charlie9865 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Some people seem to think it is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2108433/Doctors-right-kill-unwanted-disabled-babies-birth-real-person-claims-Oxford-academic.html I saw and read this post in the daily mail, and I think it is disgusting. The women needs her head read, nobody has a right to decide if a baby should live or die just because there disabled. That is awful and I think anyone that thinks a baby is not classed as a person is thick. That baby still feels pain, that baby can breath of course it is living and a person. This women needs to go one place and that's the nut house. If people know they could have disabled children, and that they would not be able to cope. They have plenty of other options, even someone who does not know that they could have disabled children. 1) Abortion 2) keeping their legs shut in first place 3) Adoption. My sister has mental health problems and stupidly got pregnant . Knowing that in her situation (I won't say to much) but in her situation she would not be allowed to have her son. He was adopted to a couple that has a disabled son, they did not want to try for any more kids. As they would find them selves unable to cope if there next baby was born disabled. So they adopted my nephew and I am glad they did , these situation are avoidable. If people are sensible about them, and these ways are at least humane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I agree. As far as I am aware, there are some situations where a newborn has a very severe condition and is allowed to die and not kept alive at all costs. Sometimes, doctors try to gently coax parents into allowing nature to take its course, but more often than not, they want everything possible done to preserve life. Thing is that is entirely different to some of the other things apparently under discussion. Sometimes a baby would die without highly invasive and distressing medical intervention, at which point the parents have to make a choice on whether to consent or not. However, this is in a different league altogether to some of the other discussion points which people rightly feel revulsion of; such as murder of newborns on the basis of family circumstances when it's born, like whether they can afford it and other matters of convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Plato advocated that parents should have the right of life and death over their children until they were 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Plato advocated that parents should have the right of life and death over their children until they were 30. So maybe he did; but, at least for him, it's a good job that his parents didn't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Does that make it instantly and unarguably wrong? Here's one for you - everything we know about how the human body reacts to low temperatures is derived from the most evil "nazi science". Should we not use that data, expunge it from the record? Or should we (as we have done) use it to save lives? Even though it was unarguably wrong. Some babies are born facing a short, painful, stressful life. Is it wrong to relieve them of that burden? It's a dark thought by modern 'enlightened' standards, but that shouldn't preclude a sane and calm debate without likening everything to nazis and everything 'nazi' to pure evil. No one is going to dispute the evil of the nazis But infanticide as common practice is hardly limited to mid 20th century German eugenics. Not by a long chalk. If you are referring to experiments on half starved weak individuals in concentration camps, yes i do have a view on that and the data you mentioned,but i don't think its relevant to this discussion. Since you have mentioned it though i would question wether everything we know about the the human body's reaction to low temperature has been derived from the source you mention? Like you I would not wish to see any baby suffering pain, and would expect that to be prevented, but the article the OP refers to is not only about that is it!! Yes i know infanticide has a history, and is practiced in some parts of the world,but in my view that does'nt make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 She's right on one count - or part of one count. Killing a baby two days after the birth is very little different from killing it two days before the birth. That's why we don't allow abortion at such a late stage. Completely right, her analogy is correct, but based on an action that (in the UK at least) would be illegal and that no doctor would countenance or perform. Is she deliberately trying to blur what abortion means in most countries by implying that it can happen at such a late stage and then equating it to murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 If you accept that sometimes it is okay to kill a living adult human being, then why is it wrong to kill a baby? This is just for the sake of argument aswell, before I get "baby killer" fired at me. When is it okay to kill a living adult human in the UK? In those few circumstances (self defence, enemy soldier of state we are at war with), etc, and if the circumstance applies to a baby, then it's no more wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 I'm not against abortion on the whole just late abortion. The law should definately definately be lowered maybe to twenty weeks for a start. Do you have personal experience suffragette? Have you seen a 'feotus' in real life. I was in labour with my first daughter when she was still classed as a 'foetus' 12 hours later when she was born she was classed legally as a baby. If she'd been born just 12 hours I wouldnt have had to register her birth & death, she wouldnt have had to have a funeral or burial. What physically was any differant in 12 hours?? Nothing except her rights which tells me that those rights need lowering to the even younger 'foetus' The line has to be drawn somewhere, the same argument will be made no matter at what point we draw that line, and as medical technology improves it will be possible to keep earlier and earlier deliveries alive although they wouldn't survive without that intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Because the very thought of killing a newborn indicates a very unhealthy mind Abnormal thought process...... Obsessivee Compulsive Disorder (The intrusion of unpleasant and unwelcome thoughts) The woman needs counseling If we can't think about disturbing ideas then we can't discuss them and we can't be sure that we've really come to the right conclusion or that we can explain that conclusion to someone else. OCD is nothing to do with thinking about an unpleasant idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Yes I would, There are plenty of options open to women that are are in this situation, no end of people to help in every way with counciling and/or adoption etc. After going through a life changing, potentially life threatening 9 months of pregnancy. I disagree completely with you, abortion should be considered a fundamental human right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.