Last Active: Mar 08, 2019
Threads: 415
Posts: 3,499
Reputation:
47
I think that up to 30 days after the infant is born the parents should be able to terminate it. If the baby has some condition that will cause it pain and suffering throughout it's life the compassionate thing to do is post-birth abortion.
More info for those interested:
Quote:Euthanasia in infants has been proposed by philosophers3 for *****ren with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.
Also medical professionals have recognised the need for guidelines about cases in which death seems to be in the best interest of the *****. In The Netherlands, for instance, the Groningen Protocol (2002) allows to actively terminate the life of ‘infants with a hopeless prognosis who experience what parents and medical experts deem to be unbearable suffering’.4
Although it is reasonable to predict that living with a very severe condition is against the best interest of the newborn, it is hard to find definitive arguments to the effect that life with certain pathologies is not worth living, even when those pathologies would constitute acceptable reasons for abortion. It might be maintained that ‘even allowing for the more optimistic assessments of the potential of Down's syndrome *****ren, this potential cannot be said to be equal to that of a normal *****’.3 But, in fact, people with Down's syndrome, as well as people affected by many other severe disabilities, are often reported to be happy.5
Nonetheless, to bring up such *****ren might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.
https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261
Last Active: Yesterday
Threads: 135
Posts: 7,639
Reputation:
54
To prevent suffering, it's the humane thing to do. Maybe harder to think of for some since it's a baby but taking into account the actual quality of life?
Kind of like an adult that family pulls the plug on. Most people I would venture a guess one would say they would rather die than suffer or be a vegetable...
Last Active: Aug 10, 2024
Threads: 14
Posts: 1,299
Reputation:
6
Jan 14, 2019, 18:09 pm
(This post was last modified: Jan 14, 2019, 18:11 pm by Executive. Edited 3 times in total.)
This is a very sensitive topic, to which I'm actually going to give a somewhat insensitive ( yet practical ) response.
Years ago I used to work for a plastics manufacturer. Whenever we got parts that were clearly defective, we would throw them out....
On a much grander scale, it's similar with unborn *****ren. If there's a major birth defect that would keep the baby from being able to breathe or move its arms and legs, then there's no reason to let that ***** live. Arguably some people would like to cut the umbilical cord while the kid is still a fetus. Others may need to physically see his / her birth defects. I say it should be up to the couple or at least the mother. The problem is that post-birth mercy killings are as illegal in some states as abortion itself.
Last Active: Oct 17, 2024
Threads: 226
Posts: 6,322
Reputation:
26
Most animals kill or abandon their newborn in case of defects. In modern societies humans is can live with many disadvantages, and we can rationalize the amount of suffering one can take. But *****ren are considered incapable to decide, so we prepare them to live a long (or short) adult life just to let them decide later, or to get rid of the responsibility of making such decision. And then we say suicide or euthanasia are illegal, thus taking the decision from them.
Humans are really weird.
Last Active: Mar 08, 2019
Threads: 415
Posts: 3,499
Reputation:
47
Jan 15, 2019, 07:02 am
(This post was last modified: Jan 15, 2019, 07:04 am by politux. Edited 1 time in total.)
(Jan 14, 2019, 20:00 pm)dueda Wrote: And then we say suicide or euthanasia are illegal, thus taking the decision from them.
Because of religious nonsense. Euthanasia ends suffering, but I guess since god is such a sadist he enjoys watching people be tortured.
Giving AIDS to babies is another charming habit of the omnibenevolent.
Last Active: Oct 17, 2024
Threads: 226
Posts: 6,322
Reputation:
26
Dunno if religious precepts are the only factor, seems to me it's more of a moral issue (that may itself be later embedded in many religions).
Some people don't like the idea of taking a life to avoid suffering, even if they're not religious.
Last Active: Sep 12, 2021
Threads: 28
Posts: 2,900
Reputation:
36
You never know, Stephen Hawking was smart but had some disabilities.
Last Active: Mar 08, 2019
Threads: 415
Posts: 3,499
Reputation:
47
Stephen Hawking wasn't born in that chair dude...
Last Active: Oct 17, 2024
Threads: 226
Posts: 6,322
Reputation:
26
Professor Hawkings decided to keep on, certainly because he understood the importance of his work; his mind was so big I believe he went beyond physical limitations, but if he wanted to die sure he would find a convenient way. Problem is the rest of us, mere mortals.
Last Active: Aug 10, 2024
Threads: 14
Posts: 1,299
Reputation:
6
(Jan 18, 2019, 19:16 pm)dueda Wrote: Professor Hawkings decided to keep on, certainly because he understood the importance of his work; his mind was so big I believe he went beyond physical limitations, but if he wanted to die sure he would find a convenient way. Problem is the rest of us, mere mortals.
Yet Hawking is dead and we're still alive, so on that basis we're all better than him now. 
|
