KILL unwanted or disabled babies at birth as they are not a real person'

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Unlike Santorum, I am not calling for a total ban on Abortion and I disagree for ethical reasons, not relgious ones.

Religion is a source of ethics.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Chris

Religion is a source of ethics.

Yes some ethics are religious but not all ethics are religious. So his statement can still make sense.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

Unlike Santorum, I am not calling for a total ban on Abortion and I disagree for ethical reasons, not relgious ones.

What are your views on contraception?

---------- Post added at 17:59 ---------- Previous post was at 17:58 ----------

Originally Posted by downquark1

Yes some ethics are religious but not all ethics are religious. So his statement can still make sense.

The only way is ethics....

Let's stick to the topic please.

[django47]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

What are you thinking; you think it is ok to kill a baby just because it is disabled, are you advocating that Steve Wonder, and many people who achieved great things (despite their disability) should be killed at birth!!!

No one asks the child if they want to die, or to be aborted, we all suffer bad things in life, some are worse than others, but we should not just kill ourselves and others. Despite this I understand what you mean, but I do not agree with you on this!!!

As for animals, no one asks them if they want to be “put down�

I can understand what I said getting your back up, it's not something I just come out with without really thinking about it. I try and think back to my earliest memory, and it has always been when I was 4 years old. Don't misunderstand me, if a baby is born and develops a personality then I wouldn't expect the parents to abort their child because their is a bond, but when a baby is just out of the womb I don't believe it would know any difference but if it is disabled or deformed, no one will convince me that they are not going to suffer in later life. Terminating at birth is like, what you don't have, you wont miss.
That is just my opinion, and I respect your opinion, but I will never be in a position influence policy one way or another, but I have been inside a few places where they look after these people and believe me it is heartbreaking. Many are scarsely human, some have spent years in one position staring at nothing, never speaking a single word or recognising their surroundings. Unable to even watch tv. So many of these pitiful creatures are literally no more than the proverbial vegatable, Aptly named, although over used. In my heart of hearts I couldn't condone anyone to an existence like that. That isn't living, that is just existing in a hell, christ, I couldn't wish that on my worse enemy.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by django47

I can understand what I said getting your back up, it's not something I just come out with without really thinking about it. I try and think back to my earliest memory, and it has always been when I was 4 years old. Don't misunderstand me, if a baby is born and develops a personality then I wouldn't expect the parents to abort their child because their is a bond, but when a baby is just out of the womb I don't believe it would know any difference but if it is disabled or deformed, no one will convince me that they are not going to suffer in later life. Terminating at birth is like, what you don't have, you wont miss.
That is just my opinion, and I respect your opinion, but I will never be in a position influence policy one way or another, but I have been inside a few places where they look after these people and believe me it is heartbreaking. Many are scarsely human, some have spent years in one position staring at nothing, never speaking a single word or recognising their surroundings. Unable to even watch tv. So many of these pitiful creatures are literally no more than the proverbial vegatable, Aptly named, although over used. In my heart of hearts I couldn't condone anyone to an existence like that. That isn't living, that is just existing in a hell, christ, I couldn't wish that on my worse enemy.

I can only remember what life was like from the age of 5, but I feel that as soon as there are conceived, they are a living breathing thing, even if they are disabled they should have a change in life, if they want to die when they are older, then they can kill themselves, but don’t kill them when they are inside the womb or when they are young, give them a chance in life. Thai is why I am against this report.

Despite this I respect you opinion and understand what you have to say.

But if you believe life starts at conception, doesn't that mean that any method of preventing conception is just as bad, as this stops the life starting?

btw, for the 'n'th time, this report does not advocate terminating disabled children at birth (or any children) - it is an academic philosophical paper, to encourage debate.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Hugh

But if you believe life starts at conception, doesn't that mean that any method of preventing conception is just as bad, as this stops the life starting?

It is less worse than destroying it, it is not perfect, but it is the least worse solution when compaired to abortion

---------- Post added at 16:35 ---------- Previous post was at 16:34 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

btw, for the 'n'th time, this report does not advocate terminating disabled children at birth (or any children) - it is an academic philosophical paper, to encourage debate.

So would a academic philosophical paper that does not condone child abuse be still ok?

Originally Posted by Hugh

But if you believe life starts at conception, doesn't that mean that any method of preventing conception is just as bad, as this stops the life starting?

There is no logical flow to that argument at all.

---------- Post added at 16:38 ---------- Previous post was at 16:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

So would a academic philosophical paper that does not condone child abuse be still ok?

If you're going to engage in any discussion of child abuse, I would say it's important that you get fixed in your head the difference between 'condone' and 'condemn'.

Linky

There must surely be a variation of Godwin's law that covers that post.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Chris

There is no logical flow to that argument at all.

---------- Post added at 16:38 ---------- Previous post was at 16:37 ----------



If you're going to engage in any discussion of child abuse, I would say it's important that you get fixed in your head the difference between 'condone' and 'condemn'.

I meant

"So would a academic philosophical paper that say's there is nothing wrong child abuse be still ok?"

You don't say.

Within its context, of course it would be ok.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

It is less worse than destroying it, it is not perfect, but it is the least worse solution when compaired to abortion

---------- Post added at 16:35 ---------- Previous post was at 16:34 ----------



So would a academic philosophical paper that does not condone child abuse be still ok?

Alan, try reality based discussion - it's best for everyone involved.

This paper neither advocates or condones anything - it is a philosophical discussion to get people thinking about how we think about these things.

[django47]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

I can only remember what life was like from the age of 5, but I feel that as soon as there are conceived, they are a living breathing thing, even if they are disabled they should have a change in life, if they want to die when they are older, then they can kill themselves, but don’t kill them when they are inside the womb or when they are young, give them a chance in life. Thai is why I am against this report.

Despite this I respect you opinion and understand what you have to say.

I also respect you and your opinion, just think, if we all thought the same and had the same opinions on different subjects, it would be really boring.
I am not religious, or believe in anything and go to church, but I will defend the next guys freedom to believe in, and practice whatever he/ she chooses.
I was very lucky to be born and raised in a democratic land where a person is free to pray to any god he/ she wishes, or no god if that's their choice. Just so long as their beliefs doesn't interfere with or harm anyone else. I'm 65 this year and I can honestly say that my policy in life has always been to treat my fellow man the way I expect to be treated myself.( i may have slipped up once or twice in all them years, but in genral thats what I believe is the correct way to live).
Animals are my soft spot, i have had a bank direct debit in favour of the RSPCA for quite a few years now. Animals can't speak up for themselves and the RSPCA gets sod all from the government and have to rely on donations. Animal cruelty totally breaks my heart and if I've got anything when I 'pop me clogs', they can bury me in the back garden and iif theirs anything left, they need it more than my kids who I've not seen for 25-30 years.
Peace be with you man !
Michael (django47)