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

Link

Another Link

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

I find this suggestion repulsive in the extreme.

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

Yes the suggestion is utterly shocking.:td:

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

I'd suggest anyone who advocates killing babies "is not a real person". :mad:

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

It is a bit fecked up.......

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

It is yet another attempt at back seat anti abortion horror. :dozey:

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

I think before everyone's heads explode in a rash of disgust it should be pointed out that the article is not meant to be an argument in favour of infanticide .It is a philosophical argument designed to promote debate about abortion of disabled fetuses which is legal in some cases.She appears to be suggesting in the hyperthetical argument that there is is cause in some cases to kill a badly deformed or otherwise disabled child after birth as in some countries it would be permitted to abort the same fetus before birth

Quote:

She said she believes her argument was taken out of its academic and theoretical context, and that 'I wish I could explain to people it is not a policy - and I'm not suggesting that and I'm not encouraging that'.

The full article is here

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

Yeah, if you can't find outrageous things in a moral philosophers work, then he or she isn't doing their job properly.

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

Almost 190,000 babies we killed - legally - in 2010 in England and Wales. We hide the fact behind the euphemism "abortion".

By your definition there are rather a lot of not-people out there...

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

Even the devil wouldn't want these people. Hell has is own place for people who kill babies.

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

Is this the level of academia we have gotten too in this country where we ponder the killing of babies. Maybe i am not high brow enough but this is just tasteless and crass for so called intellectuals to be hypothesising on at a time when have so many other things to deal with. Thats putting aside the fact that while she might nnt regard it as anything more then an intellectual exercise there are people and groups who believe this type of thing and wil take this as intellectual endorsement. It is just not something any person i know would ever think about in anyway and anyone who can think like this in anyway is not someone i could be round.

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

Without intellectual discussions such as this we would not have arrived at the laws we have now .Discussing abortion related topics is always going to be controversial but it needs to be done so that society as a whole can decide what it finds acceptable or not .

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

I think that depends on when you believe life begins. I don't think killing a baby that has been born is the same as aborting a fetus early on in it's development. I think the academics point is that the justification we sometimes use for that is fetus hasn't developed a sense of awareness but the same could be said of a young child. Still, I think it's different.

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

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?

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

That's the case for any number of things, we draw arbitrary lines with animal rights all the time, so is the "adult"/"child" distinction.

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

Precisely. But that doesn't mean that as a society we shouldn't question the things that are done "all the time". Especially where life and well-being are concerned.

Personally I am deeply uncomfortable with the way that abortion has become just another contraceptive for some and a means of avoiding the inconvenience of a disabled child for others. The woman's right to choose seems to have entirely supplanted the child's right to life, and all on the basis of what you agree is an entirely arbitrary line drawn across the middle of their development in the womb.

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

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!!! :mad: :td:

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!

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

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 ----------

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

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

As much as I dislike abortion, I don't consider aborting a foetus the same as killing a baby so my view stands. In an ideal world it wouldn't be necessary to abort anything but sadly we don't live in an ideal world and for all sorts of reasons it has been decided in the UK that abortion under strictly controlled circumstances is legal.

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

Nothing wrong with that point of view ,i would hazard a guess that most of society feels the same hence abortion laws

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

There should be more restrictions on abortion!

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

Please elucidate your position....

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

I meant that abortion should be discouraged as a so called form of "contraception"

Maybe it should also only be used in medical emergencies!

But I accept that many people will disagree

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

I agree the line where something becomes a 'person' is largely a moral question. There isn't a hard and clear line into when that happens but this has obviously always been the case and, as previously mentioned, the lack of clear lines is an issue elsewhere such as the age of consent.

I would say a person exists once they are born. At that point they exist in the world, we name them, we start counting their age, they see the world and they can breathe, pump blood, and perform the basics of life unaided. Obviously we can't start aborting just prior to birth and this is somewhat a matter of practicality. It really hard and I can see why people think life begins as conception, after all at that point you are dening what will become a person their life. Someone who would exist now will not.

I think abortion should be legal. It's not something which is good, I am not pro-abortion in the sense I like it. However it's safer and more realistic to have it performed legally by the health service and it can be the better alternative in some cases. We should always encourage contraception to avoid an abortion being needed.

Sorry if this post is a bit all over the place. Typing it in a nosy train on my iPad.

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

Would not agree with it one minute.

I actually dont agree with abortion on grounds of the baby will be born disabled even. Reason why my sister became pregnant for third time during pregnancy they can have test see if baby was developing correctly.

She was told the baby would be born with disabilty was advised to abort the pregnancy. Thankful she and her husband said if god wished her to be born disabled then it will be born so.

She caried the child to birth my sister's daughter now a woman of 23 she is NOT DISABLED and perfect thank good. It turns out the test is aint acurate its I think 70% acuracy rate. So how many parents scared of the situation aborted perfectly good baby. How many was told they was fine turned out disabled. Would love to see if stats are out there.

I believe we would hit very dangerous ground. Which would equate to that fabled hitler moto of the perfect race he craved for.

I doubt the idea would get much support thankfully

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

That is a very heart warming story! :angel:

I feel abortion on grounds of the baby will be born disabled is wrong as is killing it after birth!

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

thank you its joyous indeed now she has her own daughter who is 3 years old trouble;)

I remember the tears like yesterday the relief when she and husband came through told us all her baby was perfect baby girl. It only after time we questioned how could it happen. Why should joyious period of birth be put under such anxiety. To be faced with the biggest decision of your life to abort the pregnancy.

I cant remember what they said the disibilty was but it was not good think it was down syndrome or spina bifda level.

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

There are more than the two possibilities that you mention; for example, pregnancy following rape.

Anyway, I thought the reason David Steel championed his bill in 1966 was to get rid of "back street" abortions*. The challenge is to change the law without going back to the "bad old days".

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...society.health

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

Does the law need changing ?

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

Isn't that the topic under discussion?

By the way, here is a link to the full scientific paper, in case anyone wants to read what was actually written before it was churned into a headline by a "journalist":

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...11-100411.full

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

No ,although i suppose that would be raised .The topic is about a interlectual argument about justifying euthenasia in new born babies that are heavily deformed or disabled ,and the difference between aborting ,for example,a Downs baby that the parent is aware is handicapped and euthenasing the same baby just after birth for a parent who didn't know

---------- Post added at 16:40 ---------- Previous post was at 16:38 ----------

already did that mate as soon as i saw peoples heads start to explode at indignation at the suggestion by the Mail that "babies should be killed" ;)

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

Yes it does (but it should not be scraped)!

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

I had a look at that, and I wouldn't call it a 'scientific paper'. The paper is absolute dross and full of self-serving circular definitions. It's just an opinion piece (and an extreme one at that), nothing more, nothing less. Anyone of us could write that as a letter to the editor of our favourite newspaper. This one's been published in the Medical equivalent of the Daily Star, and it should be treated as such.

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

Indeed, there are many possibilities. However in the circumstances you mention, all I would say is, the child is not responsible for the sins of its father. He/she doesn't deserve to die because of how he/she was conceived.

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

I thought only the Klingons did this.

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

One word DISCUSTING....

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

The counter argument would take the perspective of the woman involved. She is not responsible for the sins of her child's father either. Why should she have to carry his child?

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

i not getting involved in this conforsation.. but i dont agree in killing new born babies,i understand if the baby is dieing,fair enough..apart from that N.O.

if people have sex and full pregant,they should be 100percent responsable with that baby!!! not fair on that baby to die cos they couldnt be bothered to wear one/or use any protection!
thats all i am saying..

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

Then she should put it up for adoption!

If you do not want to have children, do not have sex, otherwise have a condom!

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

"Unwanted" babies are probably already being killed somewhere due to their sex.

Would you want a government-funded company like ATOS involved in deciding if a baby is "disabled" or not?

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

Oh. So she should be forced to carry his baby for 9 months with all the consequences this has to her personal life, and then live the rest of her life in the knowledge that she has offspring from some bloke that forced himself upon her? Nice...

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

I do not thing babies should be killed becuase of their sex, also abortion should only be used for medical reasons only!

We you look at a child you can see why killing them is a bad idea!

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

If she was "raped" then it is also "Ok" to abort it, but why should the child pay the prices of her parents?

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

Which was the argument under discussion. As for the other matter, not all forms of contraception are 100% safe. Also, weather you like it or not, abortions will take place, even if they were outlawed. Best make sure that those that do take place take place under safe conditions.

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

Should that not be "use a"

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

I agree that you 100% get rid of abortions, but they should be limited as much as you can. I say this not for relgious reasons, but for ethical and moral reasons!

But no one ask the child if they want to die!

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

Yes, and there are limits to when you can abort. So, there's nothing to discuss really, apart from the ridiculous suggestion that you should be able to 'abort' post-birth. I don't think anyone is taking that suggestion seriously.

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

The next step in the anti disabled hitler britian.

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

:rolleyes:try reading ,it's not real ,it's not proposed and it never will be .It is a acedemic discussion about morals

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

I never said it was happening but its sad that some people are thinking about it.

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

They are not thinking of it as a proposed course of action, they are thinking of it as a starting point for a discussion.

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

well your statement implied otherwise but that's bye the bye .It is being discussed in the same context as discussing when to kill unborn babies which as we know takes place all the time and it is how we arrived at the current abortion laws .As distasteful as these type of subjects are they do get discussed and usually society's morality is the result

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

I know that it's not a subject most people wish to really think about, let alone discuss openly. If they do, they will go with the majority and say things like it is evil.
The way I see it is if a child is born with a disability which will affect it all it's life, or is paralised from birth, or a deformity that belongs in a freak show, the person who would give the newly born child an injection sending him/her to sleep is doing a great act of kindness and should be praised for putting an end to a lifetime of misery and suffering. I honestly do not believe that a newly born human baby is aware of anything, it has no memory and that is what makes us who we are. We treat animals with greater kindness than we do with one of our own. We wouldn't let a cat or dog suffer, so why the hell do we make people suffer, even the ones who want to end their lives are not permitted to in the uk and those who help them because they can't stand by and watch a loved one suffer terrible pain, risks being labled a murderer.
I don't agree with puttiing down a healthy baby if it has nothing wrong with it, as for abortions, I can't say one way or another because I don't know enough about it to give an honest opinion. A person who is born with a disability or a deformity must suffer inside every day. Isn't it kinder to stop a life of misery before it starts.

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

A brave post django .I will refrain from commenting tonight as i am going to bed shortly but will do so tomorrow.

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

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!!! :mad: :td:

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�

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

It is thought provoking subject personally should not be upto the parents. Parants should however get full support for disabled children. Money and profesional help to look after them 24 hours a day. It is grey area if they suffering really badly no person should endure suffering but I feel it should be the individual right if they want to live or die. Which means disabled if they wish should be able to goto arbitory ask to end there life if they in such pain/suffering. It should not be state/parents wish a child should be allowed to make his or her own decision too.

Now thats thought provoking at what age would we say they have the right to decide.

I dont agree with abortion on medical advice it likely to be disabled anybody read previous thread will understand why.

If you dont want the child then fine not against it on grounds you made error cant afford to have a child abort in normal weeks termination. But it should never be due to doc thinks it will be disabled or born disabled. Infact question should parents be told but very grey area though but would in my thoughts stop rash thinking. Howver if there full financial medical/carer support might allay fears for those parents who fear the future would rather abort..

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

Discussions all too often are the slippery slopew to action or policy and thats my main objection to debates of this kind also the question of where to draw the line cannot ever be solved to everyones satisfaction we know that no number of further debates is going to alter that. For me it's a slippery slope of another kind we all know superficial people out there who if they were able to abort because of the smallest defect they would and debates like this empower people like that in a tiny way it justifys their way of thinking.

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

agreed how the debate welfare alone started now its policy. Its a way to find out national opinion.

Like I said it should not be third party or even parents decision it should be that person alone decision. Until they can make the decision they should be able to grow from baby to day they can decide. Now there is those who cant make that decision due to the disibilty or you cannot gage even what pain they suffering that I cant decide. It would be calious either way. problem I have is mistakes are made.

There been cases of people who been coma been told they brain dead yet come out of it.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/358209...ronounced-doa/

So the question is can you trust what is being told is right for your loved ones. this man they was going to pull the plug.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011...markable-story

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

Actually, there's plenty to discuss precisely because the original suggestion was not supposed to be taken seriously - or, at least, it wasn't supposed to be the start of a campaign for a change in policy on abortion. So far as I can see, it was a theoretical, academic discussion designed to focus thought on the ethics of abortion and the definition of personhood. At the heart of it was the argument that by a common and widely accepted definition of personhood, post-natal abortion is logically just as ethical as pre-natal abortion.

If you offer moral and logical reasons why abortion should every be acceptable under any circumstances, then you should have morally and logically consistent reasons why you draw the time limit where you do.

---------- Post added at 12:54 ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 ----------

The child and the mother both figure in this equation. Which is worse: killing a child or counselling a victim of crime?

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but current 'cutoffs' for abortion are not set according to a definition of personhood but rather on viability of existence outside the womb?


That is a highly subjective question, and the 'obvious' answer depends very much on the semantics of how the question is posed. Suffice to say though, that at short notice, my sympathies are firmly with the mother.

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

I thought the time limit for abortion was due to viability outside of the womb, which is a moral (of sorts) and logical reason.

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

The only use of abortion should be in cases of rape and for medical reasons, otherwise, it is unethical!

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

What about cases like that of Rhys Biggs, who died two months after being born:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...baby-Rhys.html

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

The question of a cut-off only arises because abortion has already been deemed acceptable. The heart of the issue, morally, is whether abortion is acceptable in the first place.

The cut-off date is entirely arbitrary. It is, more or less, the limit of viability according to current medical technology and practice. Fifty years ago, viability would have been much later. Fifty years from now, it will most likely be somewhat earlier.

It is often stated that the unborn child is not a person but is a 'potential person'. This ultimately is the justification for ever carrying out an abortion. The academic paper in question here argues that personhood is established after a child is born and that by that logic, the 24-week limit (or any limit in any country where abortion is carried out) makes no sense.

By 'semantics' I assume you're thinking of my insistence on referring to the inhabitant of the womb as a 'child' rather than a dehumanized term like 'embryo' or 'foetus'. I have framed the question the way I have because personally I have no doubt that every one of those that has had its life ended by abortion was an actual, real, human child whose right to life was curtailed.

I don't think it's a case of either/or with regards to sympathy. In a case of rape the facts are awful for both mother and child. But only one course of action results in a death.

Again, however, 'death' is semantics, isn't it, if you don't believe that an actual human being really died. Which brings us back to the question posed by the academics. If the inhabitant of the womb is not a person, at what point does it become one?

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

I suppose you would say that the moment a sperm and egg fuse, a person is formed. If so, what is your opinion of IUDs and other methods of contragestion?

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

Mrs T and I never contemplated an IUD for precisely that reason.

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

How could anyone hate their own child just because they have a disability, i always thought having a child was the most amazing thing ever, your suppose to love the child even before its born no matter what, baffles me.

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

Actually, I don't think it is 'entirely' arbitrary, as there are good reasons for an objective definition for what it means to be able to exist independently: without medical intervention. Leaving aside the fact that a baby can't feed itself, there are measures such as being able to breath independently. The very same issue arises with terminally ill patients. Doctors can decide to withhold treatment when it's perfectly possible to keep a patient alive. As such, what is possible and acceptable are different things (though we may disagree regarding what is acceptable).

Yes, and I don't agree with the position in the paper. It's a though-provoking topic, which to be honest, I've not given much thought. I'd be hard pressed to consider a merged sperm and egg cell a person, and I'd be hard pressed to not consider a just born baby not a person. Where one becomes to other is indeed a big old can of worms.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.

Actually, in the case of rape, the consequences for the child are good, as it goes from not existing to becoming a person. Which then leads us to the question whether every life is worth living. That is: is it better to not live or be born as a child that isn't wanted, or be born into circumstances where the mother is not able or willing to properly provide for a child.

It is indeed, and as I said, it's a big can of worms. Ultimately though, this is an issue of pragmatics as much as anything else. Abortions will happen, and if we outlawed them we'd be back to backstreet abortions, which I'm sure you're no fan of either. I'm not convinced that personhood starts just after conception, but I don't think it's right to kill just-born babies either. So we need some cutoff, and a criterion of being able to exist outside the womb seems sensible to me. That's not to say we should think lightly about abortion, but unfortunately, abortion is a fact of life (so to speak).

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

Take their babies from them!

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

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

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

The answer to that question is, in my opinion, up to the parents. I think it is good the option is there, but no-one should be forced either way. Having said that, if you're going to have an abortion, then it should be done as early as possible.

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

What about after birth ?should a baby born with a severe disability be forced to live because society says so .Indeed we could ask the question should we force life on anyone with such disabilities?

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

That is an extremely difficult question to answer given that the person involved is not able to articulate his or her wishes. Best judge each case separately there...

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

That's how i see it ,it certainly isn't something i would ever want to have to make a decision on .Also where do we stop ?.If society starts allowing euthenasia for new born disabled babies as we do in the womb ,do we allow the same for car crash victims who can't speak for themselves and have no quality of life ?

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

I think a case can be made for not treating someone who is unable to sustain life unassisted. Beyond that things get very murky.

I'm actually in favour of allowing euthanasia for those who can speak for themselves, or those who have indicated they would prefer it if a certain set of circumstances should arise. I'm not so sure about those who can't speak for themselves.

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

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:

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

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.

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

In your opinion...

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

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

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

Which she should have not started! :td:

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

No it is not (except for Nazis), why should we not give babies a chance and if whren they reach adulthood and still do not want to live, then they can end their lives

In the near future they might be cures to these diablities and illnesses in the near future, hence why I fell that Abortion (Bar in cases when a Womans life in in the line) is wrong and I am not keen on Assisted Suicide.

So killing Babies as soon as they are born is 100% wrong!

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'
 

Thankfully everybody has different views. Thats why it is good to debate and to discuss things on forums like this one. It is good to get other peoples thoughts and ideas.

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

What a damning indictment of the society we have become.

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

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!

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

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.

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

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

What I would like is more limitations on abortion!

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

Indeed.

The other day I was eating dinner in front of the TV, and an ad came on showing starving children (the ad was asking for donations). I carried on eating, then after a while wondered if that made me terribly callous.

Perhaps humans have a way of getting used to anything going on around us, even death. Maybe it is some sort of survival instinct.

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

I would like more limitations on your use of exclamation marks. But that's something else I fear is sadly unlikely to happen.

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

You need to remember that during the time in which a abortion can be carried out a lot of people would generally not consider the foetus as a person. In their mind they are not killing anyone but stopping a life from occurring, it is different as the same distinction that could be made about birth control.

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

In the same way that a lot of people don't think of the ham in their sandwich as a dead pig.

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

Well they are wrong, they are both killing someone and stopping a life from occurring (both of which are bad things)

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

This is precisely the point of the whole debate. If the baby is not a person at or before 24 weeks, at what point does he or she qualify?

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

Well the pig would have been born.

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

On the topic of stricter limitations, what are the chances of women having an abortion abroad if stricter limits were imposed here?

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

Doubtless some would, but it would most certainly reduce, if not entirely eliminate, the almost casual lifestyle abortion reported in the Tele link above.

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

I think whatever line we draw would be somewhat arbitrary. I would say that once it's becomes impractical would be the line and the real beginning of life is either when the organism in question can exist unaided or when they develops consciousness. Neither of these things are true at the time we legally can perform abortions, at that point it's still a biological process.

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

To be honest, that article is pretty much an opinion piece. Now clearly, I can't speak for the reasons why women do have abortions, but in the absence of any data to back up the claims I'm tempted to take that article with a pinch of salt.

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

This, too, is at the heart of the issue under discussion. 24 weeks is arbitrary. If an unborn child is not a person at 23 weeks, they are not in fact a person at 26 or 28. In fact if it is a matter of when they can live unaided, a lot of premature births result in the delivery of a non-person. Yet we do not treat them as such.

The use of consciousness is also highly problematic. Animals are conscious yet are not people at any point in their lives. If you mean self-conscious, then babies are arguably not self-conscious at the point of natural, unaided birth.

Question: At what point after conception does the biological process become a person?

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------

It is an opinion piece, but it is one that relies on anecdotal information the author assumes to be accurate and I think we have no reason to disbelieve him.

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

I have no reason to disbelieve the anecdotal information, but neither do I have a reason to believe that the picture he paints is widespread.

I have no doubt there are many cases where women become pregnant through carelessness and opt for an abortion because they are not ready for children. It's not something I condone (the carelessness), but it is a fact of life, and I don't think it's in the interest of either the woman or the child to carry on with the pregnancy.