Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35393432)

There is another question which i feel is being forgotten .Is it ethically responsible to 'force life' on a severely disabled baby ?.A woman can have a late abortion(after 24weeks) stating severe disability as the reason which most find acceptible so should we force such a child to live?
The potential for life is there ,no question about that but what quality of life is there ?and should we concider that much more than we do at the moment ?.The answer to all those questions depends greatly on the severity of the disability but when should society deem a disability is severe enough to not have any or very little quality of life

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35393730)

If they do not think "life is not worth living" they they can kill themselfs, we are not "forcing a child to live" but "givng it a chance"

Abortion of the ground of disablity, sex, race and all other factors bar case of rape and when the womans life is under threat is wrong! :td:

Originally Posted by richard s (Post 35393737)

I think Francesca Minerva would have fitted quit nicely in the Nazi Parties ideology.

If the parents of the unborn child know that the infant is going to be severely disabled than it should be their decision and their alone to terminate the pregnancy at the earliest stage of pregnancy.

Then again some peoples/religions are totally opposed to this entirely, that is their right. I would suggest that they should look at the natural world around them (not the human species) and see how mother nature treats this subject. Arguably most of the human species does not put itself on the same playing field as other creatures we share on this dying planet.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35393742)

Once again, she is not proposing this as a policy, but as the starting point for a philosophical debate - big difference.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35393755)

Why? It's a perfectlty good subject for debate although using the word "kill" is somewhat melodramatic. I suspect in practice "not try too hard to keep alive" is the unwritten rule.

In the natural world those with defective genes, minds or bodies generally die at birth or shortly after, either by them actually dying, or the mother realising that the offspring is unlikely to survive naturally cuts her losses and moves on. This keeps species strong and healthy.

Only we buck this trend and want to keep every offspring alive no mattter what. Genetically we're embarking on a race to deformity and illness at birth and thereafter being rife and eventually the norm. Every un-born needing medical intervention in the womb to even get to birth?

Originally Posted by TheNorm (Post 35393790)

Originally Posted by TheNorm (Post 35393790)

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35393809)

Its about time we replaced the Abortion Act 1967 with a new law banning abortions except for cases where the mothers life is at risk!! :td:

Times have changed since the 1960s!

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35393811)

Read the article. That's almost exactly what the Abortion Act says already. It is being widely flouted by a great many doctors who are prepared to sign forms stating that a mother's mental or physical health is at risk when, frankly, it isn't.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35393800)

What a damning indictment of the society we have become.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35393813)

No it states that abortion can be done before 24 weeks for many reasons!

What I would like is more limitations on abortion!