Killing "severly disabled" babies at birth?

[Goofball]

I won't either.

However, as one of those church-going yanks who gets ridiculed by too many European secularists, I must note that it is Ragnar's expressed amoral attitude that gives us pause. If, in "defeating" religion, you encourage a reversion to intellectual barbarism, what price "victory?"

I am glad to hear this viewpoint marginalized.

You don't need religion to tell you that killing babies is a bad idea. I think you will find that secular humanists also find the idea repugnant.

[Andres]

Some views exposed in this thread... Well, they "amazed" (not to say "disgusted") me, to say the least.

As a student, one day I was taking an oral examination. While waiting for my turn, two parents came in. They had this boy with them, in a wheelchair. He was disabled, he couldn't speak, he could barely move his right hand.

He was a student. He came to take the exam. He had a special laptop connected on his wheelchair. He got some questions and he started to answer them. It was the same course, but since he couldn't speak, he had to take the test written. He typed the answers with his one, shaky hand.

I picked up his name. At the proclamation at the end of the year, I heard he passed and could go on to the next year. I never saw him again. Did he die? Did his condition got worse making it impossible to go further? Did he take the exams without me noticing it?

I don't know.

Will he ever be able to actually get a job and work in his condition? Most likely not.

After reading some of the posts in here, this guy would qualify to some of you as "to be killed by birth because not useful".



What about his courage? His strength? The iron will he must have (had). The strength of his parents? The proud they must have felt hearing their son actually passed and could go on to the next year?

I don't know how the other posters in this thread feel, but I admired him. I looked up at him. Remembering this guy and his achievements, I still become emotional, allthough it has been 8 years since I saw him taking his exam, in that wheelchair, his head hanging, sometimes shaking, with one hand strangely typing on his computer.

Was/is this HUMAN being's life worhtfull? YES, YES and YES !!! Just for being an example that you can achieve alot if you really want it. And it made his parents a fine example of just how much love and dedication a parent can give to his child.

Some of the posts in here are just disrespectful regarding to this lad.

[Scurvy]

This is terrible news. A supposed Christian wants the government to kill innocent new born babies who, although they may be deformed/disabled, could have a chance in life. Look at Simona Atzori (born with no arms), Joey Deacon (cerebral palsy sufferer) and Anne Begg (sufferer of Gaucher's disease). All of these people have done something with their lives despite their disability. If a disabled new born baby was killed then the most intelligent person ever to set their eyes on the world could be gone out of "mercy".

the use of specific examples doenst really justify the argument as a whole, im sure i could find millions of examples where people who had those disabilities lead miserable lives, i also think the three deseases are not quite serious enough to warrant death, its only when there is no chance of reasonable life (ie. no life at all) that the baby should be put to rest,

Andres, similar answer, - i don;t know what he was suffeing, but if he lived that long then i wouldnt count it as a waste, i am guessing (although i don't know) that his parents were fairly well off, and able to afford the care he needed, it doesnt change his achievment, but a lot of families wouldnt be able to support a child like that, and so both the child and they would suffer (usually ending in the childs death)

[Adrian II]

Look at Simona Atzori (born with no arms), Joey Deacon (cerebral palsy sufferer) and Anne Begg (sufferer of Gaucher's disease).

Of course they live, and they should. In principle all disabled newborns should live.

For me, the moral dilemma starts when a child suffers and will probably go on suffering for the rest of its life. Some newborns suffer pain and misery of a kind I can not even begin to picture in my worst nightmares. If the prognosis is bad, then what do we do? How do you weigh the chance of a considerable improvement in the child's condition or the chance that the child will die a long-drawn, horrible death because you do everything to prolong its life?

And I do mean weigh the chances, in a mathematical sense.

Oh, and let's see how fit our Darwinian amateurs are when it comes to probability calculus.

[Ser Clegane]

i also think the three deseases are not quite serious enough to warrant death, its only when there is no chance of reasonable life (ie. no life at all) that the baby should be put to rest,

I thinks this is an important point - it is my impression that (apart from rare exceptions) nobody here would support killing babies in the cases of such disabilities.

As with discussions about abortions we should keep in mind that there is more than just the extremes when it comes to having a view on an issue.

[Avicenna]

what satisfaction do i get from giving money to a person who probably is a fraud and even if it is going to them, why should i give it to someone i have never met nor will ever meet on the other side of the world?

What a wonderful human being you are. I am sure the world could do with more like you.

[GoreBag]

Did i say my views represent that of the UK, no its my opinion am i not entitled to it, or is not PC enough for everyone?
I still firmly believe in survival of the fitest and dog eat dog world, notice we have been pouring money into places of povety for years and years and nothing happens...

Whoa, whoa, be fair here. Who do you mean by 'we'? If you just mean your country's government, then you haven't done anything. How many problems do you expect to solve by throwing money at them, anyway?

As well, having been born in Britain doesn't make you more 'fit', unless you're trying to use some reductionist neo-nazi logic. If anything, there's more room for the unfit to survive in a country like yours.

[Andres]

As with discussions about abortions we should keep in mind that there is more than just the extremes when it comes to having a view on an issue.

As was the purpose of my post.

After reading some of the posts in this thread, I was under the impression that some of the participants at the discussion would consider approve support and defend a law that would allow killing every baby that's likely to cost more to society then it would contribute (financially speaking). I consider this as an "extreme". Extremes are to disapprove. If my impression was caused by misinterpreting though (which I doubt), I apologize.

To even consider the use of arguments like "economically speaking", "the financial issues of the case", "it costs more to society then we would benefit from it" in this case seems untasteful, even disgusting to me, the more if "benefits" seems to be interpreted as only financial benefits (as if there don't exist other "benefits").

If you ask my humble opinion: a decent regulation on the matter would be an almost impossible task. Besides the medical side of the story, there's is also an emotional one and off course a moral one.

How to decide whether it is allowed to kill the child or not? Where will we draw the line? "He cannot use arms or legs, so you are allowed to kill him" ? , "He seems not to know what is going on, so you can kill him" ?, "He isn't able to have a decent job, so he will only cost us a lot of money, so you can kill him" ?... I repeat: where will you draw the line? Can you possible draw a line here? Who will draw it? If, within the lines of your new regulation, the child's life is "not worthy to live" (which is the only way to define the conclusion of the doctors/parents/psychologists/philisophers and whoever would be to make the decision), will the parents be able to decide to let the baby live or not? Will they be forced to watch and let it die/be killed even if they want it to live and to take care of it? Will we give them financial support? Do you feel obliged or not?

More questions then answers.

[Scurvy]

As was the purpose of my post.

After reading some of the posts in this thread, I was under the impression that some of the participants at the discussion would consider approve support and defend a law that would allow killing every baby that's likely to cost more to society then it would contribute (financially speaking). I consider this as an "extreme". Extremes are to disapprove.

I dont see how it is extreme to support the law, i would (and i don;t consider myself a very "extreme" person) with emphasis on it being a very cautious law, with strict guidlelines on which type of case would end in a death

To even consider the use of arguments like "economically speaking", "the financial issues of the case", "it costs more to society then we would benefit from it" in this case seems untasteful, even disgusting to me,

they have to be considered, in the UK the NHS hardly has unlimited money, and doctors would be most effective in treating cases, that can be effectively treated. Some families might not be able to support themselves and a (very) severly disabled child. Its realistic, hardly disgusting.

[Ser Clegane]

More questions then answers.

And that's how it should be.

It should never be our aim to find easy answers on such issues. Decisions whether it might be better to end the life of a newborn must never become routine decisions but should be painful case by case decisions.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You don't need religion to tell you that killing babies is a bad idea. I think you will find that secular humanists also find the idea repugnant.

I would agree with you that the clear majority do find it repugnant. My concern is that secular humanism makes it easier, intellectually, to embrace amorality -- at least if part of your audience isn't willing to do the hard work of developing a rigorous moral code in the absence of one derived from religious faith and tradition. Those who are willing to undertake such a introspective journey would, of course, be at no moral disadvantage when compared to one who is churched.

Please note that one later post in this thread suggested that King R look into political philosophy a bit -- I did not try to Bible-thump him. Morality is not the exclusive province of religion.

[Andres]

I dont see how it is extreme to support the law, i would (and i don;t consider myself a very "extreme" person) with emphasis on it being a very cautious law, with strict guidlelines on which type of case would end in a death

I was talking about "a law that would allow killing every baby that's likely to cost more to society then it would contribute (financially speaking)" = a law that would only take this in consideration to form an ordeal. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I still feel that considering financial, economic elements to decide over the life of a human is distasteful.

they have to be considered, in the UK the NHS hardly has unlimited money, and doctors would be most effective in treating cases, that can be effectively treated. Some families might not be able to support themselves and a (very) severly disabled child. Its realistic, hardly disgusting.

I hear you, I even understand you. If I would be able to put aside my emotions, my feelings, and as a consequence would be thinking rational = only rational, I might even be able to defend your point of view.

On the other hand, from a strictly rational and financial point of view, looking at the financial gains/losses, one would be able to defend the killing of old people who aren't able to work anymore. After all, most of them just cost us money, don't they? Makes me think, maybe we should screen and examine all of the inhabitants of our respective countries and all those who are likely to only cost us instead of earning us money in the future, should be killed...

I know I'm exaggerating know and these are words that you didn't speak. I just want to point out the danger of being too rational on such difficult matters and to what extremes being only/strictly rational could lead.

The ability to think rationally is not the only thing that makes us "human". Emotions and feelings like compassion, empathy,... are also part of us.

Reading things like this:

Use your Head People. God gave you a Brain, use it. In the Animal Kingdom, the weakest animals get killed off the bat.
This is the Human Kingdom, not the Animal Kingdom, but even still. Being in a WheelChair, but actually Working, like some people I know, is one thing. They don't waste money.

and this:

Its a Dog eat Dog World
Everyman for himself

makes one feel the need to post the messages I'm trying to post...

[King Ragnar]

the fact that your questioning what i posted

[Andres]

the fact that your questioning what i posted

Well, I refuse to believe, let alone accept, that we are living in a "Dog eat Dog World, Everyman for himself" as a given, unchangeable fact.

Accepting it would lead to apathy and thus the "Dog eat Dog World, Everyman for himself" would last forever.

No matter how cruel the world is, it is no excuse to put away your humanity and thus to contribute to it's cruelty and actually really making it a Dog eat Dog world.

But these are general reflections and I get carried away way too far off topic

[Scurvy]

I was talking about "a law that would allow killing every baby that's likely to cost more to society then it would contribute (financially speaking)" = a law that would only take this in consideration to form an ordeal. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

I hear you, I even understand you. If I would be able to put aside my emotions, my feelings, and as a consequence would be thinking rational = only rational, I might even be able to defend your point of view.

I know I'm exaggerating know and these are words that you didn't speak. I just want to point out the danger of being too rational on such difficult matters and to what extremes being only/strictly rational could lead.

The ability to think rationally is not the only thing that makes us "human". Emotions and feelings like compassion, empathy,... are also part of us.

I can see where your coming from, rationallity can only go so far, and the emotional side has to be taken into account.
However one of the things that makes us human is our ability to balannce the rational with the irrational, the emotional implications should be considered as much as (and probably more than) the rational,
I think its important to remember the the whelfare of the child is the priority, and saying "i dont want to kill him because my emotions prevent me from doing so" isnt necessarily valid, if you let a child live, but it siffers greatly and then dies maybe a day later, is that any better than "killing" it outright?

its a very difficult issue, partly because the emotional context (no-on ewnts to kill a baby) is so huge

Reading things like this:
and this:
makes one feel the need to post the messages I'm trying to post...

I agree, thats taking the whole thing a step too far, and completely devalues any rational argument - it isnt only money that should be considered, and we should help when we realistically can.

[Tribesman]

Well someone made a very very good point ....

Sometimes I despise the human race and a few of you have added to that feeling in this thread.

But for the hell of it , I must ask Ragnar .
Since you believe that a British person is superior to anyone who is not British , would a Britsh premature disabled baby not be superior to a premature disabled baby of foriegn descent ?
Or are your views just despicable nonsense ?

[King Ragnar]

well tribesman, premature babies arent exactly SEVERELY disabled children, premature children wouldnt exactly fit into that group, unless it was very very premature, we are arguing about killing SEVERELY disabled children at birth, and even if that child was british and SEVERELY disable it should still be killed in my opinion, im not saying kill all children with disabilities just the most severe and worse cases possible. and please dont insult my views i try to accept yours so just accept mine for once please, instead of having to challange me for every thing i post in, your the main reason i get warnings, so ill just bite my tounge.

[Andres]

I agree, thats taking the whole thing a step too far, and completely devalues any rational argument - it isnt only money that should be considered, and we should help when we realistically can.

[Tribesman]

please dont insult my views i try to accept yours so just accept mine for once please

My dearest Ragnar , I accept your views for exactly what they are .

I wonder if you noticed this line in the post preceeding mine .
However one of the things that makes us human is our ability to balannce the rational with the irrational

[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.

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..........

[AntiochusIII]

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..........

[mystic brew]

I like The Telegraph even though I have different 'leanings' than you. And The Telegraph carries by far the best Letters to the Editor; witty, informative, eccentric - the kind that used to be in The Times until a certain gentleman laid hands on it.

oh, i read the Independent as my paper of choice. But the Telegraph (clarkson aside) offers a thinking alternative to the knee jerk nonsense of the Mail.

[mystic brew]

I would agree with you that the clear majority do find it repugnant. My concern is that secular humanism makes it easier, intellectually, to embrace amorality -- at least if part of your audience isn't willing to do the hard work of developing a rigorous moral code in the absence of one derived from religious faith and tradition. Those who are willing to undertake such a introspective journey would, of course, be at no moral disadvantage when compared to one who is churched.

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. 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.
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!

[Scurvy]

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

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.

[Adrian II]

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.