Baby Euthanasia (1 Viewer)

[Mile-O]

There was a small article in the papers this morning about the need for a dialogue about baby euthanasia. The idea being that it would allow for parents to remove severely disabled children from their lives, thus saving them years of financial and emotional stress. Having the option to kill the child once born would also reduce the stress upon the woman's body from abortion and suchlike terminations, allowing the birth to complete before decisions are made.

As usual, there's the bunch of pro-life nutjobs (this time joined by disabled societies) who are against it because they think it's wrong. On the other hand, there are those who believe talks need to be had on allowing it into law (in the UK), basically a mix of doctors and, in some cases, those who have had their lives ruined by bringing up disabled children.

Personally, I would support it. I don't see why people should have to spend years catering for someone that puts such stress on the parent(s) both financial and emotional, not to mention probably physical stress and lack of social interaction. If the parents have the child, then terminating the severely disabled child should be an option available to them.

Anyone else?

 

[dan-cat]

As usual, there's the bunch of pro-life nutjobs (this time joined by disabled societies) who are against it because they think it's wrong.

Let's hear your opinion but if you disagree with the premise then you're a nut-job. No thanks

 

[jsanders]

Let's hear your opinion but if you disagree with the premise then you're a nut-job. No thanks

I agree with you on this one Dan. Why would any opinion other than a UK one be of any value?

 

[KenHigg]

Let's hear your opinion but if you disagree with the premise then you're a nut-job. No thanks

Well put

 

[Matt Greatorex]

As usual, there's the bunch of pro-life nutjobs (this time joined by disabled societies) who are against it because they think it's wrong.

Comment on the way the subject was broached, NOT the topic itself:

I think the fact that people think it's wrong pretty much guarantees that they'd be against it (when have you ever heard someone argue against something that they think is right?). The use of the word 'nutjobs' to describe them, however, has already unfortunately set the tone for the rest of whatever 'discussion' follows.

I'm British and so can categorically say that the opinion stated is definitely not indicative of every British person's attitude toward the subject. Nor does it have anything to do with religion, before any inferences are made by anyone.

That said, I've seen how easily some people on the forum get riled about pretty meaningless subjects. Given how serious and sensitive this topic is, I'm not touching it with a barge pole.

End of my two cents' worth.

 

[Rich]

You can't put a monetary value on love, although it's I suspect every parent's worst nightmare, simply because a child is born disabled doesn't lessen the parents love for it. In any case Hitler tried creating the perfect society, look where that led.

 

[Mile-O]

In any case Hitler tried creating the perfect society, look where that led.

Interestingly, some of that society met up recently.

 

[KenHigg]

You can't put a monetary value on love, although it's I suspect every parent's worst nightmare, simply because a child is born disabled doesn't lessen the parents love for it. In any case Hitler tried creating the perfect society, look where that led.

Well done Rich. I think that makes a grand total of two things we agree on.

 

[jsanders]

You can't put a monetary value on love, although it's I suspect every parent's worst nightmare, simply because a child is born disabled doesn't lessen the parents love for it. In any case Hitler tried creating the perfect society, look where that led.

Damn Rich,

There's hope for you yet.

 

[Rich]

No I suspect you lot are looking at it from the religious angle, mine's purely on moral grounds

 

[dan-cat]

You can't put a monetary value on love,

Now that's a truism...

 

[Pauldohert]

There was a small article in the papers this morning about the need for a dialogue about baby euthanasia. The idea being that it would allow for parents to remove severely disabled children from their lives, thus saving them years of financial and emotional stress. Having the option to kill the child once born would also reduce the stress upon the woman's body from abortion and suchlike terminations, allowing the birth to complete before decisions are made.

As usual, there's the bunch of pro-life nutjobs (this time joined by disabled societies) who are against it because they think it's wrong. On the other hand, there are those who believe talks need to be had on allowing it into law (in the UK), basically a mix of doctors and, in some cases, those who have had their lives ruined by bringing up disabled children.

Personally, I would support it. I don't see why people should have to spend years catering for someone that puts such stress on the parent(s) both financial and emotional, not to mention probably physical stress and lack of social interaction. If the parents have the child, then terminating the severely disabled child should be an option available to them.

Anyone else?

This has to be a wind up - I may be reading it wrong but you agree with this - and that anyone opposed to this idea is the nutjob????????

 

[Mile-O]

anyone opposed to this idea is the nutjob????????

No. I was just calling pro-lifers nutjobs. This is my thoughts on them, regardless of the subject.

 

[Rich]

Now that's a truism...

Preferred the B side myself

 

[dan-cat]

No. I was just calling pro-lifers nutjobs. This is my thoughts on them, regardless of the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

 

[dan-cat]

Preferred the B side myself

We'd hate for you to conform to the norm

 

[Brianwarnock]

No I suspect you lot are looking at it from the religious angle, mine's purely on moral grounds

Even when we are all agreeing with Rich he still looks for a fight.

Brian

 

[jsanders]

No I suspect you lot are looking at it from the religious angle, mine's purely on moral grounds

And in your estimation they are not compatible?

Your view of Christianity is so skewed by your hatred of Georgie Boy; you would have a better chance of enlightening us if you weren’t so predictable.

 

[jsanders]

Even when we are all agreeing with Rich he still looks for a fight.

Brian

As usual we can count on you for wisdom, and gentlemanly conduct.

 

[jsanders]

No. I was just calling pro-lifers nutjobs. This is my thoughts on them, regardless of the subject.

I’m not sure I understand the meaning of “nutjobs” in this context.

Pro-lifers certainly have valid arguments.

Now the nutty part is that for so many Americans (and Italians it seams) this one issue is the deciding vote.

We have elected our worst government in my lifetime, as a result of this short sidedness.

The not so funny part of it; is that nothing has been done to change our laws and the very people that have voted for it, have been let down by the ones they elected.

And they still support them.

Now that’s a nutjob.