Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
The ethicists have raised a point that is very, very uncomfortable for those that advocate abortion IMO. The fact is, we have no scientific definition for when personhood begins. What we have is a fudged moral compromise, using a vaguely scientific measure of 'viability', to determine when abortion can happen and when it cannot. This definition isn't even universal, it applies in the UK but is different elsewhere.
The reason the argument is so uncomfortable for pro-choicers is that it exposes the arbitrary nature of our current law to cold, hard logic. There is no cold, hard, dispassionate reason why a severely disabled baby can be killed in the womb but not immediately post-birth. The reason for not killing such a child after birth is not scientific but moral. And if we accept the basis of the debate is a moral one, rather than hiding behind supposedly scientific arguments about "viability", what is that morality to be based on? Where should we draw the line, and why?
|
Excellent post Chris .A good example to use for the purposes of discussion is that of Downs Syndrome babies .It is permitted to abort Downs babies should the parents be aware of the disability but we all know that Downs babies can have a full and happy life ,indeed i believe some members on this forum have Downs babies.So what justification can there be for aborting one aside from the parents wish not to raise a disabled child ,which ,up to a point we allow but there is no scientific justification and very little moral justification to permitt it .If we are asking is there any justification to euthenise such children post birth then following the accepted logic applied to Downs babies then there is no reason why not apart from society's own moral outrage which isn't always logical but does set the rules
---------- Post added at 12:07 ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Fry
Where have I heard this before, from the Nazi's, this is an outdated policy, if you cannot look after the child, then give it up for adoption!!!
For the moment they are conceived, I consider them a human and “real” person, so it is unfair to kill them at a time when they are very young. That would be murder!!!  
If it was legal to do this then Stevie Wonder would have been killed at birth!
If my one of my children was born disabled, I would not care; I would care and love that child!!!
Killing babies shortly after birth is 100% wrong and should remain illegal, hence I’m not keen on abortion (not on religious grounds)!!! 
Also, why should a baby die because its parents are poor?
For once I am with Pro-Life groups!
Anyone that agrees with her should reconsider themselves!
---------- Post added at 11:49 ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 ----------
Along with mass murders, child abusers and wealthy people who have done wrong! |
Once again Alan you have totally failed to understand what is being discussed nobody is advocating this and nobody is suggesting ,even remotely,that it should be adopted as policy