Video Tea act secondary source on
Enter your query, example: how not cry when slicing onion?

Tea act secondary source Videos

The Stamp Act

Alexandra Jones #TheLastOne

Alexandra Jones, who features in our #TheLastOne TV Ad describes what it is like to live with secondary breast cancer in a very powerful interview. Act now, and ...

User Comments
What a beautiful woman. Love & best wishes to you Alex!

Compassion Led to the Death Camps

In this video I address the following argument: Premise 1: If we outlaw abortion children will be born into environments which will cause them to suffer. Premise ...

User Comments
don't want their child to get ridiculed for being Jewish, or to get harassed and beat up for this reason by the other non-Jewish anti-Semitic children. Let's have six separate scenarios for the fetus and infant: 1. The fetus is 5 or 6 weeks old (or whenever the earliest possible time to get a successful abortion is) 2. The fetus is 11 or 12 weeks old 3. The fetus is 17 or 18 weeks old 4. The fetus is 23 or 24 weeks old 5. The fetus is 29 or 30 weeks old 6. The fetus is 35 or 36 weeks old (cont)
I want to add to WarThemed's point that what constitutes a life unworthy of living is different in many people's perspectives. I heard about a 113-year-old woman in Reunion (I think) who committed suicide because she didn't like staying in hospitals, despite the fact that she could still see and hear. I would not have committed suicide if I was in her position, even at her age. On the other side, if I was deaf and blind and I knew for a fact that a cure won't be found within my lifetime, (cont)
Let's hypothetically say that Israel doesn't exist, and that the parents are Jewish and live in a very anti-Semitic place, in, say, Russia. The parents are too poor to move anywhere else (and also let's assume hypothetically that all of Russia is much more anti-Semitic than in real life), and occasionally they get anti-Semitic slurs thrown at them. They also occasionally get things like shoes thrown at them, and a couple of times they were denied good jobs due to them being Jewish. They (cont)
"the arguments for abortion 'from mercy,' apply equally well to voluntary & compulsory abortions" No they don't. Voluntary abortions are at the request of the woman; compulsory abortions are against the request of the woman. If you don't see that as a morally relevant difference, I don't know how to convince you otherwise. If the child were born it would be the mother's call whether or not to euthanize it, unless she were not competent to make that call. Why should that chance prior to birth?
Sisyphus, if you have a moment, I'd like to hear your responses to me. I'm also wondering if you'd support the state painlessly euthanizing infants with a severe medical condition that causes suffering against the will/wishes of both of the infant's parents. The problem with someone else determining your quality of life is that different people have different views on quality of life. I'd probably want to continue, if, say, I was 110 years old and bedridden (but could still see and hear) (cont
WarThemed, I have a question--would you support allowing parents to not vaccinate their kids? If so, wouldn't that be against their kids' well-being, since getting vaccinated drastically increases one's odds of surviving a particular illness without harm or death. The reason that I'm bringing this question up is because infants and little children wouldn't be able to make vaccination decisions for themselves in time, and thus should we allow the parents to make decisions that would (cont)
I'm not sure that I'd want to continue living, but someone else (such as Helen Keller) would. Would you also support painlessly killing infants with severe diseases, or healthy infants in the event of an adoption shortage? As for the woman deciding not to get abortions for offspring with severe diseases, their rationale might be: 1. A cure or better treatment might be found soon 2. It's better to let their offspring decide for themselves 3. Some other people with worse diseases (cont)
The use of the term at issue is irrelevant. I can rephrase it, if you like. Instead of 'who defines a life worth living,' I can say "who decides how bad life must be until it's merciful to terminate another?" As to your proposal for non-voluntary euthanasia, the dangers you mentioned while arguing against a policy of compulsory abortions apply equally well in this incident. Of course, the arguments for abortion 'from mercy,' apply equally well to voluntary & compulsory abortions...-
WarThemed, I also want to add A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift to your argument. While it is a satire, it could still be a good argument to make your point (say, if you interpreted it literally). Also, I want to expand upon your point and point out that this convo shouldn't only be about preventing suffering, but also about preventing other negative consequences such as larger crime rates and larger costs to the government (say, by taking care of unwanted offspring). (continued)
Good question. I certainly wouldn't want a law that empowered the state or a hospital to make such a call, there's simply too many chances it would be misused. So as a matter of policy, no. But if we were talking an individual case, I'd want to talk to the mother, know more about her, find out why she wanted to keep the baby. If she were demonstrably detached from the reality of the situation, or worse, actively wanting to bring the child to harm, then I just might compel abortion.
Basically I gave you more details about the parents aborting a fetus or killing an infant due to the infant's/fetus's race/ethnicity. Also, I asked about which ages and stages of development it would be permissible to kill/abortion a fetus or kill an infant due to this reason (the infant's/fetus's race/ethnicity). Which conditions would be incompatible with any vision of the good life? I don't think that severe Tay-Sachs syndrome would cut it, since while I don't know (continued)
[continued] You yourself argued that we have a right to mercy. Well, if that’s the case then denying that mercy would violate the child’s right. So, if a woman chose not to abort her baby with tay sachs she would be in victimizing her baby, denying him his right to mercy. Consider it in terms of the violinist thought experiment. Only this time, the violinist is in extreme pain and may not even want to live anymore. Yet, you refuse to detach yourself forcing him to suffer...
@SisyphusRedeemed @SisyphusRedeemed As was the Nazi argument. Now, if you want to challenge this postulate go for it. But in the end the Nazi argument was a direct spin off of the eugenics argument, and the idea of eugenics was to mitigate suffering in the long run. Like a mother spanking her child for trying to run into the street. Yes, spankings are horrible and I think it's needless child abuse. But I still see how it can be justified from a point of compassion.-
Sorry this is so late, but I forgot to respond and am just remembering. You argued that it is okay for a surrogate decision maker or panel guided by articulate best interest standards to euthanize somebody, without consent, when it is merciful for them to do so. If a surrogate can make that determination for somebody why not with abortion or sterilization? Your argument for abortion from mercy does apply equally well whether the woman wishes for an abortion or not.-
@SisyphusRedeemed Even then, compassion does not justify the violation of rights. Luckily, we do not need compassion to enforce rights. Many times we have no compassion for somebody, but when their rights are violated we stand up for them. For example, when Obama tried to shut down Fox but CNN stood up for them. It wasn't about compassion or respect or good will of any kind. If compassion compels us to enforce rights...that's cool. But if not, that's fine too.
"I'd like to hear your responses to me." Can you repeat the questions? In re: compulsory euthanasia of infants against the wishes of the parents, perhaps, but only in certain extreme cases. "different people have different views on quality of life" Which is why we should be pluralists about what constitutes the good life, and show deference to the subject's conception of the good life. But some conditions are incompatible with ANY vision of the good life.
"who will decide what constitutes a life unworthy of living?" No one, because 'worth' isn't what this debate is about. That is an incredibly loaded term that your side of the issue likes to use because it stacks the deck in their favor. But who decides in cases of non-voluntary euthanasia|? The nearest, most qualified surrogate decision maker, and failing that a pannel guided by articulated best-interests standards. Not perfect, but hardly baffling.
True, but suffering for a year or two (while learning everything) would probably be better than suffering for 18 or so years. I read that Tay Sachs has no effective treatment right now. I don't know if (certain) genetic conditions will be able to be cured in the future, and I don't have enough knowledge to have solid views on this. However, more effective treatment for certain genetic conditions could certainly be a possibility in the future.
I think that there is a right to mercy, but like all rights it is one we must choose to exercise for ourselves. It’s not a decision that one individual, government institution, or organization can make for another. Also, you did not address my question. If we are to allow mercy killings, who will decide what constitutes a life unworthy of living? Do other individuals have this right? Does the government? What about private corporations?
Well it's hard for me to answer without seeing those details. But suffice to say, anyone who thinks that Tay Sachs isn't a fate worse than death either has no idea how bad Tay Sachs is, or has an excessively negative vision of death. I suppose if a Dantesque hell awaits the child afterward, that would suffice. But anyone who thinks children go to heaven, for example, could not possibly argue that it is better for those children to live.
@WarThemedRevolution "I have no real reason to believe that those behind the scenes and sheltered from the harsh reality of the holocaust believed that they were being compassionate by killing the Jews." Try actually looking at the history. Start with Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem." "Otherwise, there would not have been so many prominent Nazi figures who were also Jewish.- " Wait WHAT? Where on earth are you getting this from?
@SisyphusRedeemed @SisyphusRedeemed No, it counts against the use of compassion to justify the violation of rights. Like, "well, we can kill this guy without due process of law since he is most likely a terrorist, and by doing this we'll save people from dying." The argument uses compassion for the victims to justify violating the right to due process. And yes, I think that this is -always- wrong. In abortion and elsewhere.
@SisyphusRedeemed I do not know enough about the disorder to make that kind of determination. I watched a documentary on it once and thought it was terrible. Then again, I watched a documentary about a horrible stunted girl living in constant pain and thought it a fate worse than death...and yet, she wanted to live. So it's hard to say. How about yes for early term abortions (like with an RU-486,) and no for late term?
Someone in a coma until the age of 18 (or whatever) would not magically be able to decide for themselves when they woke up. They actually need to be educated, have experiences, etc. to make their decisions. If they were woken after 18 years in a coma, they would still be like a new born. And Tay Sachs is a genetic condition; its symptoms can be treated, but the condition can no more be cured than Down's Syndrome.
Dwoogf illustrates my point quite well. These ‘arguments from compassion,’ in defense of abortion only stand if we presume that our obligation to uphold individual rights is superseded by our obligation to be merciful. As you point out, however, empowering an institution to make that decision opens the flood gates of abuse and misuse. Who draws the line? Who defines what constitutes a life unworthy of living?
@SisyphusRedeemed Come on, Sisyphus Redeemed. I have always been respectful of you and have never attempted to manipulate your words. Please show me the same respect. Obviously what happened was very cruel. But, I believe that smashing a fully developed child's skull open and then sucking its brains out if that's not enough is cruel. Yet this argument in favor of partial birth abortion is from compassion.-
@SisyphusRedeemed No, it counts against the use of compassion to justify the violation of rights. Like, "well, we can kill this guy without due process of law since he is most likely a terrorist, and by doing this we'll save people from dying." The argument uses compassion for the victims to justify violating the right to due process. And yes, I think that this is -always- wrong. In abortion and elsewhere.
inued) but someone else might not want to continue living. Similarly, some people would consider a life full of poverty and/or things like Down's syndrome not to be worth living, whereas others would disagree. Therefore, I'm hesitant to allow someone to make life-and-death decisions for someone else when the other individual would eventually be able to make life-and-death decisions for himself or herself.
@SisyphusRedeemed But on the same note, I do not think that anyone who actually sits and watches a partial birth abortion can call that compassion. In truth, on the ground level, I don't know how anyone can kill a person and say it behooves them to die. Sounds like Andrea Yates to me...but whatever the case, people believe partial birth abortion is an act of mercy so why not the murder of Jewish children?
@SisyphusRedeemed I do not know that I can agree with you. Obviously the people on ground level were not motivated by compassion…but, I have no real reason to believe that those behind the scenes and sheltered from the harsh reality of the holocaust believed that they were being compassionate by killing the Jews. Otherwise, there would not have been so many prominent Nazi figures who were also Jewish.-

Port Moody Secondary vs. Heritage Woods Secondary [highlights]

A few highlights of Michael Hale, Shak Noel, & Adrian Sico from Port Moody Secondary as they verse Heritage Woods in a pre-season scrimmage.

TOP 10 Favorite Stoner Movies

Subscribe for more TOP 10 VIDEOS We also recomend Top 10 Worst CGI Movie Effects , Top 10 Craziest Events Caught on live TV , top 10 Marvel Villains , TOP ...
Sign up for free to join this conversation on
Already have an account? Sign in to comment