an extension of the same logic except in that you seem to think I enjoy murdering people...

Sure it is, escpecially for someone who can make the hard decisions like yourself And I don't think you enjoy murdering people, I think you like saving people. So go out and save all those Africans doomed to be infected by HIV and suffer the guaranteed death that would ensue.

It doesn't matter. Do you understand the concept of a rational decision? It doesn't matter who makes the decision, because only one really makes sense.

So how many rational decisions do you let other people make for you? I hope you don't smoke or drink alcohol, there are some rational decisions about that people don't make on purpose.

What? I'd put the children in the boat. It's the rational decision.

That doesn't hold true, the children are the least likely to survive. Not as smart, strong, or developed. Not a rational decision. Maybe you have a "spiritual" of other moral bias to make such an irrational decision

What do you not understand? Seriously. Four of them are going to die anyway. The question is, why do you want the other two to die as well? That's a bit odd to me. You're the only one here that's in favor of having zero survivors -- or you don't understand the science behind this here...

They were going to die anyway? Aren't three still alive? Sure they may die anyway, but would they have had any chance at all if we cut them into pieces in the womb and sucked them out with a tube? I think their chances are much better this way, at least for four of them.

Because they were all born WAY TOO prematurely due to complications arising from having all six fetuses. Perhaps this is the part that you still do not understand.

Got it. But again, why is your utilitarian tendency only applicable in this case?

They are never equal. Don't waste my time.

Yes, I agree. It would be a waste of your time to justify your stance given such a variable. But your position should still hold true, right? Or could you not make the hard decision?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Is their any one you would consider a sane person if they believed in God?

No, but some are more insane than others. You have to be insane to believe in God.

I have a couple points, first, the fertility drugs created this situation in the first place. If they were not used, this problem wouldn't have come about.

Irrelevant. It's a risk they knew about.

Secondly, I can't fault the mom for doing the best she could. Selective reduction is a wonderful euphemism. If I had six like this I would try my best to save all of them.

That is not in your, or her, power. You are killing them all by refusing to abort some of them.

Third, I feel sad for the family that have lost three children already. Why is this something to be happy about and to gloat that she has lost 3 of her kids?

No one is glad. **** off with your strawmen.

[Ben Kenobi]

Both families declined, chosing to leave the outcome "in God's hands." The Morrisons are committed Christians who met at Bethany College of Missions and married in 2005.

http://www.bcom.org/about-us/beliefs/

They aren't Catholics, Asher as much as you would like them to be. They are evangelical protestants. I'm surprised if you would bother to quote where they attended that you didn't bother to look up what was the affiliation of their church.

Oh, and why is their religion relevant to you when you think everyone who believes in God is insane? This thread isn't about this poor family, it's about you getting to have a hate-on for Christians.

I'm done here Asher, I got what I was looking for. I'm just sorry this family's tragedy is being used by you in this fashion. Regardless as to what you or other people believe, this family lost three of their children, and you are blaming them for the tragedy. I think we can do better then this.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
That's because we are both using different goal posts. That's fine for you and me, I enjoy discussing the hypotheticals with you.

I enjoy the real world. You should come on down.

Note the goal posts. And your opinion on the matter is no more valid than anyone elses, using any qualifier be it religion or science.

My goal is the best outcome: that is, the most survival possible with the best possible health. Sometimes in nature, everyone cannot win. Deal with it.

Sure it is, escpecially for someone who can make the hard decisions like yourself And I don't think you enjoy murdering people, I think you like saving people. So go out and save all those Africans doomed to be infected by HIV and suffer the guaranteed death that would ensue.

I do what I can. I donate insane amounts of horsepower to HIV treatment research (PS3, 8800 Ultra, core 2 quad extreme).

Again, it's a hard decision, but it's a simple one unless you believe in some stupid fantasy like divine intervention. Save 2, or kill them all.

So how many rational decisions do you let other people make for you? I hope you don't smoke or drink alcohol, there are some rational decisions about that people don't make on purpose.

I'm very shocked you don't know my opinion about smokers...

I let people make rational decisions all the time. It's part of life, especially in business.

That doesn't hold true, the children are the least likely to survive. Not as smart, strong, or developed. Not a rational decision. Maybe you have a "spiritual" of other moral bias to make such an irrational decision

"Smart, strong, or developed"? You're sitting on a boat.

They were going to die anyway? Aren't three still alive? Sure they may die anyway

A minor quibble in your eyes, apparently...

but would they have had any chance at all if we cut them into pieces in the womb and sucked them out with a tube? I think their chances are much better this way, at least for four of them.

Are they? Do the math.

~99% survival for a full-term birth (x2)
~1% survival for a 20-22week birth. (x6)

Got it. But again, why is your utilitarian tendency only applicable in this case?

Because murdering people in Africa will not save any lives.

Yes, I agree. It would be a waste of your time to justify your stance given such a variable.

Given that it does not apply to the real world, it is a waste of time.

[Patroklos]

No one is glad. **** off with your strawmen.

And what do you care about the other two anyway? Your a pro-choice guy, how is these two premies dieing now any different from the thousands of 5 month old fetuses that will be aborted from the womb this year ?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
They aren't Catholics, Asher as much as you would like them to be. They are evangelical protestants. I'm surprised if you would bother to quote where they attended that you didn't bother to look up what was the affiliation of their church.

Doesn't matter. They're God-fearing God-believing murderous idiots.

Oh, and why is their religion relevant to you when you think everyone who believes in God is insane?

The particular details do not bother me.

I'm done here Asher

No kidding. You've no chance in a debate where you're forced to think outside your fantasy land where God is Good.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
And what do you care about the other two anyway? Your a pro-choice guy, how is these two premies dieing now any different from the thousands of 5 month old fetuses that will be aborted from the womb this year ?

Because they were wanted. They'd presumably have a home and a family.

[Asher]

If I hadn't started my two threads for today, I'd post a thread: Are adultswho believe in God, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny insane by definition?

[Patroklos]

I enjoy the real world. You should come on down.

dodge. juke. dodge.

Again, your being purposely obtuse. You can argue with a religious person all day about why their belief in a soul doesn't make a fetus a person. Obviously your used to that, maybe that is why you are a complete fish out of water now that you have encountered something different.

There is no medical of scientific reason for determining when a fetus is a human. So we are simply operating from two different assumptions. But valid. Neither with any more claim to the real world other than what you or I believe.

My goal is the best outcome: that is, the most survival possible with the best possible health.

Again, I am glad you are willing to sacrifice others without even a consultation. I take it back, you would have been more at home on the Soviet side of Stalingrad than the Somme.

Sometimes in nature, everyone cannot win. Deal with it.

Agreed, so when are we flying to Africa to keep those aid organizations from interfering with nature? Another reason why these people made the right decision, using your logic.

I'm very shocked you don't know my opinion about smokers...

So you do irrationally use alcohol knowing it has health consequences? And you would be happy if someone made the rational choice to force you to stop that?

I do what I can. I donate insane amounts of horsepower to HIV treatment research (PS3, 8800 Ultra, core 2 quad extreme).

I bet that will help out in about 20 years when a cure is found, and 100 years after that when Africa can get its hands on it.

But why wait Asher? Lets go now. You and me. Sure we will kill 100 million people today, but we will save 500 million from being infected and dieing over the next 120 years while we wait for a cure. And developing/buying that much cure would be to economically hindering anyway, killing them now and not worrying about the cure is much more utilitarian. They are going to die anyway.

Again, it's a hard decision, but it's a simple one unless you believe in some stupid fantasy like divine intervention. Save 2, or kill them all.

It is simple, but until you can sort out your own inconsistency in application I can't trust you to make that simple decision, let alone a hard one.

If its numbers it's numbers. If it is not it's not. Don't be shy in applying your superior solution to all the worlds problems!

"Smart, strong, or developed"? You're sitting on a boat.

Who is smart enough to catch fish? Figure out a way to signal a plane? Who has the strength to survive in exposure for a month? You didn't specify the age of the children, do you think a three year old's level of development is equal to the task in the same way a 25 year old's is?

Your counter scenario sucked, and it is shredding your argument.

A minor quibble in your eyes, apparently...

It is a tragedy if any of them die, but since your willing to just hack up four of them with no remorse in the first place, who are you to lecture about such a thing?

Are they? Do the math.

~99% survival for a full-term birth (x2)
~1% survival for a 20-22week birth. (x6)

Ummm..., you forgot something there that proves your disingenuous argement nicely.

Pleas tac on "0% chance of survival (not really the term to use if you actually kill them is it? ) (x4)" to that first metric.

Again, it is so nice that those other four decided to sacrifice their lives for their fellow sextuplets. Real courage, and such a good application of those numbers you like so much Asher. Oh wait...

Because murdering people in Africa will not save any lives.

Eliminating HIV in Africa won't save lives?

Given that it does not apply to the real world, it is a waste of time.

Your choice, or rather inability, to answer that question makes your argument in this thread laughable, and I know you have already realized this.

[Patroklos]

Because they were wanted. They'd presumably have a home and a family.

How medically sound and scientific!

So when we are done with Africa we can take our chain guns and machetes to the orphanages?

[Wycoff]

Pat-

Imagine a situation in which identical baby twins are trapped in a burning building. They're positioned in such a way that, by saving one of them, debris will fall on the other and kill that child. However, if you do nothing, there's a very small chance that they'll both be able to wriggle out of the burning building and into safety. There's a 1% chance of both of them wriggling their way to safety if you don't act, but a 99% chance that they both die in the fire.

Do you save one child, knowing that you'll doom the other, or do you refrain from acting, knowing that both will almost certainly die but hoping against hope that both beat the 1% odds and survive?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Again, I am glad you are willing to sacrifice others without even a consultation.

A brilliant idea. Let's consult the fetuses after they learn to talk.

Agreed, so when are we flying to Africa to keep those aid organizations from interfering with nature?

The qualifier "sometimes" does not mean "we can never win against nature". Your strawmen are as bad as Ben's.

So you do irrationally use alcohol knowing it has health consequences? And you would be happy if someone made the rational choice to force you to stop that?

I have a beer maybe once or twice a month. I'll have some gin and whiskey maybe once a month. Ditto for Wine.

There is absolutely nothing medically wrong with that, nor are there health consequences. In fact, many studies show some health benefits from the odd glass of wine, etc.

I bet that will help out in about 20 years when a cure is found, and 100 years after that when Africa can get its hands on it.

If a cure is found, why would you need treatment? You're so clueless here, really...

But why wait Asher? Lets go now. You and me. Sure we will kill 100 million people today, but we will save 500 million from being infected and dieing over the next 120 years while we wait for a cure. And developing/buying that much cure would be to economically hindering anyway, killing them now and not worrying about the cure is much more utilitarian. They are going to die anyway.

How many times must I tell you this parallel does not work before it sinks in?

It is simple, but until you can sort out your own inconsistency in application I can't trust you to make that simple decision, let alone a hard one.

There is no inconsistency here. By killing millions of Africans, you are not going to save 3*millions of people from dying. It's that simple.

Who is smart enough to catch fish? Figure out a way to signal a plane?

No one. You're alone on a boat.

Why has the strength to survive in exposure for a month?

No one.

You didn't specify the age of the children, do you think a three year old's level of development is equal to the task in the same way a 25 year old's is?

Really doesn't matter, when you're sitting on a boat waiting to be rescued.

Your counter scenario sucked, and it is shredding your argument.

You're a work of art. You're one of those middle-aged men on the Titanic that took the spot of children on the life boats, aren't you? Shame on you.

It is a tragedy if any of them die, but since your willing to just hack up four of them with no remorse in the first place, who are you to lecture about such a thing?

6 die or 4 die. Simple as that.

Ummm..., you forgot something there that proves your disingenuous argement nicely.

Pleas tac on "0% chance of survival (not really the term to use if you actually kill them is it? ) (x4)" to that first metric.

I thought I wouldn't have to explain this.

Are you familiar with the concept of probability?

How about probability and desirable outcomes?

Check your odds: 6 chances of 1% versus 2 chances of 99%. Which one is more favourable?

Again, it is so nice that those other four decided to sacrifice their lives for their fellow sextuplets. Real courage, and such a good application of those numbers you like so much Asher. Oh wait...

They don't decide anything. They cannot think.

Eliminating HIV in Africa won't save lives?

Eliminating HIV will, but you cannot identify everyone with HIV. You also don't need to kill, you could simply quarantine if you were going for this factor (like what your fellow-Christian EyesofNight recommended).

Again, this is ridiculous as it could never happen. It's impractical.

Your choice, or rather inability, to answer that question makes your argument in this thread laughable, and I know you have already realized this.

Why? If you could ass**** a monkey seven times to sunday, would you still eat cherry pie?

It's just as relevent a question and accurate a parallel as your whole Africa-HIV ****.

Summary: Patroklos does not understand that by NOT aborting some of the fetuses, all of them will never become fully developed human beings. He does not understand the medicine behind extreme premature birth. He does not understand probability and statistics. He does not understand why committing genocide against hundreds of millions of people in Africa is different from aborting a dying fetus to save the others. He does not understand anything that is being discussed in this thread, which is precisely why the only person who agrees with him is Poly's resident Christian nutcase who doesn't understand anything himself.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Patroklos
How medically sound and scientific!

So when we are done with Africa we can take our chain guns and machetes to the orphanages?

You are unreal. How often are you going to flog this dead horse?

I might as well accuse you of being a pedophile for liking children. It's just as sound a conclusion.

[Patroklos]

A brilliant idea. Let's consult the fetuses after they learn to talk.

We may actually be able to. But in your case we will never know. You can just rest assured in your righteousness that you are the benevolent decider of who lives and dies.

We can ask the Africans or whoever else you would apply your logic to though. Because remember Asher, to me they (fetuses and Africans) are all people. So killing the many to save a few (is that how your logic is supposed to work?) applies in one case, and killing some to save others applies in both.

And do we know what the chances are for those left after aborting 1, 2, or 3 fetuses? Doesn't seem like your trying to save as many as possible, you didn't even ask that question.

The qualifier "sometimes" does not mean "we can never win against nature". Your strawmen are as bad as Ben's.

It is not ridiculous in light your refusal to apply your standards universally (your stance becomes even more heinous since it is based on feigned caring for a baby you wouldn't have batted an eye for if it was aborted in a month). There was a better way to attack that though, I'll let you try again.

I have a beer maybe once or twice a month. I'll have some gin and whiskey maybe once a month. Ditto for Wine.

There is absolutely nothing medically wrong with that, nor are there health consequences. In fact, many studies show some health benefits from the odd glass of wine, etc.

Common, if you were just going to surrender...

Never been smashed? You do irrational things and would be mighty pissed if someone forced you to stop them.

If a cure is found, why would you need treatment? You're so clueless here, really...

Usually you have to be treated with a cure to be cured. This isn't MAD, we don't just annouce on loud speakers that we have the cure, and HIV will stop infecting/killing out of fear.

No one. You're alone on a boat...No one...Really doesn't matter, when you're sitting on a boat waiting to be rescued.

Oh, you are becoming so pathetically sad. Alright Asher, toss the 3 year olds in the boat unattended for a few days and tell me what happens

You're a work of art. You're one of those middle-aged men on the Titanic that took the spot of children on the life boats, aren't you? Shame on you.

Yep, I totally didn't talk about the grown men in your scenario deciding to sacrifice themselves for the children of their own free will. That wasn't brought up in all of our posts since. Short term memory

I thought I wouldn't have to explain this.

Are you familiar with the concept of probability?

How about probability and desirable outcomes?

Check your odds: 6 chances of 1% versus 2 chances of 99%. Which one is more favourable?

So is it all numbers or what Asher?

And it is not "2 chances of 99%." Again, it is "2 chances of 99% AND 4 chances of 0%." You leave that out, I think it makes you feel better to not remind yourself you have to kill people to get your desired numbers.

I bet you, being the selfless courageous humanitarian you are would glady and unselfishly volunteer to be one of the 0%s if you found yourself in the situation ( ). I am sure those four would feel the same way, but who cares right, they are just people.

They don't decide anything. They cannot think.

That is the point, they did not decide. You did. Which again why your ship scenario is retarded. We don't sacrifice a few for the many these days Asher, not without the consent anyway.

Eliminating HIV will, but you cannot identify everyone with HIV. You also don't need to kill, you could simply quarantine if you were going for this factor (like what your fellow-Christian EyesofNight recommended).

So what happens if we crunch the numbers after eliminating 10% of the HIV population? 20%, 30%. Don't fret Asher, obviously 100% is a long shot, but it doesn't take much to turn the numbers in our favor. Stay strong little root, your utilitarian dream will prevail!

And quarantine is no gurauntee. You are a numbers and probabilities person remember. Makes much more sense to just kill them, no matter how you look at it. We don't quarantine chickens or cows when they spread pandemics. Same thing (in Asher number world that is).

Christian eh? Your mindreading is getting some practice! EON was only applying your numbers based logic to the problem, so in that case you actually sound like EON. Ewww.

Why? If you could ass**** a monkey seven times to sunday, would you still eat cherry pie?

It's just as relevant a question and accurate a parallel as your whole Africa-HIV ****.

I have never seen you so scared of a question! I mean WOW. And then to assert it's not relevant? Wycoff just asked me the exact same type of question.

I will actually answer it though.

Patroklos does not understand that by NOT aborting some of the fetuses, all of them will never become fully developed human beings.

Odd, didn't...you...just...say they were doomed to die

He does not understand the medicine behind extreme premature birth.

Medicine, science, professionals? Odd how you profess your reliance on them and then come up with a gem like this...

Because they were wanted. They'd presumably have a home and a family.

Medicine triumphs once again

He does not understand probability and statistics.

Nah, I just realize your point of view on statistics changes depending on what side of them you stand. There of four of six point of views that you seem to not care about.

But at least I am consistent. Not so much you...

He does not understand why committing genocide against hundreds of millions of people in Africa is different from aborting a dying fetus to save the others.

Just a question of magnitude. Oddly enough, you would be willing to kill 400 million Africans to save 200 million if it became necessary apparently. Luckily you don't have to make that decision (though you so vehemently say you have the balls to do in ). You only have to do a more conventional sacrifice the few for the many in good old Africa.

He does not understand anything that is being discussed in this thread, which is precisely why the only person who agrees with him is Poly's resident Christian nutcase who doesn't understand anything himself.

Of course they don't agree with me Asher, they are pro-choice. They don't think they are people. Where have you been? But they didn't try to advance some stupid numbers argument attached to a counter productive ship scenario. They also didn't blow their pants at the opportunity to make fun of some Christians whose children are ****ed, nor go on and on about how much balls they had to make such a decision without a seconds thought.

Asher

[Patroklos]

You are unreal.

Your the one who thinks you become a human being through the good feelings of people wanting you and wanting to give you a home.

Ever hear of transubstantiation?

And you claim Christians are weird? That's like, Scientology type stuff Asher.

It can't be said enough:

ASHER