Quoting ButterMeUp:In the case of a child being born, whom is disabled and will have no quality of life, I wholeheartedly agree.
I can agree with this. But I have to wonder why nothing was done BEFORE baby was born. Did they not know? generally speaking.
That's murder, and the mother, and all involved should be brought up on murder charges. My reasoning, the baby is no longer in the mother's body, so it's no longer her body, or choice. What would be the difference in killing a new born, living, breathing baby, than a 4 month old living, breathing baby? There is no difference, it's sick.
My thought is that it is something PL'ers thought up to elicit an emotional response from people.
I remember when the article first came out. As far as healthy newborns, even those with special needs, I'd say absolutely NOT. Once born, you are endowed with basic human rights. And one of those is the right to live. Allowing parents to frivolously decide that a born child shouldn't have a right to live for no other reason than a physical deformity or because the Dad left you is just not enough.
But I will point out that there is a right to live and then there is being humane to someone who is in pain or extremely ill with no chance of survival. A baby cannot consent to end of life procedures, obviously, and when it comes to something like that, then it should be the parents choice if the prognosis is extremely grim (i.e. fatal). If baby is terminally ill and will live out its short life doped to the gills or in pain, I think a parent should be able to decide to "pull the plug" so to speak.
Quoting sbreece:
Huh? Like aborting the after birth?? Im so confused..
Do you ever get hit on even looking a mess?
Why inflict this silly cosmetic pain on a baby!?!
- ColleenF30
on Nov. 12, 2012 at 12:13 PM