Playing Devils Advocate

[AdeptaSororitas]

So, as everyone knows (but seems to frequently forget), people have opinions on things. Things that they believe in and come swiftly to the defense of. Luckily, many of these people also understand that the other side also has a right to their own opinion. But how often is someone asked to defend the other side's argument? So I'm asking, in the name of fairness, to play "the devils advocate".

I'll begin. I'm against Eugenics, the belief that people with "hereditary disabilities"(Such as poverty and work ethic) should "be unable to pass on their genes" (be made sterile). HOWEVER I understand that at two high risk parents may give birth to a mentally or physically disabled children. Children who may cause financial issues to both the parents and social issues for the child. It's safe to say the family will no longer live a normal life and may become a burden on the government. I also understand that it may be extremely dangerous for the child and cause it and it's parents a lot of emotional pain and stress down the road. Financial issues may cause the parents to be unable to properly care for the child or they themselves may be unfit for parenthood to begin with.

Now it's your turn Escapinauts, you're free to pick any topic. I do ask that you don't insult anyone by doing a backhanded defense or by being aggressively sarcastic, feel free to disagree with the position you are now defending, but still do your best to defend it.

PS. Don't pick a topic and then go "Oh wait, _____ is COMPLETELY WRONG"

 

[Nikolaz72]

I act like I am against extracting cells from not-yet-born children to create new organs to save lives. Now, reason im acting like I am against this is because soceity see's it as wrong to have mass-production based around creating potential lives and killing them to extract cells to save lives. Because theese things have the potential to create lives and therefor by making a mass-production out of this you are essentialy doing mass-murder. I see it as little more than taking organs from a dead man. I mean we can take organs from people after they lived, lets take organs from people before they live. They are both by definition not living anyway.

However, I think (ON the internet forum where nobody knows me) That if mass-killings of fetus means creating organs to save lives it is the opposite of wrong. Actually I find it completely right. We have the 'technology' to create new hearts, and new lungs. (This is a very liberal intepretation of our current stage in medicine I know) So I dont think morals and ethics should get in the way of saving a life, or more lives. Thousands of lives. If we can even save one nine-yearold with a failing heart. By killing a. . . Thing, that cant think, or feel. But has the potential to become something that can. I say sacrifice the unborn and let the ones who has tasted life live. Honestly.

This is the same reason Abortion before the thing is even six weeks old is completely A-OK. Its not a human being.. Yet.

Human-experimentation. How is this looked down upon again? I mean we already do it in medicine, its the two words put together that are taboo. Trying out experimental medicine. Is OK. But calling it Experiment on Humans (Its a human testing experimental medicine aka Human-experimentation) is wrong.

Playing the devil himself here arent I. Anyway, Devils advocate I see as someone arguing an unpopular case. Not neccesarily someone believing in something else than what they are arguing.

 

[Isaac The Grape]

Devils advocate: I loved that game.

 

[Nightshine]

Interesting.
If I had to be the devils advocate on something I would defend one case on capital punishment, when someone rapes, kills, dismembers or tortures somone they make a conscience decision in a sense to inflict harm on someone else. Now in some cases the pain or suffering was not instant, it wasn't quick and painless death, it could be watching someone murder your family in front of you. Now you tell me that person deserves and quick and painless execution? or to rot in a jail cell for the rest of their life.
Take Osama Bin laden's case, say what you will about 911, say if he was the mastermind behind it. Think about everyone that he hurt, the peoples lives for a rather short sighted cause.
You think he deserved a quick and painless death? or to suffer for the rest of his life in a prison cell?