Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

Finishing off my original post (the backroom just moves too fast for me!):
About a corrupt system:
The system could go completely wrong and become corrupted. For example: Doctor sees a teenage mum of thirteen give birth. After having it she decides that she doesn't want the child and, out of sympathy for the mother who could not cope with the child and give it a good life, the doctor, on the orders of the mother, claims the baby has a disability, even though it does not, and lets it die. This is a bit of an extreme, but it could happen. Also if a law like this was to be passed then eventually it could lead to even more extreme laws, and this one is extreme enough anyway.

Another point, that should also be taken into consideration, is that in the child's lifetime then a cure may be discovered for the problem that they originally had. In that case then they would have died unnecessarily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avlvs Libvrnivs Britannicvs Maximvs

Finishing off my original post (the backroom just moves too fast for me!):
About a corrupt system:
The system could go completely wrong and become corrupted. For example: Doctor sees a teenage mum of thirteen give birth. After having it she decides that she doesn't want the child and, out of sympathy for the mother who could not cope with the child and give it a good life, the doctor, on the orders of the mother, claims the baby has a disability, even though it does not, and lets it die. This is a bit of an extreme, but it could happen. Also if a law like this was to be passed then eventually it could lead to even more extreme laws, and this one is extreme enough anyway.

Another point, that should also be taken into consideration, is that in the child's lifetime then a cure may be discovered for the problem that they originally had. In that case then they would have died unnecessarily.

---

Indeed, and that's why I support abortion up till the 12th month regardless of how the baby is shaped. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Indeed, and that's why I support abortion up till the 12th month regardless of how the baby is shaped. :2thumbsup:

---

Abortion, in my opinion, isn't much better than killing a baby at birth. Sorry to have to tell you this, but I am a pro-life Catholic Christian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Indeed, and that's why I support abortion up till the 12th month regardless of how the baby is shaped. :2thumbsup:

---

As mentioned before 12 months might work for horses and elephants, but not humans. The normal gestation period is about 270 days. So if you advocate abortion on humans up until the 12 month you are advocating the killing of healthy human beings that are 3 months old. Also know as murder.

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystic brew

I would dispute this assertion. there is no logical reason why humanism should be any more prone to making decisions to let people die, or even take an active hand in doing so, than religious people.

---

I understand your point. I guess my concern centers on the idea of moral relativism. For the religious, morality is more of an absolute -- a standard set forth by their religious beliefs to which they should adhere/aspire. This has been twisted of course -- Crusaders despoiling a Muslim village and killing its inhabitants are hardly acting toward the spirit of "Thou Shalt Not Murder," despite their steadfast belief that they were doing God's work.
Secular Humanism, with its emphasis on the individual and preference for equality also runs the risk of having no "higher moral standard." If every belief is equally worthy of respect and every action only to be judged by the standards of the individual enacting it, then how can one judge some act to be "wrong" and another "good." If it would be too costly to continue that life, if we view such a life as not worth living, then we should end it. Moral relativism in action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystic brew

The consolation of an afterlife has in the past been used to justify all sorts of acts depriving the individual of life, the inquisition being an old and hoary example. Also some sects of Christianity refuse medical treatment such as blood transfusions.

---

Sadly true. The religious version of "the ends justify the means" has produced too much suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mystic brew

I think you may be conflating two seperate philosophies, that of humanism and nihilism. Secular humanism, in the absence of an afterlife, believes that human life is the only thing an individual gets, so the termination of one is not a decision to be taken lightly.
It may be you believe that without the threat of punishment from God mankind is likely to err, but i think i'll let you tell me that, rather than putting words in your mouth! :idea2:

---

I think humanity is likely to err irregardless of divine punishment -- and I am therefore quite thankful for divine forgiveness!:yes: I know I need it.

You assert a secular humanism that values life -- if there is no afterlife then we should treasure this life (reasonably logical) -- but by creating a situation where moral relativism applies, it is all too possible for secular humanism to evoke nihilism. If no moral code is provided for you, YOU must do the work to establish one. Will it be rigorous enough? Will it focus on the betterment of the individual and of the society? Or will it simply be an excuse to hedonims? I fear far too many make the latter choice, and undercut the potential for secular humanism to make a better contribution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Indeed, and that's why I support abortion up till the 12th month regardless of how the baby is shaped. :2thumbsup:

---

You are aware that most societies would label that "murder" and put you in jail if you participated in same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Avlvs Libvrnivs Britannicvs Maximvs

Finishing off my original post (the backroom just moves too fast for me!):
About a corrupt system:
The system could go completely wrong and become corrupted. For example: Doctor sees a teenage mum of thirteen give birth. After having it she decides that she doesn't want the child and, out of sympathy for the mother who could not cope with the child and give it a good life, the doctor, on the orders of the mother, claims the baby has a disability, even though it does not, and lets it die. This is a bit of an extreme, but it could happen. Also if a law like this was to be passed then eventually it could lead to even more extreme laws, and this one is extreme enough anyway.

Another point, that should also be taken into consideration, is that in the child's lifetime then a cure may be discovered for the problem that they originally had. In that case then they would have died unnecessarily.

---

That just wouldnt happen, the rules would have to be very strict, but it is possible to iradicate corruption through a well thought out law.

Is it right to make a child live in aggony for years until a cure (of which theres a fairly low chance occuring) appears? In many of the cases were talking about (i would claim the majority) would live no more than 5 - 10 years, or would have very complex problems which normal medical research wouldnt bother finding cures for. In most of the cases there simply can be no cure, the problems are more than health, ie, severe learning disabilities, etc. and it doesnt relive the burden on the family in the time they have to wait....

:2thumbsup:

btw, i think abortion is a completely different issue....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You are aware that most societies would label that "murder" and put you in jail if you participated in same?

---

Of course I'm aware that some humans have lately decided to choose such an extremist point of view. Traditionally, humans throughout history have put out children to the wolves, hyaenas, prarie dogs etc. as a means of abortion or when primitive contraceptives failed. Better that, than killing them in war when they're 20 years old, but best of all to not have the contraception take place if unnatural death is the predetermined fate of the child. As above, this is my view of abortion in general, not specific for disabled infants.

I think we have come to an end here.

I'd like to point out that the promotion of what any society considers as murder is not acceptable on this board.
There might be places where you can freely discuss such options - this is not one of them.

Thanks to all for the mostly civil and interesting contributions to this debate.