Defective Children?

[GUNWOUNDS]

What is the difference between a fetus that will die in a week, and a baby that will die in a week? Parents have the right to end their baby's life if it is terminally ill or fatally "defected."

Because a civilized society has to draw the line between Abortion and Infanticide, regardless of parent's "rights".

So basically its all Red Tape.

[Inoculator9]

Certainly so Gunwounds, the distinction has to be made.

[Dante]

Because a civilized society has to draw the line between Abortion and Infanticide, regardless of parent's "rights".

So basically its all Red Tape.

Why should it? Government and society interference. Time was when... *thinks*... in fact even today there are cultures and countries which abandon or kill children merely for being the wrong gender. These are countries often accepted to be civilised.

Define 'civilised' anyway. It's a broad term which in this case seems to mean 'interfering.'

Blasted red tape. How I loathe bureaucratic red tape...

[GUNWOUNDS]

Why should it? Government and society interference. Time was when... *thinks*... in fact even today there are cultures and countries which abandon or kill children merely for being the wrong gender. These are countries often accepted to be civilised.

Define 'civilised' anyway. It's a broad term which in this case seems to mean 'interfering.'

Blasted red tape. How I loathe bureaucratic red tape...

only people i know that still do that sort of thing "legally" are certain african tribes... i would not consider them to be civilized.

[Leto le Juste]

According to me abortion or killing baby after he/she is born is ..... a crime. Only The Lord has the right to decide who can live or die. It is not a human right, and, of course not a duty as this doctor in genetics want to say.

[Anathema]

I doubt a "country" kills babies..... i

[GUNWOUNDS]

I guess you never heard of China's one child law then?

that law means people who

[TMA_1]

devils advocate? man you must know the devil well by now acriku. ;) lol jk man. :)

I think I explained your question in my earlier  posts, if I did not then tell me hat I didnt answer and I will try to answer it.

[Dante]

that law means people who

[Acriku]

GUNWOUNDS, the parents ending their baby's life which will die in a week is not infanticide in legal terms.

TMA, if you say you did explain my question, then what does the baby being a parasite have to do in this situation?

[Inoculator9]

By that logic Acriku, killing a terminally ill cancer patient with a stick wouldn't be a crime :P Death can not be accurately predicted unless you know before hand the time and method of the execution, and it is that, an execution. Anything else, is uncertain.

[GUNWOUNDS]

By that logic Acriku, killing a terminally ill cancer patient with a stick wouldn't be a crime :P Death can not be accurately predicted unless you know before hand the time and method of the execution, and it is that, an execution. Anything else, is uncertain.

true .. there have been documented medical miracles... where someone was SUPPOSED to die in a few months.. and ended up living for many more years......

soooooooooooooo........ maybe we cant say for sure someone will die... unless they are going to be executed as inoc said.

[Dante]

There is never certainty. Only very high probability. If the probability is high enough then is can be treated as certain even if it isn't.

[Inoculator9]

Maybe with the remaining legal forms of euthanasia, but the point is, someone with cancer might be on their death bed a week away from death, and is "euthanized." But, this person might have recovered, the cancer might take a break, and allow a final week or month of "relatively normal life." The fact is, you can't be certain, and one wrong choice is to much. It's like in Illinois, 7 out 10 executed convicts were later found to be innocent. You simply can't be 100% certain about anything that you haven't personally encountered.

[Dante]

No, you can't. But if we considered every possibility we'd never get anything done.

[Inoculator9]

Or... heaven forbid... we'd do less things, but more of them would be right.

[Edric O]

Keep in mind I'm only playing Devil's Advocate. Now, what's the difference between 1 minute before birth and 1 minute after birth?

Virtually none. But since when is abortion carried out 1 minute before birth?

Last time I checked, abortion was carried out on fetuses, not fully grown babies.

All of this is moot because a baby can't comprehend the question, nor have any chance to understand what you're asking.

True. But that does not give anyone else the right to decide for him/her.

This is turning into an abortion topic, and I normally stay out of such topics, because I don't fully agree with either of the two sides. I believe abortion should be allowed when the life of the mother and/or the baby is threatened, or when the mother's health is in severe danger, or when there was a rape involved, but not as a way to run from responsibility after having unprotected sex.

[Edric O]

Why should it? Government and society interference. Time was when... *thinks*... in fact even today there are cultures and countries which abandon or kill children merely for being the wrong gender.

Yes, and there were also cultures who tolerated cannibalism, or various forms of murder. The Aztecs brutally murdered innocent people on a daily basis. Does that make murder acceptable?

Today we have these little things called "human rights"... We have learned that it's better for everyone if we respect each other's lives than if we all start slaughtering each other.

Blasted red tape. How I loathe bureaucratic red tape...

Well, you want to see chaos and the complete breakdown of society... so of course you hate the "bureaucratic red tape" that holds it together.

[Wolf]

This notion of killing newborns suffering from severe handicaps is one of the most cowardly things I have ever heard of.

For a doctor -- for anyone, but especially a doctor, because his job is to save lives -- to say that a human being should be killed because his defects are so severe, his ailments so painful, and treatment so risky, is to act like a coward. Rather than attempt to alleviate suffering, or lessen the overall pain and damage (which is his job, dammit), doctors are now taking the easy route out. "Nevermind, this one's too hard to fix, shoot it and let's start over with someone else." -- absolutely ridiculous. We are talking about pediatricians here, not combat medics.

[Dante]

Yes, and there were also cultures who tolerated cannibalism, or various forms of murder. The Aztecs brutally murdered innocent people on a daily basis. Does that make murder acceptable?

Today we have these little things called "human rights"... We have learned that it's better for everyone if we respect each other's lives than if we all start slaughtering each other.

We? No, just you. And maybe a few others. Everyone else is just too busy getting on with agreeing with you that they haven't realised that just under the surface they're as animalistic as ever.

As for the Aztecs, that's their culture. It doesn't make it 'right' (I personally don't believe that there is a 'right') to you but to them it was acceptable.

Or... heaven forbid... we'd do less things, but more of them would be right.

An admirable yet unworkable philosophy.

[Edric O]

We? No, just you. And maybe a few others. Everyone else is just too busy getting on with agreeing with you that they haven't realised that just under the surface they're as animalistic as ever.

Under the surface, we have the exact same brains as our ancestors who lived in caves and whose idea of "technology" were a bunch of jagged chunks of stone.

But we've learned to act differently from them, haven't we?

As for the Aztecs, that's their culture. It doesn't make it 'right' (I personally don't believe that there is a 'right') to you but to them it was acceptable.

Indeed. But it is no longer acceptable in the world today, and that shows that we're making some progress.

[Acriku]

Maybe with the remaining legal forms of euthanasia, but the point is, someone with cancer might be on their death bed a week away from death, and is "euthanized." But, this person might have recovered, the cancer might take a break, and allow a final week or month of "relatively normal life." The fact is, you can't be certain, and one wrong choice is to much. It's like in Illinois, 7 out 10 executed convicts were later found to be innocent. You simply can't be 100% certain about anything that you haven't personally encountered.

Sure a baby might recover, maybe 1 in a 1,000,000, but some chances of living is so high it is virtually impossible to happen, but it can. Now, for your analogy, the only reason why they were innocent but were found guilty is the technological differences between the conviction and now. They found out their innocence using the technology that could have found them innocent for their conviction, but we can't help it if we don't have competent technology until it arrives.

Virtually none. But since when is abortion carried out 1 minute before birth?

Last time I checked, abortion was carried out on fetuses, not fully grown babies.

Well, that wasn't the point of my question, but I'll let it go.

True. But that does not give anyone else the right to decide for him/her.

People decide all the time for their loved ones, if they are incompetent to decide for themselves. If the person can't decide for him/herself, then who will decide? The next in line, but within reason of course.

[Dante]

Under the surface, we have the exact same brains as our ancestors who lived in caves and whose idea of "technology" were a bunch of jagged chunks of stone.

But we've learned to act differently from them, haven't we?

Indeed. But it is no longer acceptable in the world today, and that shows that we're making some progress.

Or maybe we're just degenerating into a society of pathetic xenophobes.

[SurlyPIG]

Dust Scout...

Why must the glass be half-empty?

[Wolf]

Dust, why 70%?