Monday, May 2, 2016

The Abortion Slippery Slope Is Real: Time to Abort Ethicists

Killing one's progeny is now so common that it is just another thread in the social fabric, which is a shroud.

Declaring War on Newborns

The authors point out that each of these conditions​—​the baby is sick or suffering, the baby will be a financial hardship, the baby will be personally troublesome​​—​​is now “largely accepted” as a good reason for a mother to abort her baby before he’s born. So why not after?
Yes. People who are personally troublesome should be aborted... at any age. That is the ethic of the totalitarian elitist, the one who is able to decide life/death for others, all for the common good of, well, that doesn't matter: "Common Good" is enough, and it is non-specific, a benefit to any rhetoric.
“When circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.” (Their italics.) Western societies approve abortion because they have reached a consensus that a fetus is not a person; they should acknowledge that by the same definition a newborn isn’t a person either.
And of course we need to tell everyone exactly how "person" should be defined:
Neither fetus nor baby has developed a sufficient sense of his own life to know what it would be like to be deprived of it. The kid will never know the difference, in other words. A newborn baby is just a fetus who’s hung around a bit too long.
And an ethicist is just an arrogant elitist who has "hung around too long". Not a real person; a parasite. What parasite is defined as a person?
As the authors acknowledge, this makes an “after-birth abortion” a tricky business. You have to get to the infant before he develops “those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.” It’s a race against time.

The article doesn’t go on for more than 1,500 words, but for non-ethicists it has a high surprise-per-word ratio. The information that newborn babies aren’t people is just the beginning. A reader learns that “many non-human animals … are persons” and therefore enjoy a “right to life.” (Such ruminative ruminants, unlike babies, are self-aware enough to know that getting killed will entail a “loss of value.”) The authors don’t tell us which species these “non-human persons” belong to, but it’s safe to say that you don’t want to take a medical ethicist to dinner at Outback.

But what about adoption, you ask. The authors ask that question too, noting that some people​—​you and me, for example​—​might think that adoption could buy enough time for the unwanted newborn to technically become a person and “possibly increase the happiness of the people involved.” But this is not a viable option, if you’ll forgive the expression. A mother who kills her newborn baby, the authors report, is forced to “accept the irreversibility of the loss.” By contrast, a mother who gives her baby up for adoption “might suffer psychological distress.” And for a very simple reason: These mothers “often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible.” It’s simpler for all concerned just to make sure the loss can’t be reversed. It’ll spare Mom a lot of heartbreak.

Now, it’s at this point in the Journal of Medical Ethics that many readers will begin to suspect, as I did, that their legs are being not very subtly pulled. The inversion that the argument entails is Swiftian​—​a twenty-first-century Modest Proposal without the cannibalism (for now). Jonathan Swift’s original Modest Proposal called for killing Irish children to prevent them “from being a burden to their parents.” It was death by compassion, the killing of innocents based on a surfeit of fellow-feeling. The authors agree that compassion itself demands the death of newborns. Unlike Swift, though, they aren’t kidding.
Because "progress" requires more change away from norms, it will never stop. Every change, such as abortion, becomes a norm, and therefore in order to have progress the culture must change even further from that norm. Constant change evermore toward the darkness is required in order to pursue progress. And that's why darkness is rationalized as "good", and the darkness is redefined as "light".

22 comments:

Talon said...

Doesn't the creation of "non-human persons" create a class stratification among persons? Could we reasonably allow, for example, a dolphin to own property, marry, or vote if the dolphin cannot grasp these concepts or the responsibilities they entail? If not, are they truly a "person" or just half of one? Or a third? Will this lead to the acceptance of the idea that some persons deserve fewer rights than other persons, for no other reason than being born or perhaps raised just so? Would trans-humans and genetically engineered humans deserve "enhanced rights" above the average person because they might be more capable physically and mentally? How would one assure legal equality in this scenario?

Stan said...

Talon,
All excellent points.

Hugo Pelland said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hugo Pelland said...

I also agree that these are all good points, and that the arguments for the so-called post-birth abortion don't fly, even if I am firmly in the pro-choice side.

Because abortion is not about the rights of the unborn, it's about the right of the woman to choose what here body is used for. Abortions are a decision to terminate the pregnancy, not killing another human. An "abortion" performed close to the 9th month is called a c-section, and the baby lives... the mother has no right to kill that child, who can survive outside of the womb.

The issue is thus about when is it reasonable for a woman to exercise her right to teminate the pregnancy as she should not be forced to go on with it, while balancing her rights with the right to life of any fully formed, and independently living, offspring.

Early enough, it's obvious, the fetus is nothing but some random combination of genes; late enough and it's also obvious as thr baby lives. It's the in-between that's complicated...

Steven Satak said...

"Because abortion is not about the rights of the unborn, it's about the right of the woman to choose what here body is used for."

And she has that choice. Use a condom. Use a Pill. Use your goddamn head and put the dick down, as Chris Rock once commented. That's when the choice is supposed to be made. Once the life is started, it's no longer your body, it's someone elses'. You're 'sharing resources', or, as would have been proudly proclaimed in another time, you're going to be a mother. Are you gonna kill that helpless, innocent someone else just because it's inconvenient for your partner to wear a condom or for you to keep your knickers on?

We live in an age of self-worshipping egomaniacs. It's so hard to preach the cure - stop fucking - when we've been steeped since birth in the old 'if it feels good, do it'. We hardly recognize there's a problem!

It IS about the rights of the unborn, Hugo, and your denying it makes no difference whatsoever. Especially as you are a member of the Age-Privileged, one of the lucky ones who has somehow survived gestation to grow up and become an adult. Don't let your privilege speak for you.

And save the crap about rape and incest. We aren't talking about the vanishingly small number of pregnancies resulting from that as though they were the only kind of pregnant woman to exist. That's a different minefield. I'm talking about the average woman who increasingly and arrogantly regards the tiny life inside her not as another person, but as some sort of parasite that she has to get rid of - you know, before it spoils her figure and her sex life.

Don't you find it strange that, in a society that increasingly cares only about a person's status as a Victim, the largest class of victims - real ones, not pretend Victims - has no voice and must fight for its very life against people who think 'it's all about me and my convenience'?

There is good and there is evil, Hugo. And despite your hair-splitting, it's not hard to tell the difference.

Hugo Pelland said...

Steven, there are so many things wrong with just that 1 comment; you write with your gut instead of your head. You put everything in black-or-white, good-or-evil. It's so simplistic, so naïve, and completely disconnected from the reality we live in. I really wonder how many topics you deal with like this... because you can call it hair-splitting if you want, but my assessment of what's good or evil is not just based on my inner feelings; I care about facts, statistics, real-world issues, and not just what seems right to me or the people around me.

First, sex is not a problem. Religions would like us to think the opposite, of course, and you fall prey to that narrative. It's the oldest trick in their bag: make people feel guilty about something that virtually everybody enjoys, a lot, so that you can better control the masses. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism are particularly good at that. Looks like it worked our pretty well for them...

Second, don't you know that contraception doesn't work 100% of the time? Even if people were all happily married and having sex only within their stable partner, unwanted pregnancies would still happen. A lot.

Third, yes, I agree, a lot of people do a lot of stupid things when it comes to sex. They should not be so careless, they should not sleep left and right like they do and most problems would be solved already. There would be less disease, less messed up people who feel bad about their sex lives, etc... But this is not the world we live in. There always has been unwanted pregnancies, and always will. What we do know is that when access to safe and legal abortion is limited, even worse things happen; women die because of shady practices. Is that what you want? A lot of republicans in the US certainly do; they are the evil ones.

Fourth, similarly, we also know that when abstinence-only education is encouraged, instead of education on safe practices, worse things happen; more teen pregnancies. Sure, these kids should keep their dicks in their pants, but again, reality is what it is: teens have sex. So we can, as a society, encourage them to be safe and help reduce diseases and unwanted pregnancy; or we play the blame game about sex, and keep them in the dark. Again, is that what you want?

Fifth, if you want to insist that unborn have rights, starting at conception, what you are doing is putting value on something that is completely meaningless: a random combination of genes. And I know Stan agrees with you on this. He mentioned that life starts at conception, period. This completely disregards what we actually know about reproduction. It's, again, purely emotional and based on no facts whatsoever. It's just a bunch of atoms arranged completely randomly, yet, because it can potentially lead to something significant, you attach meaning to it.

Sixth, we know that on average around 1 pregnancy in 5 already ends, naturally, at the very early stage; often the woman does not even know she was pregnant. So what's wrong with abortions that are just as early? And this was the main point of my comment. It's all about 'when' the abortion happens. But you wouldn't want to get into that discussion, because this would require, you know, thinking and stuff.

Stan said...

Hugo,
I also agree that these are all good points, and that the arguments for the so-called post-birth abortion don't fly, even if I am firmly in the pro-choice side.

Because abortion is not about the rights of the unborn, it's about the right of the woman to choose what here body is used for. Abortions are a decision to terminate the pregnancy, not killing another human.


Let's start with your redefinitions for convenience:

Abortion is about "ending a pregnancy" - specifically by killing someone with unique DNA and life of his/her own. Your redefinition of killing is Orwellian. Pro-choice means having the ability to CHOOSE to kill your progeny. It is legalized killing of another human, one who is innocent and unable to resist. If you deny these facts, then your rationality is questionable, because your ideology trumps fact.

”An "abortion" performed close to the 9th month is called a c-section, and the baby lives... the mother has no right to kill that child, who can survive outside of the womb.”

False. Right down to partial birth abortion, the child is killed before removal.

”The issue is thus about when is it reasonable for a woman to exercise her right to teminate the pregnancy as she should not be forced to go on with it, while balancing her rights with the right to life of any fully formed, and independently living, offspring. “

The Brand New so called “Right to terminate” is in fact a license to kill. It is not a human right because it violates the primary right of every human to life.

”Early enough, it's obvious, the fetus is nothing but some random combination of genes; late enough and it's also obvious as thr baby lives. It's the in-between that's complicated...”

The fertilized egg is alive; s/he is a human with his/her own DNA, with the ability to grow just as all human beings have done, including you.

Now for the most revealing statement you have ever made here on this blog:

Stan said...

” You put everything in black-or-white, good-or-evil. It's so simplistic, so naïve, and completely disconnected from the reality we live in”

That is the state of your reality. For you there is no truth except that which you declare to be true; there is no morality except that which you declare to be moral. For you evolution is Truth, therefore humans have no value because they are accidents of mutations. For you morality is whatever is convenient at the moment, and human life is not a moral consideration, because you get to decide who is human. Your reality is totally material, with no meaning which goes beyond the meaning which references a purely material “thing” – and of course, humans are just more material things, again having no more value than a piece of gravel on a long gravel road.

”…my assessment of what's good or evil is not just based on my inner feelings; I care about facts, statistics, real-world issues, and not just what seems right to me or the people around me.”

This is the full out admission of your personal moral authority to decide morality. As the moral authority, life and death is not a “black and white”, “simplistic”, “naïve” for just anyone else to decide. You are the moral determiner of life and death, and under “Choice to kill one’s progeny”, it is beneficial to change the wording so as not to reveal the fact of it. Newspeak. And in the service of you and your cult of moral authorities for everyone else.

Who made you into your deity-hood?

” First, sex is not a problem.”

Tell that to your sexist-feminista-Leftist buddies who run college campuses. “All sex is rape”; Katherine McKinnon. All men are rapists, and delayed regret is rape. On and on and on and on…

Single mother-hood is also just fine, too, then. Perpetual impoverishment due to sexual happiness.

Talk about thinking with your gut…!


” Second, don't you know that contraception doesn't work 100% of the time? Even if people were all happily married and having sex only within their stable partner, unwanted pregnancies would still happen. A lot.

So “want” is the criterion for killing. How many of us were unplanned lives?

”Third, yes, I agree, a lot of people do a lot of stupid things when it comes to sex. They should not be so careless, they should not sleep left and right like they do and most problems would be solved already. There would be less disease, less messed up people who feel bad about their sex lives, etc... But this is not the world we live in.”

And that world is the world that the Leftist Libertines have made. That world needs to be undone.

Stan said...

’There always has been unwanted pregnancies, and always will.”

There always has been war; there always has been corruption; there always has been self-declared moral authorities who want to Libertinize the world for themselves, yet allow the suppression and killing of inconvenient Other. THAT is the side you are on – and defend.

We should get one thing straight. Either it is OK for a human or group of humans to decide when and how to kill other humans, or it is not.

IF [killing is OK], THEN [the dictatorship is that group which appoints itself to decide, who, how and when to kill].

IF [killing is never OK], THEN [there is objective morality which precludes the existence of the dictator group and its presumptive moral authority to kill].

IF [Pro-killers claim that neither of the first two syllogisms is correct (doesn’t reflect the complex reality of the current world we inhabit)], THEN [those Pro-killers are engaging in Orwellian anti-Truth Newspeak].

”What we do know is that when access to safe and legal abortion is limited, even worse things happen; women die because of shady practices. Is that what you want? A lot of republicans in the US certainly do; they are the evil ones.”

Ah. You have the certitude of your personal moral authority to project the deaths of illegal procedures onto your hated Other. Since Republicans are evil, they too qualify for abortion and even moreso since they have the additional quality of “evil”, whereas the other category of killable humans is merely innocent. Your arrogance is coming to the fore, and it is gargantuan.

A lot of women die now, because the abortionists do not have practicing certification at local hospitals; and the abortion blood-halls refuse to comply with health standards.

”Fourth, similarly, we also know that when abstinence-only education is encouraged, instead of education on safe practices, worse things happen; more teen pregnancies. Sure, these kids should keep their dicks in their pants, but again, reality is what it is: teens have sex.”

It wasn’t always that way. The Leftist Libertines made it that way. It is your belief system which corrupted the entire western culture. Your belief that sex – any sex – is good, good in the moral sense, because: you say so, is the specific hippie-driven Leftist Libertine cause for the amoral world which those who espouse their own moral authority have created. This Leftist Libertine world is the equivalent of the fall of the Roman empire, due to the same exact causality.

Stan said...

”So we can, as a society, encourage them to be safe and help reduce diseases and unwanted pregnancy”

But never, ever encourage them not to have sex.

”… or we play the blame game about sex, and keep them in the dark. Again, is that what you want?”

Blatantly false dichotomy, with moralizing thrown in as a presumptive guilt trip. Two logic errors in two sentences.

”Fifth, if you want to insist that unborn have rights, starting at conception, what you are doing is putting value on something that is completely meaningless: a random combination of genes.

Good grief. Random? Set of genes? Just floating willy-nilly with no life, no unique existence? Just completely meaningless by your own moral declaration? What a blatant load of crap.

”And I know Stan agrees with you on this. He mentioned that life starts at conception, period. This completely disregards what we actually know about reproduction.

There is nothing in “what we know about reproduction” which declares the fertilized egg to be “meaningless”. This is a false appeal to pure Scientism. In fact, it is a blatant lie. Your life started with a fertilized egg which contained your unique DNA and began your growth. Deny that. Go ahead.

”It's, again, purely emotional and based on no facts whatsoever. It's just a bunch of atoms arranged completely randomly, yet, because it can potentially lead to something significant, you attach meaning to it.”

It’s not “potentially” it is DEFINITELY unless he/she is killed either by your policies or by accident. Your denial of this is totally irrational, and the redefinitions which you place on both the individual being killed and the living process of human development are irrational – the effluent of ideology untempered by any morality whatsoever.

Stan said...

”Sixth, we know that on average around 1 pregnancy in 5 already ends, naturally, at the very early stage; often the woman does not even know she was pregnant. So what's wrong with abortions that are just as early?”

People die in bathrooms at a high rate of accidents; often they do not know they are in danger. So what’s wrong with just killing them? People are going to use bathrooms, we just can’t stop them. We should emphasize safety of course, but we might just as well kill those who are at risk to save on the expense of ET’s and unnecessary hospitalization costs on society.

Your argument here demonstrates the complete lack of compassion for an entire category of living humans. This is the expected empathy from Atheists and their Materialist philosophy of human meaninglessness. You have dictated the meaninglessness of a defenseless category of actual victims of killing (this is similar to the meaninglessness of blacks killing blacks, btw). Your moral authority is defended with bogus moral arguments, when all you really need to say, is I Decree; We Choicers have solidarity in our moral authority over certain categories of humans which we define as NOT human.

This has been done to death, literally. Starting with the mentally challenged (called “retarded” in those days), moving on to genetically defectives, “useless eaters”, physically disabled (called “cripples”), then politically incorrects, Gypsies, and the ever popular Jews. It’s always the same: Your group has the moral authority to kill other humans, in categories of inconveniences. Always the same.

” And this was the main point of my comment. It's all about 'when' the abortion happens.”

Yes. For you, it is a presupposed conclusion that you have the moral authority to decide which humans are NOT human, or sub-human, or just inconvenient humans – all subject to legal killing. The point is merely “when”, not any moral consideration, because you’re the moral arbiter, and you have decided.

” But you wouldn't want to get into that discussion, because this would require, you know, thinking and stuff.”

On the contrary. It could only occur if one is to abandon actual morality and the value of human life, and allow you to dictate the morality which includes some categories of humans as "meaningless" and killable. And that’s why you call it “not thinking”, because that’s what you are pushing as an emotional incentive NOT to think and rather emotionally to accept your moral diktat as supreme.

Stan said...

Hugo,
I have one final comment. You say,
”Religions would like us to think the opposite, of course, and you fall prey to that narrative. It's the oldest trick in their bag: make people feel guilty about something that virtually everybody enjoys, a lot, so that you can better control the masses. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism are particularly good at that. Looks like it worked our pretty well for them...”

There are several revealing points being made here:

1. If it feels good, then it is good.
2. It is guilt mongering to assert any need for self-control.
3. It is control of the masses to assert any need for self-control.
4. Religions are controlling the masses by asserting the need for self-control.

This is pure Leftist Libertinism. And it is purely in the service of Leftist cultural destructionism. And that has been the most successful cultural force for the past 56 years, as witnessed by the decline of the west asymptotic to zero morality, extremely high poverty, high killing, high government dependence, and lowered taxpayer ability to pay for it. Caused purely by Leftist Libertinism, starting with the sexual revolution, Roe v Wade, and progressing into the destruction of the family (starting with black families), and into racial manipulation by the ever racist Democrat “Progressives” who maintain the black plantation ghettos so popular in Leftist run cities. (Not to mention the normalization and subsequent domination by all deviant behaviors).

But none of that is evil, is it. No of course not. It “feels good”, it is construed as all new morality which is legitimized amorality, and thus the moral strutting of the Leftist amoral cultural destructionists. Like yourself.

JBsptfn said...

Stan, despite what a lot of Fundamentalist Christians claim (I am a Christian, but I am not an idiot fundy), premarital sex isn't a sin. The word fornication shouldn't even be in the Bible.

Now, I am not with the "If it feels good, do it" crowd. I have seen the hippie generation (that started that culture) blamed once or twice online for the greed and problems of our current society.

However, I don't want to go back to the 50's, either. That is when a man would often marry some frigid lady who would have sex with him for procreation only. That wouldn't work today. Men are already retreating from marriage because of the unfair laws slanted against them, and when you add in frigid wives on top of that, that gives them more incentive to avoid marriage.

There isn't anything wrong with sex if done in love, moderation, and responsibility. Just because some a-holes don't do that, don't blame and demonize sex, blame the irresponsible a-holes.

It is just like these morons who blame guns for school shootings (personally, a lot of the blame should probably go to the teachers and administrators who tolerate bullying). Don't blame guns, blame the people who shoot them.










Stan said...

JBsptfn,
Uncharacteristically, I emphatically disagree with your conclusion, for these reasons:
First, sex is an appetite that has a reason. like all appetites, the body creates demands for fulfillment of certain necessary functions. Hunger: energy; Thirst: fluid; Sex: procreation.

The consequences of sex are far different than the consequences of the other human appetites.

Next, in order for casual sex to be harmless, extra steps must be taken, both physically and emotionally. This is contrary to the fulfillment of hunger or thirst, and the extra steps can fail, leading to catastrophe in the lives of both parties.

In the end there is not really any such thing as casual sex. IF too casual, then pregnancy, which is neither casual nor without serious and enduring consequences.

Normalization of casual sex also is construed to normalize marital infidelity. If there are no longer any vices, then there is no virtue, either. Further, it reduces the act to animalism, lending credence to the concept of man as just another animal, and without value beyond that. Just as truth is reduced to subjective opinion, so sex reduces reproduction to animalism, and progeny to animals, some of which are to be culled.

These considerations are outside the domain of religious dogmatic objections. The current social degradation started with casual sex. Abortion and family destruction followed immediately (especially for blacks), and reification of perversions followed closely. And in the end, the demonization of dissent on issues of the new amorality comes close to totalitarian. All appetites are legitimized, and all character development is discriminatory. The result is massive sloth and dependency, with the millennials dependent upon authority for protection of their minds from dissent and the provision of mental and emotional safe places. The degradation is complete.

This is not an hypothetical slippery slope scenario. It happened in my lifetime, on my watch and it was unstoppable. Each generation became more iconoclastic than their parents until there was hardly any moral/ethical structure left to destroy.

JBsptfn said...

I never said that sex should be casual. I said that it should be done responsibly, and in moderation.

Also, I know that you are a big proponent of marriage, but marriage isn't a cure-all. It causes people to only care about their kids, spouse, and job, and not society as a whole.

Look at how kids get punished in school for defending themselves. The teachers don't seem to care about that. They just care about keeping their job and their family, not about right and wrong.

Stan said...

Hm. I don't get the connection you're making between school (educator and administrator) incompetence and political correctness, and the concept of casual sex. Please elaborate.

JBsptfn said...

School incompetence and political correctness aren't connected to casual sex (which I said I didn't support). Those things are connected to (and school incompetence may be a result of) marriage and it's trappings (caring about just your family, job, and money).

Stan said...

Interesting. This is the first time I've heard that marriage is the cause of those things in married people. Is this based in a study you've seen? Or is it personal observation? My own observation is that married people usually want a good, stable world for their children to inherit - is that wrong?

Hugo Pelland said...

It's the first time you hear that!?

JB, I may usually disagree with you, but here... I'm shocked by Stan's reaction.

And sorry, just came back super late from a night out (4:47am here). I shouldn't write anything.......

JBsptfn said...

On You Tube, there is a conspiracy nutter named Bill Greathouse (he has/had several You Tube accounts, like Bill122460, Bil1224601, Bill1224602, and TFL Truth). He founded TFL, or True Forced Loneliness (a belief that the government is brainwashing women to stereotype certain guys out of the dating scene).

Seven years ago, he had a video change with an atheist (user name Junosden) entitled It's Your Fault You're Lonely, not the Media:

TFL Truth-RE: It's Your Fault You're Lonely, Not the Media

During that video, when he showed the clip of Juno saying "All I care about is my life" (which was quote mined to some degree), Bill said something about how that's what the bankers and the government want (for people to only care about their own lives, not the lives of others).

Now, I think that this guy is a nutjob, and very ignorant of how women work, but he may have a point. This safe, secure life is great in theory, but in practice, is it causing people to put up with way more crap than they should?







Stan said...

Hm.
So, again: is there a rigorous study which comes to the conclusion that marriage in general causes group narcissism? Because that is the essence of this charge against marriage. This is a serious charge against a sizable demographic, and it is a charge colored with political overtones, which smacks of biased observation.

Are you talking about kin-selection theory? How does that cause a total lack of concern for the social mores and customs?

Why would men who are married go to war? To prove their manhood? Or to stop threats (however ill-defined) to the state of the world which would affect the entire future world? Whichever you choose, if there is no actual sociological data then there is only loose opinion. So give the evidence for your choice.

Since there are demonstrable exceptions to your "rule", then it is excluded from being a causal law, but it could be a contributing factor in marital situations which were already biased in that direction. So the next question is this: what percentage of marriages are totally group-narcissistic, and what percent of marriages actually caused group-narcissism?

I suggest that Atheist marriages are already biased in that fashion; humans have no value over banana slugs and the wake of destruction following every Leftist enterprise is of no concern to Leftists. So the AtheoLeft is certainly suspect.

Now, you can make the argument as to why theism would cause group-narcissism. I'm interested to hear it.

JBsptfn said...

It can cause narcissism among a lot of people, like the Atheist marriages that you mention. However, narcissism isn't really what I am referring to. Apathy to the world around them and others is more like it. Marriage can create that naturally among a lot of people because of the focus that they need to keep up with their responsibilities.

As for going to war, all wars haven't been worth fighting, like Vietnam. On the AlternateHistory.com board a few years ago, some of us talked about how 60's pop culture would have looked like without the Vietnam War.

One person brought up Kennedy, and if he would have removed the troops or not if he lived and had a second term. Another person said that Vietnam is a country that shouldn't be thought of that much, and they went on to say how it's a tragedy that it is (because of prolonged American involvement, I presume).