Results 1 to 30 of 159

Thread: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    RIP Tosa, my trolling end now Senior Member Devastatin Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    7,552

    Default Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

    Is this the direction of morality in England? Jesus, talk about losing your way. I guess some won't be happy till abortion is legal to high school. Anyway, enough of my dogma, shall we "progress" to killing those that have "less desirable" life expectancies than "able bodied" persons? Sounds very enlightened in a 1940's kind of way to me. What do you think?
    RIP Tosa

  2. #2
    Backordered Member CrossLOPER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Brass heart.
    Posts
    2,414

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    So, if a child is born so badly deformed that they will either be a vegtable or in severe pain their entire (possibly very short) lives and that their life will be a burden physically, emotionally, and economically on both them and their families the parents should not have a choice? Meanwhile in the US, assisted suicide or euthanasia is illegal but starving a person to death is OK? You have some severely misplaced moral notions.
    Requesting suggestions for new sig.

    -><- GOGOGO GOGOGO WINLAND WINLAND ALL HAIL TECHNOVIKING!SCHUMACHER!
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    WHY AM I NOT BEING PAID FOR THIS???

  3. #3
    RIP Tosa, my trolling end now Senior Member Devastatin Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    7,552

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    Quote Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
    So, if a child is born so badly deformed that they will either be a vegtable or in severe pain their entire (possibly very short) lives and that their life will be a burden physically, emotionally, and economically on both them and their families the parents should not have a choice? Meanwhile in the US, assisted suicide or euthanasia is illegal but starving a person to death is OK? You have some severely misplaced moral notions.
    Ah, but here lies the question.. Who makes the judgement that the child's life is indesirable to continue life? I live in a country where its perfectly legal to stick a pair of sissors in the back of a perfectly healthy baby's skull, vacuum out his/her's brains out and killed just before it exits its mother's birth canal. Will it be the decision of the parents? The doctors? I have a feeling that there will be a LOT of pure infantcide on children with treatable ailments for the sake of "ending the suffering" of said child. This is a very scary and sad precident. And for a "church" to endorse this latest sickness of the progressive mindset is unbelievable.
    RIP Tosa

  4. #4

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?


  5. #5
    RIP Tosa, my trolling end now Senior Member Devastatin Dave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    7,552

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
    Yup, you've convinced me. Let's kill it!!! It hurts my eyes to see such a beast. Kill it now!!!!
    Again, who would be the judge and executioner?
    RIP Tosa

  6. #6
    Backordered Member CrossLOPER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Brass heart.
    Posts
    2,414

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
    Yup, you've convinced me. Let's kill it!!! It hurts my eyes to see such a beast. Kill it now!!!!
    Again, who would be the judge and executioner?
    If the parents want to raise him, that's their perogative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
    All children are a burden physically, emotionally and economically on there families.
    Thank you for intentionally misunderstanding misinterpreting my post. Moreover, perhaps you should not have children if you perceive them as a "burden".
    Last edited by CrossLOPER; 11-14-2006 at 07:40.
    Requesting suggestions for new sig.

    -><- GOGOGO GOGOGO WINLAND WINLAND ALL HAIL TECHNOVIKING!SCHUMACHER!
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    WHY AM I NOT BEING PAID FOR THIS???

  7. #7
    ............... Member Scurvy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,489

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
    Ah, but here lies the question.. Who makes the judgement that the child's life is indesirable to continue life? I have a feeling that there will be a LOT of pure infantcide on children with treatable ailments for the sake of "ending the suffering" of said child. This is a very scary and sad precident. And for a "church" to endorse this latest sickness of the progressive mindset is unbelievable.
    There are certain illness's where doctors know without doubt that the child will not live anything close to a life, in these cases they should be allowed to kill the baby.
    If it does become legal there won't be inantcide on treatable ailments, because doctors know what can be treated and what can't - its importnant to note that the parents should have some say in the matter, if they really don't want their child to die, and are happy to take both the financial, and mental burden of the child.

  8. #8
    The very model of a modern Moderator Xiahou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    in the cloud.
    Posts
    9,007

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    Here's an excerpt from one of the more touching comments posted after the article:
    There are so many normal children seeking loving kind homes and adoptive parents, this is surely a wiser course to take. Take notice of an animal birth, the runt always get thrown out to die.
    "Don't believe everything you read online."
    -Abraham Lincoln

  9. #9

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    I really don't see why this bothers people.

    kill the blind quadraplegic baby
    +
    have a new one

    = everyone is happy. Who are you to say that baby #2 shouldn't be born? He has as much right to life as baby #1.

  10. #10
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,677

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    Quote Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
    So, if a child is born ... and that their life will be a burden physically, emotionally, and economically on both them and their families the parents should not have a choice?
    All children are a burden physically, emotionally and economically on there families.
    Last edited by Papewaio; 11-14-2006 at 06:22.
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    All children are a burden physically, emotionally and economically on there families.
    My parents would agree with you.

  12. #12
    Member Member KrooK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Kraj skrzydlatych jeźdźców
    Posts
    1,083

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    Sorry but its ridiculus. Who can decide about our right to life?

    We can kill small child because we think that its life might be hard
    but we can't kill crime who made other people's lives hard.

    Who can decide if that child want or don't want live?
    This is just like nazism - we can't let them live in order to healt and financial condition of our society.

    We have already discussed this issue on my university and we can't support it. It's even worst than nazism - people who know what nazis had done, are deciding to follow them.

    Anyway this could be good example of madness that rule over Europe.
    We are mad, we are not civilisation anymore - we are civilisation of death.
    Maybe we need another fall of Roman Empire..........
    John Thomas Gross - liar who want put on Poles responsibility for impassivity of American Jews during holocaust

  13. #13
    American since 2012 Senior Member AntiochusIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Lalaland
    Posts
    3,125

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    Quote Originally Posted by KrooK
    We have already discussed this issue on my university and we can't support it. It's even worst than nazism - people who know what nazis had done, are deciding to follow them.

    Anyway this could be good example of madness that rule over Europe.
    We are mad, we are not civilisation anymore - we are civilisation of death.
    Maybe we need another fall of Roman Empire..........

  14. #14
    ............... Member Scurvy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,489

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    Quote Originally Posted by KrooK
    Sorry but its ridiculus. Who can decide about our right to life?
    We can kill small child because we think that its life might be hard
    but we can't kill crime who made other people's lives hard.
    We don't kill a small child because it's life might be hard, we kill it when it will have no life at all, it must be stressed that the "killing" should only occur with extremely serious cases, surely if all the child will know (for maybe 48hours if its lucky) is pain and suffering, then death is better.


    This is just like nazism - we can't let them live in order to healt and financial condition of our society.
    It's even worst than nazism - people who know what nazis had done, are deciding to follow them.
    I'm afraid i completely fail to see the link with nazism .....

    its not just the health and finacnial condition of society, its of the family, the severe mental burden and financial problems that a family might have to cope with are just too great. If the chld will have no life, then why waste valuable money that could be used to treat others, and inflict unnecessary pain upon the family (ie, a quick death as opposed to a long drawn out aggonising death)
    as i'v said before, you have to balance both the rational and irrational, ie, the emotional and the financial/practical

    Anyway this could be good example of madness that rule over Europe.
    We are mad, we are not civilisation anymore - we are civilisation of death.
    Maybe we need another fall of Roman Empire..........
    slightly melodramatic

  15. #15
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    I support abortion until the 12th month. We have too much overpopulation and any way of preventing a new human from being born rather than killing him/her after he/she becomes a human being is great. Preferably the primitive overreproduction should be stopped before conception, but if people can't control their desires or can't afford condoms, abortions (or preferably free condoms for everyone) is necessary.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  16. #16
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    Quote Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
    I support abortion until the 12th month. .
    That might work for horses and elephants, but not humans. Or do you advocate the killing of healthly new-born babies up until the time they turn three monthes old.

    I must repeat myself for a second time it seems.

    That is why I am disgusted with the shallow disregard for life expressed by some.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  17. #17
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    Not necessarily killing, but putting them out to the wolves. It isn't killing when they're below 3 months. But above all - it's more honorable to prevent conception than forcing a woman to have to carry a heavy baby, hurt her back, become fat, get uglier breasts, migraine for 9 months, not being available to have sex with (at least not as much), and hurt her lower body parts before ending the life. The worst of all, is if you above forcing the woman to do that also force the man and woman together to raise the child, learn to love it, teach it many things, form memories with it - and then see it killed by war or starvation.

    Let's just say that we both agree that it's more honorable to abort before conception than later, and that we have some kind of idea that killing a child and an adolescent in many ways feels worse than say killing a 80 years old person, without really analyzing further why that thought exists (even if it has a quite interesting biological background). Like you, I'm strongly against abortion, but I wouldn't label it murder. Apart from the label I also assume that we have different ideas of how to implement reduced abortion rates in society in the most effective way. Given my knowledge of you from earlier threads, the main difference in our way of thinking lies in that you are more of a rule ethics type, while I apply a "continuous transformation of consequence ethics models into simple temporarily kept rule ethics sets". Since the entire rest of the discussion would be about our fundamental views on ethics but hidden in details of implementation, I might as well right away say that we will most likely only waste time if we try to debate abortion if we haven't first had a debate about our fundamental ways of ethical reasoning.

    As for that debate, and the connection between thought and action, and rule ethics/political correctness contra consequence ethics, let me just take an example that "politically correct" behavior or rule ethics thinking, i.e. refusing to think in certain ways that would be declared tabboo by rule ethics rather than applying a consequence ethics way of reasoning, usually results in actions that cause more suffering, sins and other things that most rule ethics system claim to be trying to minimize:
    An American study in economics compared the outcome of two types of political decisions: 1. where before the decision was made, it was assumed that a human life was worth a certain amount of money, 2. where no such assumption was made because it was considered unholy and evil. It turned out that on average, the decisions made by using the 1st method ended up carrying out actions that saved more lives, and if afterwards an estimation of value of human life was made for decisions of the 2nd type, it turned out that the second type of reasoning on average valued a human life half as high as the 1st type of decision-making.
    Last edited by Rodion Romanovich; 11-17-2006 at 21:16.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  18. #18
    A very, very Senior Member Adrian II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    9,748

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    Quote Originally Posted by KrooK
    We are mad, we are not civilisation anymore - we are civilisation of death. Maybe we need another fall of Roman Empire..........
    Well, since the defeat of nazism and communism, the end of colonialism and the advent of Isabelle Adjani, western civilization seems to be on a bit of an upward slope again.

    Put that in your Spengler pipe and smoke it, Krook.
    The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott

  19. #19
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian II
    Well, since the defeat of nazism and communism, the end of colonialism and the advent of Isabelle Adjani, western civilization seems to be on a bit of an upward slope again.

    Put that in your Spengler pipe and smoke it, Krook.
    I assume that in terms of the classical rennaissance view of the roman empire (which I assume was used above where civilization was assumed good and barbary bad - if I'm assuming wrong I apologize?), a good-looking actress would not be the barbary but the decadence part of our civilization - the final years before the fall
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabelle_Adjani
    Last edited by Rodion Romanovich; 11-17-2006 at 21:26.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  20. #20
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    Oh what am I doing?! I thought this was a regular abortion thread, but it specifically said "severely disabled babies". Let me just point out for clarification that everything I said above was my general view of abortion, not a specifical view about severely disabled babies.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  21. #21

    Exclamation Re: 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.

  22. #22
    Thread killer Member Rodion Romanovich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    The dark side
    Posts
    5,383

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    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.
    Under construction...

    "In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore

  23. #23

    Post Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    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.
    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.

  24. #24
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    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.
    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.

    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  25. #25
    Praefectus Fabrum Senior Member Anime BlackJack Champion, Flash Poker Champion, Word Up Champion, Shape Game Champion, Snake Shooter Champion, Fishwater Challenge Champion, Rocket Racer MX Champion, Jukebox Hero Champion, My House Is Bigger Than Your House Champion, Funky Pong Champion, Cutie Quake Champion, Fling The Cow Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Virus Champion, Solitaire Champion, Worm Race Champion, Rope Walker Champion, Penguin Pass Champion, Skate Park Champion, Watch Out Champion, Lawn Pac Champion, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Champion, Skate Boarder Champion, Lane Bowling Champion, Bugz Champion, Makai Grand Prix 2 Champion, White Van Man Champion, Parachute Panic Champion, BlackJack Champion, Stans Ski Jumping Champion, Smaugs Treasure Champion, Sofa Longjump Champion Seamus Fermanagh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Latibulm mali regis in muris.
    Posts
    11,454

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    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.
    You are aware that most societies would label that "murder" and put you in jail if you participated in same?
    "The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman

    "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken

  26. #26
    ............... Member Scurvy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,489

    Default Re: Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

    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....



    btw, i think abortion is a completely different issue....
    Last edited by Scurvy; 11-17-2006 at 21:52.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO