[throwanem]

I'm saying you should own yourself a eugenicist and at least be honest about that, rather than strive to advance a heterodox and unappealing, actually rather amoral and inhuman, ideology through instrumental deceit. You certainly should not do so on the backs of parents facing what I understand can be one of a lifetime's more difficult decisions.

You know as well as I do suffering under utilitarianism has exactly the value the advocate of the moment cares to give it at the moment, whether that be negative, neutral, or vastly to the greater good. Why even attempt such a trivially obvious lie?

[klipt]

> parents facing what I understand can be one of a lifetime's more difficult decisions.

Do you believe that parents who choose to terminate a downs fetus are evil/utilitarian?

Or are the doctors who perform the testing/abortion the evil/utilitarian ones?

Or the lawmakers who allow such testing/abortion to be legal?

Where exactly is the responsibility for being evil/utilitarian in your mind?

[throwanem]

What? How does any of this follow from anything I've said? What's utilitarian about demanding a scapegoat for something that isn't even indictable?

I'm not criticizing parents' decisions, but yours. This specifically includes your using the sorrow of others, in this case parents faced with a harrowing dilemma, as an excuse for your own behavior, rather than demonstrate anything resembling the courage of your supposed convictions.

[klipt]

> I'm not criticizing parents' decisions, but yours.

I don't know man, if you think it's fine for parents to abort downs babies, I think that means you're the utilitarian.

You can try deny it, but in your heart of hearts you think it's fine to value avoiding the inconvenience of a downs baby higher than the value of a fetus's life.

That's pretty damn utilitarian.

[throwanem]

> I don't know man, if you think it's fine for parents to abort downs babies, I think that means you're the utilitarian.

> You can try deny it, but in your heart of hearts you think it's fine to value avoiding the inconvenience of a downs baby higher than the value of a fetus's life.

> That's pretty damn utilitarian.

Thank you for conceding that utilitarianism trivially entails arrogating unto oneself the right to decide universally who lives and who dies, in quite literally every imaginable case - this being obviously true to so reflexive and unreflected-upon an extent that you can only conceive of even an overtly hostile and disdainful interlocutor arguing he should instead be given that power, rather than that no one should.

Is there anything you'd care to add to that, or are you content with having revealed your vicious ideology in all its bare-fanged, blood-soaked glory?

[klipt]

> be given that power, rather than that no one should

So you believe that red states which disallow aborting downs babies are more moral than blue states that allow aborting downs babies?

Since the red states are the only ones that try to ensure that "no one has that power" (to abort downs babies)

[throwanem]

Would you like at any point to argue claims of your own, rather than inventing ones to falsely attribute to me? Not that you'll disembarrass yourself at this point, but one would hope to see you show the sense at least to stop digging.