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

I don't think there is a 'hard line'. I do think that it occurs after we legally allow abortions. I think it's either when they can exist unaided, or theoretically can with medical intervention in the case of a pre-mature birth, or when they develop consciousness. Both of these things occur prior to birth.

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

Moment of conception!

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

And you base that on what?

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

Nice of you to decide what to do with other's bodies.....

Are you like Santorum, who is also against contraception, as this inhibits the moment of conception?

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

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

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

Religion is a source of ethics. :dozey:

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

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

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

What are your views on contraception?

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

The only way is ethics....;)

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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'. :erm:

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

Linky ;)

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

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

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

I meant

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

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

You don't say. :dozey:

Within its context, of course it would be ok.

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

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.

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

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)

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

I agree with you on the fact the world has many different opinions. Also while I do believe in religion (Sikhism). I am not a very religious person. I am proud to live in a country like the UK. I also treat all humans and animals as equals

Peace be with you as well

P.S. Would you mind telling me what happened to your kids (you do not have to answer this question)

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

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

There is a lesson here, especially for those who respond to media headlines without bothering to check the facts.

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

Well you could argue the contary too.

Well lets look at it from another perspective policies derived from brainstorming and think tanks. Often a early forms of those policies are dropped in the open to testing the water off the ideoligy of its views. Once idea brought up into the fold its then logical to test the consensus of opinion of experts and public consensus.

Not actually saying this piece will see years down the line such contraversial policy would be law. Now what would happened if this did get in media got support at somepoint rightly or wrongly madcap party down the road would latched onto such thoughts thats why these very dangerous thought provoking views should been kept inhouse.

The notion they shocked it got the media, tv, web to talk about it is stupidly naive. It was bound to happen there paper from the ofset should made it more clear what they saying in this blog. Maybe they wanted the media exposure either way it dont possibly explain away why they did not make the notion clearer in the journal.

Actually after the blog more puzzled why it really need to be in medical journal. To me thats my view rightly/wrongly a reach to find out if it actually a consensus of like minds.

Some very good excellent replys in that blog.

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

But then you leave no room for pure academic discussion.

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

Exactly. The article was published in one of the British Medical Journals, which is why the authors said:

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

There must be room for academic discussion, but in the age of the interwebs those who seek to generate that discussion must be aware that they can no longer assume that the intended audience and the actual audience are the same, or even broadly similar. I agree with Mertle, it was very naive of them to be shocked when their paper achieved such wide coverage.

This is not to say they shouldn't be allowed to write such things, but rather in our information age they should, while writing, have a strategy in mind for answering questions that may then come from outside of their academic ivory tower.

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

One wonders if any questions were asked of them, or if perhaps some irresponsible hack just ran with the story without asking for clarification. I don't think academic papers should stoop to the lowest common denominator just in case the press picks up on them. They'll become impossible to read for the target audience.

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

I'm not suggesting the contents of the paper itself should be any less rigorous. Just that the authors may need to become a little more media savvy. At the very least, be aware how what they are saying will sound to an 'uneducated' ear.

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

I thought they reacted very well with the blog post that Downquark linked to. What more would you expect?

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

Chris stole me thunder yes internet things like that could be used often seen the medical journal kicking about in NHS, doctors. It will be read by those not in the profesion.

Just think it was naive on there part to not to make it clear what they said in the blog then it certainly would not caused as much storm.

Nobody denying them there thought provoking views just feel they need to do it with more tact.

Certain subjects being disgussed should be away from public ears or clearly made aware its not something profesionals would think to inact. Else we could go into very dangerous ground. Could you imagine what would happen if politician talked about ethnic clensing in political journal not for public eyes it ended in mainstream news. We get backtrack very much as these doctors his political career would be dead.

Its dangerous ground to assume it will be only professionals read the piece.

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

I think we can all agree that the subject matter in this report will not be up for dicussion for some time