Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

[Scurvy]

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.

[Xiahou]

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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

[Aenlic]

I'm most certainly not pro-abortion; but I certainly don't think such a difficult decision belongs in the hands of the local priest who has a rather disturbingly high probability to be abusing his young parishioners nor in his followers' hands nor in the hands of the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals who who maxed out his probability to be having gay sex with a male prostitute and doing methamphetamines nor in his followers' hands either. All things considered, I believe that the decision more properly belongs in the hands of the parents with medical advice from their doctors.

[King Ragnar]

It should definately be an option for the parents i mean looking at that link that was posted is very sad but just look at the lad in the picture, can people really say he is even aware of what is going on around?

Im all for killing severely disabled children.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It should definately be an option for the parents i mean looking at that link that was posted is very sad but just look at the lad in the picture, can people really say he is even aware of what is going on around?

Im all for killing severely disabled children.

Why doesn't that surprise me? Diluting the master race are they?

[King Ragnar]

Why doesn't that surprise me? Diluting the master race are they?

Well they are wasting resources, time, money and energy, its sad to say it but they are a waste of energy, in those pictures that kid looked the same as if he was just a dummy, no emotion on his face, yes he may be a human being but his life just looks terrible.

This doesn't even have anything to do with politics its common sense.

[sharrukin]

The value of human life and the quality of human life are much the same thing. That is, anybody having a serious disability is seriously diminished in the quality of life they can lead. Intense suffering devalues human life, and in so doing denies the human dignity that we all have a right to. True compassion is to alleviate the suffering of a person in pain by hastening their death. Even our animals when they are suffering seriously are frequently put down. Should we do less for human beings?

Human beings have the basic right of choice pertaining to their body, lifestyle, lifespan, birth control, etc and I think it is right that they should have the right to die with dignity as well. Should we deny the most vulnerable of our population, what we grant to adults? It does seem undesirable to society keep these unfortunates alive, and pointlessly cruel as well. Their continued existence burdens relatives, friends and the community, and often, themselves. If we choose to walk away from them because we are distressed at what we are faced with, we do it for ourselves, not them.

We should also embrace a new market-based, high-tech system where children can be what we have always wanted them to be. Why should we have to put up with children that are not everything we want them to be? We can run around in circles and wave our arms if we choose, but these things are already happening to a limited degree, and will only increase in frequency, and choice. Genetic modifications that manipulate the inheritable genes passed on to our children are the key, and the wave of the future. The state obviously has an interest in this, which is not something I can deny. Children, who are genetically predisposed to criminality, or illness, or other foreseeable misconducts, should be regulated. If we could abort a Jeffrey Dahmer before birth, don't we have a moral responsibility to do so?

If one believes purely in the free market then someone like Britney Spears could of course make a fortune selling her genetic code on the open market to young mothers who want children just like her, except with superior intelligence. The problem is that if we allow this, then we are left with the possibility that sub-optimal human beings will also be chosen. The kind we are talking about removing to begin with. It is likely that some parents would go this route and the question we must ask is, should we allow this? Be it for religious reasons, or personal choice, should a parent have the right to burden society with sub-optimal offspring?

What cost will we be willing to pay for unattractive, overweight, alcoholic, criminal, or less intelligent offspring. Whose burden are they? The government cannot spend money endlessly, and choices must be made. Some of these unfortunates, will simply be too expensive to deliver and be cared for, will have to be involuntarily aborted. Irresponsible parents do not have the right to burden society with malformed or mentally incompetent children.

These are the questions we need to ask ourselves.

p.s. This is called the slippery slope.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ah, discussing the morals of killing babies. Delightful.

Why doesn't that surprise me? Diluting the master race are they?

Come off it. Most of those agreeing with him probably don't share his politics.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

All things considered, I believe that the decision more properly belongs in the hands of the parents with medical advice from their doctors.

That's fair enough- but the example in the article seems to be saying that the parents had to take their doctors to court to keep them from withholding treatment and allowing their baby to die against their will. That's outrageous.

[BDC]

This is because babies who once would have died (or been allowed to die) can or are now saved. Of course a lot die anyway soon, live short miserable lives, or have horrific brain damage. The case mentioned in the article is a bit weird really, never really worked out what was going on.

This isn't like "oh look, let's kill our newborn because they have webbed feet"...

Also, the Daily Mail should be ignored for any serious news articles.

[Aenlic]

That's fair enough- but the example in the article seems to be saying that the parents had to take their doctors to court to keep them from withholding treatment and allowing their baby to die against their will. That's outrageous.

Agreed. The decision should be the parents' not the doctors' and it's obscene that they had to take the doctors to court. Perhaps I should change parents to legal guardian. That's what annoyed me so much about the Terry Schiavo case. Her husband was the legal guardian, not the parents. They tried, and failed, in court to be made the legal guardians. At that point it was his decision and his alone - right or wrong. All those other groups got involved from both sides and not one of them should have been there. It wasn't their call. The court decided, which is the way it works in this country, that he was the legal guardian. At that point, the argument should have been over.