Thread: Unbelievable photo: Moment before Marie Moore shoots son at shooting range

Originally Posted by chobby192

What is the difference? Calling it by different name doesn't change the fact. They kill babies and that is fact.

I know, I agree with you. I was being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by chobby192

I guess that is what I meant by double standard of our law. Baby is baby no matter who kills him/her. What do you think?

that is a philosophical debate that is not worth arguing. many believe that a baby is a person at conception, others do not, as of today our laws do not see abortion as murder.

Personhood

Pro-life supporters argue that abortion is morally wrong on the basis that a fetus is an innocent human being.[14] Others reject this position by drawing a distinction between human being and human person, arguing that while the fetus is innocent and biologically human, it is not a person with a right to life.[15] In support of this distinction, some propose a list of criteria as markers of personhood. For example, Mary Ann Warren suggests consciousness (at least the capacity to feel pain), reasoning, self motivation, the ability to communicate, and self-awareness.[16] According to Warren, a being need not exhibit all of these criteria to qualify as a person with a right to life, but if a being exhibits none of them (or perhaps only one), then it is certainly not a person. Warren concludes that as the fetus satisfies only one criterion, consciousness (and this only after it becomes susceptible to pain),[17] the fetus is not a person and abortion is therefore morally permissible. Other philosophers apply similar criteria, concluding that a fetus lacks a right to life because it lacks self-consciousness,[18] rationality,[19] and autonomy.[20] These lists diverge over precisely which features confer a right to life,[21] but tend to propose various developed psychological features not found in fetuses.

Critics of this position typically argue that the proposed criteria for personhood would disqualify two classes of born human beings — reversibly comatose patients, and human infants — from having a right to life, since they, like fetuses, are not self-conscious, do not communicate, and so on.[22] Defenders of the proposed criteria may respond that the reversibly comatose do satisfy the relevant criteria because they "retain all their unconscious mental states".[23] Warren concedes that infants are not "persons" by her proposed criteria,[24] and on that basis she and others concede that infanticide could be morally acceptable under some circumstances (for example if the infant is severely disabled[25] or in order to save the lives of several other infants[26]). Critics may see such concessions as an indication that the right to life cannot be adequately defined by reference to developed psychological features.

An alternative approach is to base personhood or the right to life on a being's natural or inherent capacities. On this approach, a being essentially has a right to life if it has a genetic propensity or natural capacity to develop the relevant psychological features; and, since human beings do have this natural capacity, they essentially have a right to life beginning at conception (or whenever they come into existence).[27] Critics of this position argue that mere genetic potential is not a plausible basis for respect (or for the right to life), and that basing a right to life on natural capacities would lead to the counterintuitive position that anencephalic infants, irreversibly comatose patients, and brain-dead patients kept alive on a medical ventilator, are all persons with a right to life.[28]

Abortion debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you're like a walking encyclopedia of articles prince

Originally Posted by IronAddict

That is definately the most depressing thing I've heard today. Crazy woman, you couldn't just take your own life, you had to involve your own son. Damn that's just ineffable!

She was schizophrenic. In her world, what she did was incredibly heroic. She really believed that the only way to save her son's soul was to kill him, sending herself to hell soon afterwards.

You have to appreciate the gravity of the situation. In her mind, she gave up her soul to spend eternity in anguish and hell to save the soul of her son. I can't think of a greater sacrifice.

Schizophrenic can be a very sad situation. I really feel bad for her and her son.

Originally Posted by Prince

Personhood

In support of this distinction, some propose a list of criteria as markers of personhood. For example, Mary Ann Warren suggests 1. consciousness (at least the capacity to feel pain), 2. reasoning, 3. self motivation, 4. the ability to communicate, and 5. self-awareness.[16] According to Warren, a being need not exhibit all of these criteria to qualify as a person with a right to life, but if a being exhibits none of them (or perhaps only one), then it is certainly not a person.

So according to Mary ann, besides unborn babies, followings are also not human beings since they can't meet her expectation to be a human beings.
1. Just born babies
2. patients in coma
3. people in very late stage of dementia.

Originally Posted by KelJu

She was schizophrenic. In her world, what she did was incredibly heroic. She really believed that the only way to save her son's soul was to kill him, sending herself to hell soon afterwards.

You have to appreciate the gravity of the situation. In her mind, she gave up her soul to spend eternity in anguish and hell to save the soul of her son. I can't think of a greater sacrifice.

Schizophrenic can be a very sad situation. I really feel bad for her and her son.

Most likely....her reality was fractured. Where the system failed is that they can't keep the mentally ill, force followups, or ensure medication is being taken when they show progress. When they're on meds they feel great and are in control....it's because of that good feeling and sense of normalcy that they tend to go off and thats' when the trouble starts

Originally Posted by Prince

no it's not, because abortion is still LEGAL in the US.

You obviously don't understand the concept of "double standard." The fact that something is legal is peripheral to the point, at best.

Originally Posted by Prince

Personhood

Pro-life supporters argue that abortion is morally wrong on the basis that a fetus is an innocent human being.[14] Others reject this position by drawing a distinction between human being and human person, arguing that while the fetus is innocent and biologically human, it is not a person with a right to life.[15] In support of this distinction, some propose a list of criteria as markers of personhood. For example, Mary Ann Warren suggests consciousness (at least the capacity to feel pain), reasoning, self motivation, the ability to communicate, and self-awareness.[16] According to Warren, a being need not exhibit all of these criteria to qualify as a person with a right to life, but if a being exhibits none of them (or perhaps only one), then it is certainly not a person. Warren concludes that as the fetus satisfies only one criterion, consciousness (and this only after it becomes susceptible to pain),[17] the fetus is not a person and abortion is therefore morally permissible. Other philosophers apply similar criteria, concluding that a fetus lacks a right to life because it lacks self-consciousness,[18] rationality,[19] and autonomy.[20] These lists diverge over precisely which features confer a right to life,[21] but tend to propose various developed psychological features not found in fetuses.

Critics of this position typically argue that the proposed criteria for personhood would disqualify two classes of born human beings — reversibly comatose patients, and human infants — from having a right to life, since they, like fetuses, are not self-conscious, do not communicate, and so on.[22] Defenders of the proposed criteria may respond that the reversibly comatose do satisfy the relevant criteria because they "retain all their unconscious mental states".[23] Warren concedes that infants are not "persons" by her proposed criteria,[24] and on that basis she and others concede that infanticide could be morally acceptable under some circumstances (for example if the infant is severely disabled[25] or in order to save the lives of several other infants[26]). Critics may see such concessions as an indication that the right to life cannot be adequately defined by reference to developed psychological features.

An alternative approach is to base personhood or the right to life on a being's natural or inherent capacities. On this approach, a being essentially has a right to life if it has a genetic propensity or natural capacity to develop the relevant psychological features; and, since human beings do have this natural capacity, they essentially have a right to life beginning at conception (or whenever they come into existence).[27] Critics of this position argue that mere genetic potential is not a plausible basis for respect (or for the right to life), and that basing a right to life on natural capacities would lead to the counterintuitive position that anencephalic infants, irreversibly comatose patients, and brain-dead patients kept alive on a medical ventilator, are all persons with a right to life.[28]

Abortion debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is the most disgusting thing I have heard in a long time.

Originally Posted by clemson357

That is the most disgusting thing I have heard in a long time.

Im not saying I agree with what she said, but unless you have raised a severly disabled child and seen the anguish it can cause, I dont feel you should make such a strong comment.

Originally Posted by KelJu

She was schizophrenic. In her world, what she did was incredibly heroic. She really believed that the only way to save her son's soul was to kill him, sending herself to hell soon afterwards.

You have to appreciate the gravity of the situation. In her mind, she gave up her soul to spend eternity in anguish and hell to save the soul of her son. I can't think of a greater sacrifice.

Schizophrenic can be a very sad situation. I really feel bad for her and her son.

Me too!

Originally Posted by Moondogg

Im not saying I agree with what she said, but unless you have raised a severly disabled child and seen the anguish it can cause, I dont feel you should make such a strong comment.

OK, I retract it. Killing a living, breathing, fully born infant in cold blood because of a disability is not that disgusting.

Originally Posted by clemson357

You obviously don't understand the concept of "double standard." The fact that something is legal is peripheral to the point, at best.

it's not a double standard.

Originally Posted by clemson357

OK, I retract it. Killing a living, breathing, fully born infant in cold blood because of a disability is not that disgusting.

If thats the stance you choose to take on the matter, thats your choice. Im more of an evolution man, and dont like how in society we let the weak drag down the strong. But thats for another day.

Do you have any experience raising a severly disabled child?

And its not cold blood. Did you read the article?

Originally Posted by clemson357

OK, I retract it. Killing a living, breathing, fully born infant in cold blood because of a disability is not that disgusting.

What if it is an Iraqi disabled baby? Then its ok to drop bombs on it right?

Your moral high ground is fake.

Originally Posted by KelJu

What if it is an Iraqi disabled baby? Then its ok to drop bombs on it right?

Your moral high ground is fake.

Originally Posted by Moondogg

Im not saying I agree with what she said, but unless you have raised a severly disabled child and seen the anguish it can cause, I dont feel you should make such a strong comment.

If I was born disabled I would want someone to put a pillow over my head.

Originally Posted by KelJu

What if it is an Iraqi disabled baby? Then its ok to drop bombs on it right?

Your moral high ground is fake.

lmfao.

I hold some conservative viewpoints, therefore I must support not only the Iraq war, but the intentional killing of disabled Iraqi children.

I don't normally log an anymore I just lurk and learn as I go, but this is just good entertainment. I needed a good laugh and this thread came through for me. It started out as a kind of whoa wtf thread and turned into a morality debate on pro-choice vs pro-life perspective. Nice to see that no matter where I am in the world things are still the same here at IM.

Oh, and Brother-K has made the most profound point of all so far. Live in her mind. See her actions as she saw them. As fucked up as what she did was, and that image of her aiming her weapon at her son's head will stay in my mind for life, I doubt many people posting here in this thread would have the courage or the selflessness to make such an extreme sacrifice as this woman has made ... in her mind and according to her fucked up way of thinking.

Originally Posted by min0 lee

If I was born disabled I would want someone to put a pillow over my head.

+1

Originally Posted by clemson357

lmfao.

I hold some conservative viewpoints, therefore I must support not only the Iraq war, but the intentional killing of disabled Iraqi children.

Well it is a terribly flawed set of positions. You are pro-life, but only for American fetuses. You take this sanctimonious stance of judgment against people who feel like they are not yet fit to be parents or just too selfish to face their duties.

I mean let's be real. You didn't just come in here and voice an opinion. You came in here with the most arrogant and judgmental tone of total disdain for people that don't agree with you on this topic. You try to sport an air of how much better and moral you are because of your opinion that abortion is murder.

You fail to see that war is murder. Whether is is necessary is debatable. I for one feel that war is necessary sometimes, but wars should be fought only when necessary. Same with abortion. there are times when it is necessary to terminate a fetus before it grows up to be a neglected emotionally wrecked criminal. Foster kids are often times fucked up. There are a lot of kids growing up in their biological parents home who are fucked up, because their parents didn't want them and resent them.

Who here is going to argue with me about whether having strong emotionally supportive parents is critical to the health of a person? I don't see these self righteous white conservatives adopting black crack babies growing up in foster care. I don't see conservatives trying to give young poor single moms any help for raising their kids. No, no fuck no. Save the fetus, then fuck um after that. They don't want to help them with health care, pre-school, dare care, head-start, ect.

It's all about the fetus, but after that, you're own your own. It's a dumb fucking ideology, that is for primitive societies, not socially evolved societies.

Originally Posted by Moondogg

+1

Right now I can't see myself old and disabled.
I saw my father who was once a strong man become weak at the end.....nope....not me.

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Right now I can't see myself old and disabled.
I saw my father who was once a strong man become weak at the end.....nope....not me.

+2

I won't do it. I will not die in a hospital kept alive by pills and machines. When the time comes, I will have the balls to take my death journey like the Native Americans use to.

I might go on safari and start a fight with a lion or some shit. Start throwing rocks at it to piss it off, then run away to trigger its hurt reflex.

Originally Posted by KelJu

+2

I won't do it. I will not die in a hospital kept alive by pills and machines. When the time comes, I will have the balls to take my death journey like the Native Americans use to.

I might go on safari and start a fight with a lion or some shit. Start throwing rocks at it to piss it off, then run away to trigger its hurt reflex.

LOL, I was just telling myself I would become a superhero without powers and fight crime...I'll take a bullet to save someone.

Originally Posted by KelJu

Well it is a terribly flawed set of positions. You are pro-life, but only for American fetuses. You take this sanctimonious stance of judgment against people who feel like they are not yet fit to be parents or just too selfish to face their duties.

I mean let's be real. You didn't just come in here and voice an opinion. You came in here with the most arrogant and judgmental tone of total disdain for people that don't agree with you on this topic. You try to sport an air of how much better and moral you are because of your opinion that abortion is murder.

You fail to see that war is murder. Whether is is necessary is debatable. I for one feel that war is necessary sometimes, but wars should be fought only when necessary. Same with abortion. there are times when it is necessary to terminate a fetus before it grows up to be a neglected emotionally wrecked criminal. Foster kids are often times fucked up. There are a lot of kids growing up in their biological parents home who are fucked up, because their parents didn't want them and resent them.

Who here is going to argue with me about whether having strong emotionally supportive parents is critical to the health of a person? I don't see these self righteous white conservatives adopting black crack babies growing up in foster care. I don't see conservatives trying to give young poor single moms any help for raising their kids. No, no fuck no. Save the fetus, then fuck um after that. They don't want to help them with health care, pre-school, dare care, head-start, ect.

It's all about the fetus, but after that, you're own your own. It's a dumb fucking ideology, that is for primitive societies, not socially evolved societies.

Couldnt agree more. Perfectly said.

As for growing old, I had to watch my grandmother go from healthy to eventually dying from alzheimers after 14 years. This is much longer than average cases, and so the extent of the deterioration of both her body and mind was extreme. She couldnt talk, eat, walk, turn her head, feed herself, chew food, close her mouth ect. It also ruined my grandpa's life during the last nine years of the disease, even though she didnt know who he was he still visited her 3 times a day, every single day of the year. It also nearly bankrupt him paying for her medical bills. There is so much more, but its not very pleasant and I think you get the idea.

I would put a bullet in my head now before I would die like that.